It is better that we now have a variety of winning squads and playable factions. However, when you look at the tier 1 squads they are all the same. (paper~scissors) High activation, tech dependent, huge movement breaking, and generally with an overpowered scissors option. I would argue that the squadbuilding aspect of the game (at least for tier 1) is dead. It's all just variants on one of the same NPE extreme squad archetype.

Tier 2 is ripe and bursting with squad building possibilities. We"ve seen many examples of those "out of the box" creative squads at various regional events this year. A couple of them can even win with the right match ups. Lilywan is the prime example of a highly skilled player who has ran very creative squads this year and done well. But so far no one has been able to squad build anything better for Teir 1 than the archetype that abuses the game mechanics.

Player skill should play a factor in the outcome of games and not be trumped by squad building. Then lady luck should have the final say. Most of us would like to think we have a good chance of winning if we play really well. Sadly that is not always the case...

I really like this fingersandteeth post from 2013:



I think the game's always been intrinsically like that - rewarding going last, massive movement etc. Even in the 2012-3 season, which was probably the most open the meta's been, we saw Thrawn swap dominating New Zealand. It's very tough to beat Thrawn if it out-activates you and you don't have a way to kill activations quickly.

Probably the biggest shift since the 2012-2013 season is that the Damage Negation is a lot weaker - with Talon Kardde, improved Vong, and Daala with Pellaeon around, it's very risky to run Jedi. Jedi used to be able to stand up to some of the paper/scissors builds, but now it's a risk to bring them with so much Jedi hate around. The same things being strong has also taken a bite out of Bastila, who kept some CEs under control, but she doesn't do much against Vong or Fringe.

There are already some promising signs for next season - Aves in particular shuts down abusive tech in a really neat way, Obi-Kin might have an interesting impact, and the balance team will look at some stuff (there's been support for a floor rule change removing 2 point pieces, which will help curtail some of the activation squads).

I also think your list of tier 1 squads shows how much WOTC mechanics still dominate the game. Daala is certainly a big exception as she introduces a largely new squad type, and the Imperial Governor arguably pushes Thrawn further than it needed to go, but a lot of the other key mechanics are from WOTC pieces. San Hill plus Gha Nachkt are probably the most abusive parts of the top Seperatist squads and Mon Mothma/Yularen is a nasty combo just waiting for some good pieces to go with it.

In some ways it's almost part of Activations, right? It often works best in squads that outactivate anyway - you need enough activations to utilise MTB, and Thrawn likes to out-activate as well. Kind of like the rich getting richer.

Another thing that maybe belongs on the list alongside Damage Negation is maybe Damage Response? It should probably have a better name, but I'm thinking about abilities like self-destruct, death shots, and Lightsaber Combat Expert that hurt the initial attacker. Often they're less effective than the top 3 abilities as they're responsive, so you have to wait for your opponent to initiate, plus there are often things that shut them down like disruptive, superstealth, or whatever.

Yeah, i did omit putting that mechanic in there and it was an error on my part, although i do think that init control is less of an issue when the team with it isn't out activated, so i tend to lean towards it being part and parcel of the activation game.

I mean, that's not all she wrote on the subject but one reason for the issues surrounding gha and Poggle is that they have easy access to the MTB and they naturally out activate. If you aren't out activating the opponent then the MTB really isn't much of an option in my opinion. Its likely you'll take damage before using it and if you start to lose activations then it becomes really problematic for the MTB player

Init was a bigger deal in WtC days because of the 2 activations in the first phase as opposed to the 1 activation we have now.
The Vsets have added some top of the round power with the mando tactician, surprise attacks and attacks during the init phase but these generally don't come in high activation squads unless your really trying to push factions that don't use high activations too well. There is also a greater number of pieces that can do a huge amount of damage to masses of figs in one turn but that also existed before with the Lancer.

One reason i want to omit 2 point figs is to reduce the power of activations. I don't think it will do much other than remove gha and poggle from a lot of builds that they are just there for activations to drive the MTB engine. Not having an answer to the MTB is one way of losing in the build stages and its presence takes a lot of squads off the table.

Ideally, those with high activations would not have much init control and vice versa but WotC gave us a fringe piece that encourages high activations and gives init control. They also worded it so that one of the activation factions has a built in counter to it.

So its an issue that design constantly struggles with.

How would a 10 point Lobot reinforcement option that gives Fringe Reserves 10 on an initiative roll of 1 work? It might be enough to curb the Muun Tactic Broker - if you use Tactics Broker, your opponent can make up the activation difference very quickly. I'm sure there's a downside I haven't thought of, but just putting it out there.

Those last two ideas are quite interesting. I think they definitely have potential.

No, we need new abilities that provide incentives for players wanting to run lower activation squads...NOT things to punish other players who want to run higher act squads.

Lower act squads (Rocks) have characters that potentially can "king of the hill" the gambit zone.
I personally don't think that's a bad thing. However, I think gambit points without having to go to map center is a bad idea. Players don't need more reasons to keep from moving pieces forward.

Is it any worse the fringe moving in and out of gambit with talon, or basically any piece with intuition that can get on gambit then move out. I know Bronson used that talon gambit trick to great effect during the tournament

Yeah and since we both get same amount of gambit no one has a reason to engage.