I chose Hard 16, but I'd be happy with Hard 14 too.

The more I think about it, I think 12 would be too low.

I voted 14 + reinforcements/ reserves. I think there needs to be a + option for reinforcements/reserves because of the situation where a player w/ reserves is already at cap limit and then rolls reserves. Not really fair to that player to say sorry you don't get reserves because you are at cap limit. If we wanted to put a limit on number of activations that can be brought in through those abilities I could get behind that as I don't think spamming activations with those abilities is good for the game. I would propose a 3 activation limit for reinforcements/reserves abilities as that still allows the porg a place as well since it triggers on having 3 less activations than your opponent.

I voted none because I think the real solution lies with a cap on Activations Only, a cap on your Reinforcement list (with a predetermined cost value list, 75pts) and capping the number of times Reserves can trigger (Once,Twice, whatever is perfectly fine)

I went for hard 14, but I was assuming it meant "hard 14 (including reinforcements)". I think it's a good number and would encourage use of higher cost pieces so as to not waste points. But, I'm a dirty swarm player so part of my soul screams no cap. I think Gandalf is likely right and moving to 150 for competitive is worth a try.

I voted for 12 because I prefer lower than others. That being said an activation cap is definitely the way to go whether its 12 or 16. I disagree with switching to 150 for championship formats especially without any testing. I think 200 w/cap is by far the best choice imo.

I voted for none. It should be a gentleman's agreement not to have an exorbitant amount of activations. Setting an official cap just seems silly. I don't think janky builds that go over 16 activations to do something silly and/or interesting should be penalized. I haven't played during the V-Set era, so maybe there's some competitive team where you have 97 activations and your whole goal is to draw the game out and win because of gambit. To which I say shame; shame on you for being against fun.

Frankly I think there are some factors people are not thinking through fully.

I've played in tournaments with activation limits. It greatly restricts the meta, and makes for less dynamic games. Everyone in the tournament agreed that it actually made everything more homogenous and boring. When activations are equal, games swing more on rolls. Especially initiative. Thus Thrawn becomes even more powerful. Squads that have a very powerful character will be ideal, because they know the act limit, and can use that character to finish without worry of them being destroyed by several other characters all combining to finish them off at the end. Having the activation limit and Thrawn (or a Muun Tactics broker, etc) just means you can virtually guarantee you go first and last, so even within activation limits, surprisingly, "out-act and smash" squads actually do quite well, because unlike without limits, you KNOW you won't be out-activated.

I think many people are basing their opinion on what they like to play, not what would be better for a diverse meta. It will inevitably narrow the meta when activation restrictions are put in. Currently, there are a variety of activation counts that can compete. Well built lower activation squads innately have elements that can still help them compete, while higher activation squads innately lose power in exchange for more pieces. If we arbitrarily restrict the meta, most squads will gravitate toward that restriction, thus narrowing what can compete. More squads will end up being similar.

Within the conversation of activation restrictions, not having a hard limit is downright ridiculous. That only makes reserves and reinforcements more powerful. It makes it so you almost HAVE to include it. Who wants that. I have quite enjoyed not using Lobot for awhile, I don't want to be funneled back to it. Even with a hard limit, it makes reserves innately more powerful, because after you lose characters, you have the ability to get back up to the limit. And Reinforcements also have a big advantage with a character limit, because you know you can always hit it exactly if needed, and take stronger pieces if not. Without a limit, there is never that guarantee. You could still be short with reinforcements, or have no need for them and thus wasted points in your squad. Activation limits increase the power of reinforcements. Broken Jabba will get even stronger with an activation cap. The fact that he has a damage boost, movement breaker, reinforcements, and a double cannon is just insane. It all gets stronger when condensed into an activation cap.

In general, I'm not sure why there is the thought that activation restrictions will be a magic solution. Not even sure why there is a perceived problem. My own championship squads in the past several years have been 13 acts (no rein/res), 10 acts (w/Lobot) and 16 acts (no rein/res), so they all fall somewhere in the ranges of the poll. I'm not wanting to play 25 activations plus Lobot like I did in 2013. Guess what - I tried something similar in 2021 to see if it can still compete, and I got soundly beat. The game has progressed immensely, but I feel like so many people still think it is stuck at that time. It is not. We have seen winning squads with 6 and 8 characters. The problem doesn't seem to be what can compete, it seems to be more what people individually like. Placing restrictions will make some people happy for a little while, but the game as a whole will suffer.

Unless we want to see the return of Thrawn and Lobot (and proliferation of broken Jabba) everywhere, I think we need to just keep the game as it is. As it has been functioning very well and there actually isn't a problem with activation limits.

The real problem is with horribly designed broken pieces such as Daala and Jabba Desilijic Tiure. It took us years of trying to deal with Daala and failing, losing masses of players along the way. Jabba is nearly as bad, and really need to be taken care of. Single poorly designed broken figures is much more detrimental to the meta than varying number of activations.

I think people are overlooking a big reason for an activation limit.
This year’s championship game both players were running close to 20 activations.
The first 2 rounds took over 40 minutes and they only played 4 rounds.
That is not the kind of game any of us wants to play or should have to.
The idea that 17+ acts can reasonably be played in an hour has been proven wrong repeatedly.

An activation cap may help with other issues, but it's not going to fix everything. There will always be top squads. Players will always break the game. Designers will still screw up and make broken pieces. Those are separate issues that will need to be addressed individually.

A 10 to 12 activation limit would definitely impact the meta which is why I don’t support it. However, most players these past years have been running no more than 12 to 14 activations. So a 14 to 16 activation limit has little to no impact on the 200 point meta we enjoy. It just restricts the extreme time-sucking squads.

Chess and about every other cool strategy game I have ever played has some set limit on activations.
Therefore, I have never agreed with the old arguments against activation limits in SWM.
IMO unlimited activations in Star Wars Miniatures was more of an accident than anything.
SWM was origionally designed to be a casual game not requiring more restriction than a 100 point build total.
We made the game into something much much more.

The new Star Wars Shatterpoint miniatures game will have activation limits of 10 characters per player. https://www.atomicmassgames.com/shatterpoint
It looks like a fun game to play.