Do More Stuff – A Revolutionary New Approach to Shatterpoint Strike Teams
December 2, 2024
No Comments
Read More »
It should probably come as a surprise to no one that I’ve played a number of Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) campaigns over the years. In that game, I don’t care too much how powerful my characters are in combat, but if I did action economy would be a key consideration. One tactical piece of wisdom that a more experienced player gave to me a long time ago was that “the side with more actions usually wins.” They explained that legendary actions (fancy extra actions that boss characters get) were necessary to make boss encounters more challenging. The importance of an action economy is not unique to D&D, though. I’m sure we’ve all played games where another player does seventeen things on their turn, and we feel hopeless because on our turn it’s one thing then a pass. I’ve written in-depth about Shatterpoint strike team building before, but have I overcomplicated things? Do we just need to focus on doing more stuff?
Despite my tongue-in-cheek title for this article, I don’t think it’s revolutionary to state that action economy is very important in Shatterpoint. More moves put you in better positions, more attacks weaken the enemy, and more abilities give a wider variety of tools. I’ve been planning this article for a while and I consider it partly to be an extension of my previous revenge deep-dive. One strength of revenge characters is that they do a lot of stuff because wounds are quite common. However, the breaking point for me was one disastrous day in October. It was a casual game and I decided I wanted to try the Cad and Hondo boxes as-is. In my defense, we all make terrible decisions once in a while. The strike team across from me was Luminara + Hunter. Needless to say, I felt like I wasn’t doing anything, while my opponent was triggering abilities constantly. Sitting there, helpless, wondering where it all went wrong, I decided now is the time to start my deep-dive on … for lack of a better term, stuff.
As of 2024, I count 108 characters released for Shatterpoint. My approach was simple: go through each unit card and generate a metric for how much stuff a character can do. But quantifying that, even in broad strokes, can be difficult. What really counts? The usefulness of any given ability can vary wildly depending on the game state. As such, I tried to keep assumptions to a minimum, and I only considered abilities that directly affect swing: movements, attacks, and displacement (Force Push, Capture Wire, etc.). At a minimum, every unit has a “stuff score” of two because they can to move one body (themselves) and make one attack, so I only counted stuff exceeding that baseline. Abilities that move the activating unit, such as Jetpack, Force Speed, etc., were not considered, since these often have diminishing returns and require many more assumptions due to movements from combat trees.
All scores are calculated on the basis of one order deck, minus the Shatterpoint card. Obviously, characters that skew more towards doing stuff in-activation will do more if they are targeted with a Shatterpoint. One important assumption I’ll highlight is that each side is assumed to get two wounds per deck. To better explain, let’s look at the example of Luminara and Stormtroopers.
Jedi Master Luminara Unduli
Stormtroopers
Now, is this a perfect metric? Not all all. For example, Luminara often doesn’t use Precise Strike, maybe the dashes from Flow of the Force aren’t impactful, and other parts of her kit provide value that isn’t considered. We’re not trying to create a perfect, all-encompassing metric here. Instead, we’re going to get a rough approximation of different units’ potential to swing objectives, hoping that we find some insights in the aggregate.
A natural extension of the “do more stuff” philosophy would be to look at combat trees. While I value certain combat tree effects more than others (I simp for shoves) I want to remove those biases and simply look at the pure volume of icons each tree has to offer. As I’ve discussed previously, early portions of the tree are more important than later portions since many attacks don’t progress more than a couple of steps. As such, I chose to take a weighted average. For the first four steps of the tree, each successive step is valued at half as much as the previous step. Only the first four steps are considered since some units only have four steps, and the weighting system would make further steps relatively meaningless in the average. At each step, we take the path with the most icons. Once again, the method will be more clear with an example.
Mandalorian Super Commandos
As we can see, even though the fourth step down the most icon-dense path is two icons, a shove and damage along the top path, we assign it a value of one because if we only get three successes then we could take a path that gets us six icons (the bottom). The effective number of icons at each step, shown in blue, is then plugged into the weighting formula below.
In this case, the simple and weighted averages don’t diverge much, but I feel the weighted average gives a more accurate indication of value. It’s closer to two, and the early spots on the tree are all two icons. In other cases, the weighting can cause a more significant difference. If we consider Plo Koon, his Form III Soresu stance averages more icons in the first four steps (2.5) than his Form V Djem So stance (2.3) when we take a simple average. However, applying the weighting method described above, Djem So goes up to 2.6 and Soresu falls to 2.2. When looking at the sheer volume of icons in a tree, front-loading is preferable.
| Type | Average IA Stuff | Average OOA Stuff | Average Total Stuff |
| Primary | 1.44 | 1.09 | 2.53 |
| Secondary | 1.24 | 0.39 | 1.63 |
| Support | 1.83 | 0.06 | 1.89 |
Because I think it’s interesting, I’ve separated the stuff each unit can do into in-activation (IA) and out-of-activation (OOA). As expected, primaries do the most stuff. Next, we have supports, which average a bit below 2.0 for IA stuff. This is because most supports are two bodies, which scores 2 by default (one extra body moved, one extra attack compared to the baseline). It’s a bit of a running joke that I love to use the Shatterpoint card to activate supports, and now I can feel even more justified! On average, they provide the most stuff in-activation. However, supports generally lack OOA stuff as we’ve defined it. OOA abilities such as Coordinated Fire are plentiful on supports, and very useful, but they are outside of the scope of the discussion today. Finally, secondaries do the least amount of stuff. In the aggregate, I think we’re in the right ballpark with these numbers.
| Type | Avg. Weighted Avg. | Avg. Unweighted. Avg. |
| Primary | 2.22 | 2.24 |
| Secondary | 2.06 | 2.11 |
| Support | 1.86 | 1.92 |
Once again, these numbers make sense to me. Generally speaking, I would say that primaries have the best combat trees, then secondaries, then supports. I’ve included the unweighted average here too for reference, but I’ll stop talking about it going forward. One important thing to keep in mind as we continue – this analysis is not considering how effectively a unit gets down its tree, merely the density of icons early in the tree.
While these averages are interesting, they don’t tell us much at this stage. However, I will now go through each unit type and examine units that have both above-average icon density and potential for stuff. I’ll also examine units that are below average in each category. While many of the units highlighted might be unsurprising, perhaps we can take an opportunity to re-evaluate a unit that appears unexpectedly. I will also show the top and bottom five combat trees for each unit type. However, after much internal debate, I will not show such tables for stuff, because it would make the metric seem more precise than it actually is. Putting up a table that says “unit X is ranked #1 for total stuff, unit Y is ranked #5” seems a bit disingenuous and misleading; it’s a very rough approximation.
As we all know, Obi’s Form III Soresu stance is the best in the game! I had a good chuckle when I saw the results. Take it as yet another reminder that this is a flawed metric. That’s not to say it isn’t useful, however, because the remaining stances in the top five are indeed quite good. Kanan’s Soresu stance isn’t often used, but that is because Pack Leader gives a ranged option and a better tactical ability. The tree itself is great. Regarding the “worst” stances, I’ve played a lot of Luminara and Hera and I can definitely say I try not to attack in those stances.
More importantly, here only three primaries deliver above-average stuff while also having a combat tree with above-average icon density:
I would say those are some very solid primaries, so not much to learn here. My issues with Mother Talzin are mainly list-building ones, but perhaps I should try to get her back on the table some more. Once again, Kanan’s Soresu stance is rarely used, but it is a good tree on a character that does a lot of stuff. I think we’re partly spoiled – if Kanan didn’t have the Pack Leader stance he’d still be solid (though losing the tactic dashes would hurt) but he wouldn’t be the incredible piece he is now. For context, Pack Leader just missed the cut here with a weighted average of 2.20 icons, slightly below the 2.22 average for primaries.
Here are the primaries that do below-average stuff and have two trees with below-average icon density:
This is certainly an interesting list. It contains a number of primaries I do not rate highly, but a few that I like a lot. Thrawn’s ability to reposition Empire units when they are reserved was not considered, so he probably doesn’t deserve to be on this list. The Armorer and Padme I find to have very strong identities that make up for their lack of stuff, so I can give them a pass. The one that stands out to me is Moff Gideon. While he feels quite solid, I wouldn’t say he has any abilities that astound me. Perhaps after this, I will test out some Gideon alternatives in future Empire lists.
Other than Luminara, Form III Soresu stances are clearly overpowered! They are showing up frequently in these top five lists. Surprisingly, very few secondaries drop below the 2.0 baseline for weighted icon density. Sadly, C-3PO and R2-D2 are laughably bad, taking the top two spots, but I’d say they’re clearly intended to be more of a pure support unit. Luke did not fare well due to a single damage result on step #2 of his tree. I’ve said not to take these numbers too seriously, but ignore all that! I feel like I’m more down on Death Star Luke than most, and now I’m clearly justified!
The following units are above average in both categories compared to secondaries more generally:
Once again, this is a fascinating list. Padawan Ahsoka is one of my favourite secondaries in the game, while Boussh is one of my least favourite. Boba Fett is the main unit that piques my interest here, but more on him later. Characters with mass-movement abilities (Greef, Kalani, Paz) are putting up a strong showing in the stuff department, but they all struggle with IA movement which can be a hindrance that isn’t considered here.
For secondaries, looking at units that are below average in both categories isn’t super useful. We get a long list that’s mostly units with a very respectable 2.0 weighted icon density. If we filter those out then we get only Luke and C-3PO and R2-D2. I feel bad for the droids. Given how poor they are in combat you’d hope they would make up for it in the stuff department.
Other than MagnaGuards, supports tend to struggle to go much beyond 2.0 weighted icon density. They don’t struggle to be worse than that, though! I haven’t played much Wing Guard or Snowtroopers, but so far I’ve certainly found them pretty meh. Meanwhile, I have plenty of experience telling me the 501st and Wolfpack trees are bad. So is the Stormtrooper tree, but at least they bring diceless displacement, which is rare for a support.
For supports, looking purely at units that are above average in both categories isn’t super interesting. We just get a long list of two-body supports that have 2.0 weighted icon density. If we look for units above 2.0 in each metric then we have a list of one: MagnaGuards. It makes sense, they are currently the only support that generates moves OOA (thanks to Protection Protocols), and their tree is quite good. Their main weakness, being a melee-only unit with no IA movement abilities, does not matter in the scope of this analysis.
Similarly, only one support is below average in both categories compared to their counterparts: Chopper. I gave him a stuff score of 0.5, generously assuming he gets a wound on half of his activations, thus moving a friend with “Chopper,” Sometimes You Do It Right. As someone who has played a lot of Chopper recently, I will say that he has some strengths. He is usually unwounded and unpinned, making him a reliable target for the movement abilities of other characters. It’s not unreasonable for him to get three steps down his tree in melee for two shoves (and he can very reliably get a crit through for one shove). However, a lot of his value does come from having the Spectre tag, which enables Kanan to go crazy. I’ve seen Chopper sprinkled into some non-Kanan rebel lists (yes, those do exist apparently) but I’d say that’s more of an indictment on the state of two-body rebel supports, outside of Rebel Commandos. Let’s hope Pathfinders are good …
So is “total stuff” the only thing we need to consider when list building? Definitely not. However, it is something I want to be a bit more cognizant of going forward. While I don’t think it’s as simple as “more stuff is always better,” I do think there may be a bar to clear. Good lists might have a minimum threshold of total stuff. If we think back to that fateful Hondo + Cad list, although it pains me to do so, we can compare its total stuff with what I would consider two very strong lists. In a recent premiere event I took Hunter + Obi and Kanan + Hera as my list, so how do they stack up?
A comparison of three lists using the stuff metric
As we can see, Obi + Hunter blows Hondo + Cad out of the water when it comes to stuff. That doesn’t even consider all the moves generated from Obi’s identity, Knowledge and Defense. The Spectres also beat out the scoundrels, but not by much. However, the Spectre stuff-score is dragged down considerably by Chopper. Perhaps hiding one low-impact activation is easy enough, so the list feels like it’s doing more stuff than it actually is? That may be a question for another day. Similar to Obi + Hunter, the Spectres can easily threaten movement from their defensive expertise (mostly with Kanan and Ezra) which isn’t captured here. While I hesitate to toss a number out there, perhaps the threshold to aim for is around 12? Since we’re essentially considering a six-card order deck, that essentially averages out to two stuff per activation, which is a nice round number. The two “good” lists also balance IA and OOA stuff better than the scoundrels, which might be a topic for yet another day.
On a unit-by-unit basis, I would use the stuff metrics shown today as just another tool in the evaluation toolbox. Is there a unit that you haven’t clicked with that seems to do a lot of stuff? Give them some more reps! For me, that unit is General Solo. He can do a ton! Part of his problem is that Kanan and Charming Leia are also rebel primaries who do a ton of stuff.
On the flip side, are your lists with a certain character underperforming? Don’t abandon them too quickly, but perhaps try swapping them out for someone who does more stuff, and see how that goes. For me, that character is Dengrr Dengar. He was the bounty hunter I was most excited for in the recent release, but my few test games with him have thus far been underwhelming. It isn’t necessarily his fault, Steadfast and pin immunity are quite good, but the list didn’t feel like it did enough stuff. Meanwhile, I didn’t rate Boba that highly simply because he struggles to displace enemies (no diceless displacement, doesn’t shove until spot #3). However, he does a lot of stuff. Soon I’ll aim to try a few games with my Dengar list but swapping in Boba instead.
Finally, when I see future spoilers, I will probably pay more attention to the raw number of icons early in the tree. Both Wolfpack and ISB Agents have a shove at spot #2, which I really like, but an overall lack of icons makes their attacks still feel a bit underwhelming. Conversely, I originally didn’t value Hera’s Spread a Little Light stance very highly. Usually, heal icons don’t do much in combat trees, but she brings them in such a high volume that it actually makes a big difference, especially combined with her other healing abilities.
Luckily for us, Shatterpoint is about more than moves, attacks, and displacement. If it was that simple then it would be a boring game. However, simplifying our gaze to just those core aspects can be useful. Think of it as “back to basics.” At the end of the day, we need to flip objectives, so we need abilities that can move and remove bodies. Which icons are on a combat tree certainly matters, but the number of icons can make a difference too. It’s the age-old balance between quantity and quality and, while I hesitate to quote Stalin, sometimes “quantity has a quality of its own.”
Copyright © 2024 The Fifth Trooper. All Rights Reserved.
