I wouldn't be SO harsh with eDT's compared with eJets.

They obviously lose mobility and some durability (no agile), however don't underestimate the ability to hand out power tokens (especially if you consider, that 2 dts can acutally hand them over to each other). I ran some calculations and it appeared, that eDT with token deals the same amount of damage on range 6, that eJet during his range 2 attack. As a result they provide empire with some mid-range damage potential (which I hoped eSentries would). Also note, that longer range means more survivability, because you won't be forced to rush them forward in order for them to be effective like jets, which enables hit and run attacks. Feeding Vader (or even eJets) with block/evade tokens also feels very strong.

Opportunity to single or double activation is also very handy not only because of round 1 stalling potential but, taking into consideration their quite good range, sometimes you just want to make one attack and fall back, while there is no viable target for the second unit. Also note, that they can really benefit from concentrated fire (which is quite hard to use with jets because of their limited range).

as for strength in numbers potential it lets you activate two dts in a row (thanks to their ability) and then stregth in numbers into eJets (cost of 1dt and 1 ejets group is 11), which gives you 4 strong figures activation whith a 1 point card, that normally doesn't find any use in imperial lists (and then possibly squad swarm into another eJets for a whooping 6 figures (and 24 points) activation).

Also IMO they synergise very well with jets, because you get 2 additional quite strong attackers, which leaves your opponent with some new questions like (do I rather want to shoor this eJet who is in my face or rather shoot this 5 spaces away DT and leave the jet alone) which MAY lead to some non vader competitive lists. It is also worth noticing, that they don't require any CCs, that you normally wouldn't inlcude in order to be effective, which leaves you space for some other nasty stuff.

I am not saying, that they will be autoincludes, but it's defiinetly too soon to judge them.

This is not a specific complaint to this game, but what is it with table top gaming and this idea that melee hit harder than people with guns. So I have a question. If this (Tress) character rolls 3 surges. Does that now mean they can cleave for 3, recover 3, and then apply either weaken or stun?

8 hours ago, Szycha said:

Yes IF she deals damage with the attack (aplying conditions, cleave and blast require, that the target suffered any damage)

3 hours ago, Rikalonius said:

This is not a specific complaint to this game, but what is it with table top gaming and this idea that melee hit harder than people with guns.

While it may not make sense thematically (there's a reason modern armies use guns instead of swords), it's done that way for balance reasons. Ranged units have very flexible target selection, can switch targets easily, and they don't need to move very far to attack their target. Melee units have to spend more time getting to their target, and once they get there, they can only attack what's right next to them. Melee units have to commit to a target, put themselves in more danger, and they take longer to do it. So they need something to make up for all those sacrifices, or no one would play them. In most games, that means that melee units hit harder, are more durable, and have better mobility.

If you want to justify it thematically, you could say that it's easier to hit someone with a lightsaber when you're right next to them than it is to hit them with a blaster from a long way away.

Right.

Plus, Star Wars has always played up lightsabers as like the ultimate weapon, and melee weapons in general have gotten the limelight lately. Just ask these guys.

2 hours ago, Stompburger said:

While it may not make sense thematically (there's a reason modern armies use guns instead of swords), it's done that way for balance reasons. Ranged units have very flexible target selection, can switch targets easily, and they don't need to move very far to attack their target. Melee units have to spend more time getting to their target, and once they get there, they can only attack what's right next to them. Melee units have to commit to a target, put themselves in more danger, and they take longer to do it. So they need something to make up for all those sacrifices, or no one would play them. In most games, that means that melee units hit harder, are more durable, and have better mobility.

If you want to justify it thematically, you could say that it's easier to hit someone with a lightsaber when you're right next to them than it is to hit them with a blaster from a long way away.

I understand that in principle, but is that what happens. I can understand it with a lightsaber, Jedi are supposed to be a little super powered (though not Force Unleashed level), but even so, the ranged characters do not hit as hard and they are far squishier once you get to them. In the old paradigm, ranged is like a glass cannon, but in many games they are glass, but they lack the cannon. I call it the Rogue-Ninja problem in which melee characters are more powerful than their ranged counterparts. It's like the video series World of Roguecraft where a guy sets out to deconstruct how rogues were, at the time, better than very other class. I suppose it is fine if they are costed fairly, but I'm not sure that is always the case. I'm sure I'm wrong, because I don't have the mathematics savviness to break it all down, but for Tress' cost, she looks cheap in comparison, especially given her ability to recover. It's like they wanted to make Wolverine, but couldn't.

6 minutes ago, Rikalonius said:

I understand that in principle, but is that what happens . . . . I suppose it is fine if they are costed fairly, but I'm not sure that is always the case. I'm sure I'm wrong, because I don't have the mathematics savviness to break it all down, but for Tress' cost, she looks cheap in comparison, especially given her ability to recover. It's like they wanted to make Wolverine, but couldn't.

I think there has been enough experience in building/balancing figures that this is the best there is to this point. With all the 3 dice attacks available now, Recover 1 or 2 just doesn't do enough to be used or be useful. You're almost always going to want more damage than to heal yourself in a game. Look at how many people play Recover or Emergency Aid or how many people play Original Luke and Leia. They just don't hold up.

With melee weapons you can put your blade in your opponents eye or whatever (granted they allow you to), but that's a lot harder to do with a ranged weapon. In some respects then, close combat has more precise attacks and the trauma inflicted is typically greater (as in larger object penetrating the body), and being hit by a small-mass projectile can be more survivable than a heavy hand-to-hand weapon. This equation, however, begins to even out with (post-)modern weapons where projectiles and ranged attacks becomes more and more powerful; of course, Star Wars isn't (post-)modern warfare at all, but rather space western fantasy, so there is no need to pretend otherwise. That said, the matter is clearly one of game balance and not (pseudo-)realism

When I am looking at the efficiency of DTs versus other groups, wouldn't it play to their advantage to use Blaise? It would burn your open groups spots, but with Blaise you could deploy three regular DTs for 6, right? I cannot remember off hand how many missions out there have 5 or more open groups, but that seems like a highly efficient deployment option since you can use Blaise each turn to put into play more DTs as you need them. Going this route would negate the option on the regular DT card though.

On 5/24/2018 at 7:28 AM, Rikalonius said:

This is not a specific complaint to this game, but what is it with table top gaming and this idea that melee hit harder than people with guns.

Because accurate mechanics for hitting when firing a gun on the move wouldn't be fun at all. Moving targets don't hit other moving targets with single fire weapons all that often except at very close distances.

Don't think if it like actual health, but more of a fate or luck pool. Only the wounding hit actually hits the target.

46 minutes ago, Glaucon said:

since you can use Blaise each turn to put into play more DTs as you need them.

I would bet that you get at most one Activate Agent before Agent Blaise is defeated.

(You also need to gain him as a villain first, which may not be that guaranteed outside of choosing a suitable class deck.)

Still, I'm a fan of that idea, Glaucon.

Three Death Troopers for the cost of three stormtroopers, assuming that doesn't violate component limitations. You could definitely do worse for 6 threat.

On 6/8/2018 at 10:08 PM, Glaucon said:

When I am looking at the efficiency of DTs versus other groups, wouldn't it play to their advantage to use Blaise? It would burn your open groups spots, but with Blaise you could deploy three regular DTs for 6, right  ? I cannot remember off hand how many missions out there have 5 or more open groups, but that seems like a highly efficient deployment option since you can use Blaise each turn to put into play more DTs as you need them. Going this route would negate the option on the regular DT card though. 

@a1bert pls correct me if i am wrong!

With Blaise and endless ranks technically you can bring down 3 DT for 3 threat?

If yes. that that will be the time when i will protect Blaise with all i have... its too good to be true...

Yes, the discounts stack, but if you have Military Might, then it's less probable to ever gain Blaise.

On 6/10/2018 at 6:27 AM, a1bert said:

Yes, the discounts stack, but if you have Military Might, then it's less probable to ever gain Blaise.

Why's that?

I always thought they were a nice combo.

8 minutes ago, subtrendy2 said:

Why's that?

I always thought they were a nice combo.

My guess :

A class deck like Nemeses would let you earn Blaise right from the start. Other class deck like military might, you need to pick the agenda card of Blaise, then you need to have enough influence points to afford it, then you have to win that mission. It's a lot of "IF".

22 minutes ago, IanSolo_FFG said:

My guess :

A class deck like Nemeses would let you earn Blaise right from the start. Other class deck like military might, you need to pick the agenda card of Blaise, then you need to have enough influence points to afford it, then you have to win that mission. It's a lot of "IF".

Yeah, that's true.

2 hours ago, subtrendy2 said:

Why's that?

Military Might means you need to a) include his agenda set, b) draw his side mission before the last side mission slot, c) be able to afford it when you draw it, d) the rebels need to choose a different one to play or you need to win it.

I would assume it to be harder than gaining Blaise from a class card.

1 hour ago, a1bert said:

Military Might means you need to a) include his agenda set, b) draw his side mission before the last side mission slot, c) be able to afford it when you draw it, d) the rebels need to choose a different one to play or you need to win it.

I would assume it to be harder than gaining Blaise from a class card.

Either way, Endless Ranks has gotten immensely stronger with JR and regular Jets and now even moreso with 3 and 4 point cost single figure Death Troopers.

5 hours ago, a1bert said:

Military Might means you need to a) include his agenda set, b) draw his side mission before the last side mission slot, c) be able to afford it when you draw it, d) the rebels need to choose a different one to play or you need to win it.

I would assume it to be harder than gaining Blaise from a class card.

If you play with a house rule that lets you take a villain or two for free (just for fun), Blaise might still not be worth it. Sure, you get the 3-point DTs, but you still had to

1. Choose Blaise as your Villain (opportunity cost)

2. Bring Blaise to a mission and spend threat on him (he won't be doing much else for you)

3. Keep Blaise alive long enough to do it (unlikely, by the time you can afford him)

So I think if you pull it off, you deserve to get a substantial benefit.

What are your guys' thoughts on the Lothal pieces?

I was kinda hoping the Lothal maps would look more savannah-like while still using desert tiles, kinda like how HotE used a lot of existing pieces but managed to make the maps look unique with the flashy new ones, making for more convinving streets and Coruscant interiors.

This is fine, but it just kinda looks like a desert with a few bushes on it. Obviously Tyrants is going to have less map tiles than HotE, and this is only one map, but I'm not really all that impressed with this so far.

I really like the stone pillar with difficult terrain around it. You can block of a path with a single figure, making it harder to get past to your smaller dudes. The big stone pillar is also interesting as has already been mentioned with mobile units sitting on top.

I haven't watched enough rebels to know what Lothal looks like, so I can't really comment on the aesthetics. From a gameplay perspective, though, I really like the new ones that they've shown here. As aermet69 said, the two tiles with the buildings (?) both give you a way to block (or at least slow down) the other side with a single figure. The ravine, with the diagonal blue spaces, could lead to some cool movement shenanigans as well.

Left dep zone is a little problematic unless you have mobile figures.

26 minutes ago, Golan Trevize said:

Left dep zone is a little problematic unless you have mobile figures.

Yep. It's just like the one in the Mos Eisley map, only this time there's only one way out.