Imho it would greatly increase the tactical immersion if the range capability of vehicles exceeded that of standard infantry. Currently as the speeder bikes, at-rt units and t-47 have the same range as infantry, the only incentive to have vehicles is for their impact damage output which is useless against a list that ignores vehicles altogether. For instance why take an at-rt w/ rotary at 85 pts when you can get 2 squads and a grenade upgrade that'll give you 2 activations and double the dice at the same range capacity. The way things are now it would be tempting to put all 800 points into infantry with heavy weapons. You'll have enough units to take significant casualties and still be able to take objectives and control the board. However if the range of standard infantry weapons was reduced to 2 or vehicles increased to 4 it would, again imho, make the game much more balanced and increase the viability & tactical necessity of the current in-game vehicles. Also a side note, I would like to see the t-47 buffed with a greater speed value than 3 and possibly a keyword where it could opt to fly to an out of range altitude and then descend for an attack. Right now, as has been stated in other threads it just doesn't seem worth the points for the stats. All fwiw, ideally looking for a productive discussion/debate and ideas. Thx

In a 6 turn game on a 3x6' board is there enough space to make these changes or are we seeing game design being affected by the constrains of the table size?

I also feel that the narrative battles of the movies and TV shows are very thematically represented in the game. I have also said previously that of all the miniatures war games I have played, this one feels pretty good. Units have to support each other, covering fire with one unit while another advances, the tactical use of terrain and the limited choices of actions, all wrapped up in a simple enough game to learn. I played a game two weekends ago that was one of my best experiences in a long while. My opponent and I were moving and counter-moving and although I lost it went down to the very last activation.

The t-47 can be very fast, with 2 Red Dice it doesn't have to aim to be effective. In general aiming will just ensure you get those black and white dice working a little harder and correcting a red dice that doesn't co-operate. I think you can move, move and shoot to good effect and only resort to move, aim, shoot when that is able to be done for good effect or you have a target that is in cover and/or suppressed.

To me the game seems balanced. The advantage to infantry is they can contest/hold objectives and to have higher activation counts. I think if the game was so imbalanced to infantry we would see a meta of no vehicles and that is not the case. I like the trade off as it stands. For me, playing Imperial, the question is AT-ST, two bike squads or a bike squad with more troop options. Each option plays differently and that is a plus for this game.

I personally don't think that it's easy to work with vehicles esp those with speeder X , however they should work in support of the infantry, except the AT ST they are vulnerable so your goal, like in any battle is firstly to think about taking out anything that is likely to take out said vehicles. As rebels this would be using something like the ATRT laser cannon or special forces heavy weapons to take out their T7 or the HH12 , or to use your vehicle s and longer range heavy weapons in concert to take out an AT ST, this is going to be more important once the spec forces units hit for the rebels.

once you take out their air defence you can use your air superiority to dominate the battle , and if they are shooting at you r Airspeeders or ATRT with blasters then they aren't shooting at your troopers, I've learned its not a good idea to run your airspeeder headlong against your opponent in its own, you can use it for cover fire as you advance though, which let's you move faster with your infantry, again if they ignore it you get your powerful weapons on them, if they shoot it your infantry gets to move closer to the objextives .

no