16 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I am arguing with you because you keep saying the card is not imbalanced at all. You even made up some statistics to go with it, I disproved them. Your number of 87.5% to get two "advantageous" cards for red is still out there by the way. I'm going to take the common understanding of advantageous in this case to literally mean that it provides an actual real benefits to the red player moreso than the blue player and I don't believe that you can get to that combination. That's 504 combinations out of a possible 576. I don't think anyone who expected to play blue, and who seriously hoped to get KP would allow that. I do not "agree to disagree" on your hand waving that judging the condition cards is unknowable or unquantifiable.

Rapid Reinforcements: Disastrous for blue. Full Stop. If blue has this as a possibility they have built their deck wrong.

Hostile Conditions: Advantage Blue, they don't have to move as much as red and can thus stick themselves to terrain and avoid the effect.

Clear Conditions: Draw, no advantage one way or the other.

Low Visibility: Advantage Red for the reasons you stated earlier.

Minefields: Advantage Blue. Both parties set to minefields. Red as to split theirs between two objectives. Blue can concentrate their fire on the single red objective or can hinder the red advancement. Blue not having to move is less concerned.

Yes, you have, possibly, a 37.5% chance to mitigate (make less severe, painful or punishing) the blue advantage. This does not, in any way shape or form overcome the inherent blue advantage.

I have offered fair edits to the card. You still haven't even responded to them.

Again.....this is, in effect, the same concept as saying "it all but secures a blue win before armies are deployed." This is not double speak. These are not conflicting ideas. They both recognize that the red player can win but the odds are highly stacked against them. Here, let me give you an analogy. Lets say we're both in a 100 meter race. You are permitted to start the race at meter 50. We both start at the same time. Yes, I MIGHT win. However the odds are clearly stacked against me. You would probably have to be a horrible runner, suffer an injury before the finish or wait until we are neck and next to get to your full speed for me to win. Sure you might occasionally meet another runner who can run 100 faster than you can run 50, but that doesn't mean that the rule letting you start at 50 is fair. (this by the way is not an exhaustive list, but I don't want you to misread this and assume that these are the only conditions I am considering). There also might be reasons to give you that sort of a handicap for the race. But what we're dealing with here is a case where the decision to let someone start at 50 meters is made arbitrarily and randomly. 

So, if I somehow get it to be that you are put at 30 meters ahead of me rather than 50, I have MITIGATED your advantage. I have not erased it.
I can explain this to you, I cannot understand this for you.

Unless they choose the other side of the board (you know Blue gets to decide which side of the board they use for the card orientation and that is chosen after terrain setting, right?) So now you're secretly building two avenues toward particular sides of the board all the while not knowing if you're going to be blue or red and hoping your opponent isn't building the board in a more sane fashion. . If you're red and your plan worked you have to hope they even have KP in their deck and if you're blue and you were successful you just mitigated your own advantage so....good job?

Again...I use 84 pieces of terrain for one board (25% coverage). Please show me this magical board set up you claim to be able to use.

Except, ya know, being in place for a defensive position from turn one grabbing the best cover and setting up with dodges, aims and standbys.
Also having their troops farther forward to mitigate potential suppressible fire which can cause a panic.

And nothing you have said changes the fact that a) you don't know the size of the opponents bid before you set up the table b) if you tie you have a 50/50 to get red or blue.

See, I regard it as advantageous to be able to select the deployment zones and/or the conditions.

Yes, I’m aware of how game setup occurs. The whole point was that a player who rationally believes they might lose the bid and also believes that Key Positions would be a loss, should therefore rationally choose to set up the board in a way that does not result in aiding the blue player in key positions.

With KP we’ve agreed that blue can start with possession of 2 locations. There’s no Blue advantage derived from from getting in contact with the enemy sooner, it just gives Red more turns/actions to take the blue double objective than they otherwise would have.

On 11/4/2018 at 6:19 PM, Derrault said:

See, I regard it as advantageous to be able to select the deployment zones and/or the conditions.

You are placing too much value on that ability in relation to what the other side has the ability to do.

For an objective that is written fairly, yes, having the ability to choose 2/3 of the battle conditions can be quit an advantage, one that might even be more of an advantage than the objective card. However KP is not fairly written.

"Oh, it seems that you will be permitted to shoot me once, and then I will shoot you and then you will shoot me a second time. This is not a problem because I get to decide what range we shoot from and what caliber of bullet will be fired." You're still getting shot twice to my one time and your shot goes off after I have already shot you.

Again...I can explain this to you, I cannot understand this for you.

As to your last thing

On 11/4/2018 at 6:19 PM, Derrault said:

There’s no Blue advantage derived from from getting in contact with the enemy sooner, it just gives Red more turns/actions to take the blue double objective than they otherwise would have.

This could be correct if you were only talking about my force rushing to meet your force in the center of the map. However, we're talking about the defensive units digging in to a defensive position they simply need to hold. Again, they now have an extra turn to spend wholly on Aim/Dodge/Standby wheras red still has to keep moving up the field no matter what. Blue's units will also be further from the map board in the case where they take suppressive fire in round 1. If Blue has emplacement weapons they can be in an incredibly advantageous position vs. red whose emplacements will either back at the red starting zone or will have to deal with the "plodding" keyword.

But, if we ever played KP and I was blue player, I'd straight up spot you Advanced Positions since you think it's such a red advantage. I'd do that every day of the week. Heck, since you seem to think that the conditions are all a coin flip and cannot be given a value, I'd even give you hostile conditions every single time.
Have fun advancing on my entrenched positions, where I get to remove suppression every round and you are going to have problems doing that. Oh yeah, and you have to leave at least one of your units in the back field to get the point for your own KP that you set....and of course hope I don't have bikes or something like that which can dislodge them.

14 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

You are placing too much value on that ability in relation to what the other side has the ability to do.

For an objective that is written fairly, yes, having the ability to choose 2/3 of the battle conditions can be quit an advantage, one that might even be more of an advantage than the objective card. However KP is not fairly written.

"Oh, it seems that you will be permitted to shoot me once, and then I will shoot you and then you will shoot me a second time. This is not a problem because I get to decide what range we shoot from and what caliber of bullet will be fired." You're still getting shot twice to my one time and you shot goes off after I have already shot you.

Again...I can explain this to you, I cannot understand this for you.

As to your last thing

This could be correct if you were only talking about my force rushing to meet your force in the center of the map. However, we're talking about the defensive units digging in to a defensive position they simply need to hold. Again, they now have an extra turn to spend wholly on Aim/Dodge/Standby wheras red still has to keep moving up the field no matter what. Blue's units will also be further from the map board in the case where they take suppressive fire in round 1. If Blue has emplacement weapons they can be in an incredibly advantageous position vs. red whose emplacements will either back at the red starting zone or will have to deal with the "plodding" keyword.

But, if we ever played KP and I was blue player, I'd straight up spot you Advanced Positions since you think it's such a red advantage. I'd do that every day of the week. Heck, since you seem to think that the conditions are all a coin flip and cannot be given a value, I'd even give you hostile conditions every single time.
Have fun advancing on my entrenched positions, where I get to remove suppression every round and you are going to have problems doing that. Oh yeah, and you have to leave at least one of your units in the back field to get the point for your own KP that you set....and of course hope I don't have bikes or something like that which can dislodge them.

Given that you get to choose the layout after the terrain is on the board, you’re dramatically undervaluing that choice.

Most all deployments are structured in a way where placing terrain from top left to bottom right corner ensures no matter which side of the table blue picks, there will be obstructions to cover an advancing red force.

Meaning: by ceding the choice of deployment blue effectively guarantees red any path they desire to the targets. That is beyond huge. Getting to select engagement range means red can model the engagement for their specific army composition, to blues detriment.

As to emplacement weapons, the terrain bisecting the mat diagonally should be sufficient to ensure they are either 1) Useless because they can’t get line of sight (north of the diagonal wall) or 2) exposed and immediately vulnerable to enemy fire (south of the wall) potentially getting destroyed before the first round is done. (And Standby is useless if the emplacement is within range from the get go, which, thanks to advanced positions, it almost certainly is)

In most cases, I would expect any emplacement in hostile conditions to get dropped immediately by a bombardment card.

46 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Given that you get to choose the layout after the terrain is on the board, you’re dramatically undervaluing that choice.

Most all deployments are structured in a way where placing terrain from top left to bottom right corner ensures no matter which side of the table blue picks, there will be obstructions to cover an advancing red force.

Meaning: by ceding the choice of deployment blue effectively guarantees red any path they desire to the targets. That is beyond huge. Getting to select engagement range means red can model the engagement for their specific army composition, to blues detriment.

As to emplacement weapons, the terrain bisecting the mat diagonally should be sufficient to ensure they are either 1) Useless because they can’t get line of sight (north of the diagonal wall) or 2) exposed and immediately vulnerable to enemy fire (south of the wall) potentially getting destroyed before the first round is done. (And Standby is useless if the emplacement is within range from the get go, which, thanks to advanced positions, it almost certainly is)

In most cases, I would expect any emplacement in hostile conditions to get dropped immediately by a bombardment card.

If line of sight terrain is blocking the emplacement from firing at range 4 , how do yo expect to get line of sight for a bombardment card at range 4 plus. edit I understand what you mean but dropping an emplacement with a bombardment card in one shot isnt a biggie , but not that likely (maybe an e-web, but not an FD). I know a red win is technically doable but IMO even with the advantages you mention for red its an uphi!l battle against a blue player in key positions. Remember they can position their units also, and in terrain placement you dont get to place all the terrain the way you want, and its possible to drop an emplacement straight into cover providing terrain , which still helps against a bombardment hit. Many of these variables may be good for red, but i dont think it would bring the chances any better than 80/20 to blue, of.course thats my own estimate and not backed by any science, but I do think im being generous. Remember in the TTS league, who I think no what they are doing playing red or.blue not one red win was reported on key positions.

57 minutes ago, syrath said:

If line of sight terrain is blocking the emplacement from firing at range 4 , how do yo expect to get line of sight for a bombardment card at range 4 plus. edit I understand what you mean but dropping an emplacement with a bombardment card in one shot isnt a biggie , but not that likely (maybe an e-web, but not an FD). I know a red win is technically doable but IMO even with the advantages you mention for red its an uphi!l battle against a blue player in key positions. Remember they can position their units also, and in terrain placement you dont get to place all the terrain the way you want, and its possible to drop an emplacement straight into cover providing terrain , which still helps against a bombardment hit. Many of these variables may be good for red, but i dont think it would bring the chances any better than 80/20 to blue, of.course thats my own estimate and not backed by any science, but I do think im being generous. Remember in the TTS league, who I think no what they are doing playing red or.blue not one red win was reported on key positions.

I’m positing two distinct scenarios for enemy placement of an emplacement, only one of which would call for a bombardment. ie Either they place it and you can go along the other side, entirely avoiding its fire, or it’s on the side able to see, and immediately exposed to red fire thanks to advanced positions. (I’m very optimistic as regards the future upgrade to add scout 1, as that would enable some crazy levels of movement, especially combined with Leia’s Movement command card (Potentially 4 speed 1 moves by Rebel commandoes, for example)

17 hours ago, Derrault said:

I’m positing two distinct scenarios for enemy placement of an emplacement, only one of which would call for a bombardment. ie Either they place it and you can go along the other side, entirely avoiding its fire, or it’s on the side able to see, and immediately exposed to red fire thanks to advanced positions. (I’m very optimistic as regards the future upgrade to add scout 1, as that would enable some crazy levels of movement, especially combined with Leia’s Movement command card (Potentially 4 speed 1 moves by Rebel commandoes, for example)

Rebel commandos are scout 2 , combined with Leia, you can get 2 move 1s and 3 move 2s in your first turn. it's hardly relevant on key positions. The ability for Blue to essentially start in a winning position and just turtle down leads to their very strongly advantageous position.

In surprised you didn't include Boba Fetts ability to give red an extra point which means they can turtle down as well for a 2 2 draw against anyone without Boba Fett Although again it's irrelevant in the scenario as they can turtle up the bounty as well ensuring it remains a 2 1 victory.

It's the ability for blue to sit on a winning position often from turn 1 forcing the opponent to, quite often, take great risks to try to take blues objective points, being forced to move each turn, whereas blue is free to recover, aim, dodge or standby as appropriate. This may be mitigated somewhat by what you say, but until I see red winning on this objective with any sort of regularity at competition level ( yet to see one so far, if you have please provide details) and I'm not talking local FLGS level.

9 hours ago, syrath said:

Rebel commandos are scout 2 , combined with Leia, you can get 2 move 1s and 3 move 2s in your first turn. it's hardly relevant on key positions. The ability for Blue to essentially start in a winning position and just turtle down leads to their very strongly advantageous position.

In surprised you didn't include Boba Fetts ability to give red an extra point which means they can turtle down as well for a 2 2 draw against anyone without Boba Fett Although again it's irrelevant in the scenario as they can turtle up the bounty as well ensuring it remains a 2 1 victory.

It's the ability for blue to sit on a winning position often from turn 1 forcing the opponent to, quite often, take great risks to try to take blues objective points, being forced to move each turn, whereas blue is free to recover, aim, dodge or standby as appropriate. This may be mitigated somewhat by what you say, but until I see red winning on this objective with any sort of regularity at competition level ( yet to see one so far, if you have please provide details) and I'm not talking local FLGS level.

I was trying to keep it side agnostic, so I didn’t want to assume Boba, but yes that’s got some legs.

On 11/7/2018 at 4:03 AM, Derrault said:

I was trying to keep it side agnostic, so I didn’t want to assume Boba, but yes that’s got some legs.

I think the challenge with Boba would be that due to the defensive tactical advantage of the blue player, the VIP is likely in the midst of that defensive position and well defended.

On 11/6/2018 at 9:03 PM, Derrault said:

I was trying to keep it side agnostic, so I didn’t want to assume Boba, but yes that’s got some legs.

Hey, I wanted to make sure you saw this though I'll also be posting it other places. I'm trying to get some actual data on perceptions fo the battle cards.

https://goo.gl/forms/ZcwQu1KWaGCW61j62

I am not collecting emails in this, just answers.

Is the simple fix solution for this objective just to increase the tokens from 3 to 4? Seems it would address all the problems.

On 11/8/2018 at 1:22 PM, Digimortal said:

I think the challenge with Boba would be that due to the defensive tactical advantage of the blue player, the VIP is likely in the midst of that defensive position and well defended.

kind of my point in mentioning, even with all the red advantages that could be listed and id have to make massive mistakes to lose as Blue on key positions. Id imagine anyone my level of tactical ability or better would also.

17 hours ago, syrath said:

kind of my point in mentioning, even with all the red advantages that could be listed and id have to make massive mistakes to lose as Blue on key positions. Id imagine anyone my level of tactical ability or better would also.

As a thought experiment: What army would you regard as best suited to defending two points, yet which still is likely to win the blue side choice? (Ie not just composition, but also how many units/upgrades do you believe you can forego and still maintain control over the points?)

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

As a thought experiment: What army would you regard as best suited to defending two points, yet which still is likely to win the blue side choice? (Ie not just composition, but also how many units/upgrades do you believe you can forego and still maintain control over the points?)

Most builds im seeing just now (and much of this is based on that, as well as those in the TTS league) is on activations. So something like 2 or 3 sniper or bomber strike teams, 4-6 corp trooper units , z-6 or DLT configured, or naked , with 1-2 FD turrets, , or bikes if imperial , something around 780 pts is normal, but as a result of key positions, I can see the blue bids going even lower , in fact I can imagine 760 or less being normal.

Its that latter part that concerns me that due to one card the majority of players in a competitive league have dropped to a 20 pt bid and this is increasing because of fear of being red in key positions, when you get to the point of a bidding war where everyone is bringing less troops to avoid one card thats the point to sit up and notice. Im fairly sure I could still win 90% of the time with Blue with 720 vs 800 pts on key positions, this concerns me. Even if key positions gave me a 15-20% advantage Id be less bothered about it, its that bad in casual play, I actually make sure I vote so that it cant be played now even if I am blue because of how boring a game it is if I try to play to win.

FWIW my own army I just posted on the army lists, I could make it slightly more competitive by ditching some expense to have 2 FD turrets, and bomber squads, but I find bomber squads to be a nasty tactic in that it has the knock on effect of stifling movement , this would be even more of an advantage for blue as you could litter bombs on the roads in. playing defense really hurts the tempo of red as suppression affects Blue less and red more. Red must keep moving to win, whereas Blue can sit on one action per turn.

Palpatine actually might make a difference to this if you can get him into the blue set up area and just unleash him with chained lightning strikes , as this is probably one of the best offenses against a turtled up blue player, but concentrating fire would likely stop him , i actually hope he does make a difference but I have a feeling he would just get torn up on they way in and then would be less likely to pull off many chains but who knows

14 hours ago, syrath said:

Most builds im seeing just now (and much of this is based on that, as well as those in the TTS league) is on activations. So something like 2 or 3 sniper or bomber strike teams, 4-6 corp trooper units , z-6 or DLT configured, or naked , with 1-2 FD turrets, , or bikes if imperial , something around 780 pts is normal, but as a result of key positions, I can see the blue bids going even lower , in fact I can imagine 760 or less being normal.

Its that latter part that concerns me that due to one card the majority of players in a competitive league have dropped to a 20 pt bid and this is increasing because of fear of being red in key positions, when you get to the point of a bidding war where everyone is bringing less troops to avoid one card thats the point to sit up and notice. Im fairly sure I could still win 90% of the time with Blue with 720 vs 800 pts on key positions, this concerns me. Even if key positions gave me a 15-20% advantage Id be less bothered about it, its that bad in casual play, I actually make sure I vote so that it cant be played now even if I am blue because of how boring a game it is if I try to play to win.

FWIW my own army I just posted on the army lists, I could make it slightly more competitive by ditching some expense to have 2 FD turrets, and bomber squads, but I find bomber squads to be a nasty tactic in that it has the knock on effect of stifling movement , this would be even more of an advantage for blue as you could litter bombs on the roads in. playing defense really hurts the tempo of red as suppression affects Blue less and red more. Red must keep moving to win, whereas Blue can sit on one action per turn.

Palpatine actually might make a difference to this if you can get him into the blue set up area and just unleash him with chained lightning strikes , as this is probably one of the best offenses against a turtled up blue player, but concentrating fire would likely stop him , i actually hope he does make a difference but I have a feeling he would just get torn up on they way in and then would be less likely to pull off many chains but who knows

So you’d only be willing to forgo the equivalent of an AT-RT with a flamer or a Snowtrooper squad, or perhaps two naked Rebel Trooper squads (8 minis)?

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

So you’d only be willing to forgo the equivalent of an AT-RT with a flamer or a Snowtrooper squad, or perhaps two naked Rebel Trooper squads (8 minis)?

actually no I wouldn't, but Id be comfortable taking that if I knew I was playng key positions, and still be pretty certain of the win.

Played in an 8-player tournament this past weekend at my FLGS and two of my three games ended up being Key Positions. Without turning this post into a BatRep I'll try and share my observations/opinion. Also, my list was Han, Leia, 4x Rebel Troopers, 3x Snipers, & 2x FD cannons at 798/800 points. I took 2nd overall after 3 rounds.

The first Key Positions game (round 2 of the tournament) my opponent gave me Blue Player on the bid. We ended up playing Key Positions -> Disarray -> Clear Conditions. This is the table we played on and I was in the bottom left and far right corners. The objectives ended up being the large rock to the left of the river, the black obelisk in the bottom right and the round rock formation in the top right. The game ended with me holding the black obelisk, my opponent holding the rock across the river, neither of us controlling the round rock formation, so it went to points defeated which I won.

The second game I was red player on the table below. The scenario was Key Positions -> Battle Lines -> Hostile Environment. My opponent chose to be the Blue Player however I had to choose between Battle Lines and Major Offensive for my last elimination in the Setup (Turn 0). I went with Battle Lines because it gave less options for which terrain pieces could be chosen as a Key Position, even though my list would have preferred to have a little more distance to eliminate his units since I outranged him. The Key Positions ended up being the Large Tree area (Heavy Woods) to the left of the village on the far side of the table (Blue Choice) the crescent shaped "Light Woods" to the right of the village (Red Choice) and the "Light Woods" area on the bottom left corner of the table (Blue Choice). I deployed on the close side with the Blue Player on the far side. The only other eligible terrain piece as an objective was the large village in the middle of the table which was considered 1 piece of terrain.

I ended up holding the objective on the right side of the table but most of our units were deployed on the left side. At the end of the game I had eliminated almost his entire army with minimal losses on my side but with only 4 rounds played I didn't have enough activations to get my units into position to contest/claim the remaining objectives. If the game had ended a round earlier I would have won as Red Player on points.

To sum up, Key Positions doesn't always favor the Blue Player (see game two above). I think that people are overlooking the importance of knowing your list, observing the battlefield during Setup, and then using your Battle Card selections to try and gain the most advantage for your list before you even deploy your forces. Even with only a 2-pt bid and a list that isn't exactly what the "meta" claims is good right now I was able to go 2-1.

TL:DR, no, Key Positions isn't "killing the game". It is a valid Objective choice and winnable as either player, but like any other Objective you could get you have to actually play to the objective.

1 hour ago, NeonWolf said:

TL:DR, no, Key Positions isn't "killing the game". It is a valid Objective choice and winnable as either player, but like any other Objective you could get you have to actually play to the objective.

No offense, but you wouldve won your first game easily if you placed the objectives and deployed better. Kp is broken. If you do not win you misplayed something drastic. The fact of the matter is on a proper board you can sit there taking aim/dodge and fire all game while red has to move and fire. That's parity is the problem

1 minute ago, WillKill said:

No offense, but you wouldve won your first game easily if you placed the objectives and deployed better. Kp is broken. If you do not win you misplayed something drastic

Um, I did win the first game, on points defeated.

Since I didn't explain how I deployed my units, or what my opponents list was, how do you know I could have placed objectives or deployed my units "better"?

12 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Um, I did win the first game, on points defeated.

Since I didn't explain how I deployed my units, or what my opponents list was, how do you know I could have placed objectives or deployed my units "better"?

My point was you should've won based on objective, not needing to go to points. By hearing where you placed the objectives, being that they are across the map from each other, it's all wrong. Firstly, that table is lacking terrain. It's just a few huge objects. This doesn't give blue the proper advantage they should have. However, you could've still placed both objectives in the top right near your deployment on the rock formations. Then deploy near it as much as possible. It's fundamentally imbalanced when one player gets to essentially take a free action whereas the other player has to move.

7 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Um, I did win the first game, on points defeated.

Since I didn't explain how I deployed my units, or what my opponents list was, how do you know I could have placed objectives or deployed my units "better"?

Because properly played its difficult to lose as blue player. Ive only got my own experience and those of the tabletop simulator league to go on and as far as I can tell out of 25 games now blue has won all 25.

In the league I was involved in Id say that the players were all a similar level and Id imagine from what I can gather the players in the TTS are of a reasonable level, I think that most of the players would agree that unless you make an error Blue is pretty much a guaranteed win. If you place the objectives right and just sit on top of them and play a boring game of aim and shoot.

Blue , once entrenched can aim and shoot each round, even if suppressed they can still shoot, it doesnt hurt them as much as red. If red gets suppressed they can either shoot, in which case they lose tempo in getting closer to the objectives or they can approach while getting shot at (taking more casualties or more suppression, frequently both)

7 minutes ago, WillKill said:

My point was you should've won based on objective, not needing to go to points. By hearing where you placed the objectives, being that they are across the map from each other, it's all wrong. Firstly, that table is lacking terrain. It's just a few huge objects. This doesn't give blue the proper advantage they should have. However, you could've still placed both objectives in the top right near your deployment on the rock formations. Then deploy as much as possible.

The table is not lacking in terrain, there was exactly 1/4th of the table covered. There are 16 pieces of terrain on that table providing a mix of heavy cover and light cover, as well as LoS blocking pieces. The Disarray deployment narrowed the possible objectives down to the two large rock formations, the river, the black obelisk, and the three smaller rock formations on the right-hand side of the board

9 minutes ago, WillKill said:

My point was you should've won based on objective, not needing to go to points. By hearing where you placed the objectives, being that they are across the map from each other, it's all wrong. Firstly, that table is lacking terrain. It's just a few huge objects. This doesn't give blue the proper advantage they should have. However, you could've still placed both objectives in the top right near your deployment on the rock formations. Then deploy near it as much as possible. It's fundamentally imbalanced when one player gets to essentially take a free action whereas the other player has to move.

the terrain also lacks any proper line of sight blocking, having a tree in the way doesnt block line of sight , so the terrain also appears too similar ( when I started I had too much line of sight blocking which hurt people using things like ATST, veers or Leia, but aided flankers like bikes and even airspeeders if you could pilot them round them well enough.

9 minutes ago, syrath said:

the terrain also lacks any proper line of sight blocking, having a tree in the way doesnt block line of sight , so the terrain also appears too similar ( when I started I had too much line of sight blocking which hurt people using things like ATST, veers or Leia, but aided flankers like bikes and even airspeeders if you could pilot them round them well enough.

The areas with trees provided light cover and were difficult terrain for ground vehicles and troopers (swamps).

@WillKill and @syrath

Since you both seem to think that this table is "lacking" would you care to share images of tables that you feel are not?

2 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

@WillKill and @syrath

Since you both seem to think that this table is "lacking" would you care to share images of tables that you feel are not?

You should follow the suggested terrain guidelines listed in the rules thread as 25% is not the only suggested rule. It states there should be a good mix of terrain including barricades and scatter terrain. This board you posted has a lot more than 1 or 2 LOS blocking terrain, has no barricades, and a ton of light area. It doesn't look like it's meant for Legion. I'm not going to bother posting any of dozens of boards if you seriously think that board is conducive to a competitive legion experience.