23 minutes ago, Memorare said:

Having been on the recieving end, they don't need 32 aims to make it unpleasant to play against. A very sub optimal 10ish free aims made rebel squads vanish with very little I could do about it.

That's the point I think I'm trying to make. The floor is still very high, especially against Rebels, who are just losing units if they are rolling defense dice.

Getting 5-6 hits on all your DLTs feels boring, but that is going to be an extra 8-16 hits over the course of the turn pushed through cover and dodge. That is a lot of dead Rebel Troopers.

Rebels do have a lot of options to counter.

Han and Leias cards mess with it by either postponing the card, messing with target choice or simply having a unit able to get 2 dodges (plus heavy cover nearly eliminates infinate aim quite well)

As has been said, its a good card but doesn't need fixing. Not sure why the need to go on and on

22 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

One (or even 2) dodge tokens does not make antything close to a "near immortal" unit.

As was mentioned above, with several corps units you can have up to 6, and they don't go away after use.

5 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Rebels do have a lot of options to counter.

Han and Leias cards mess with it by either postponing the card, messing with target choice or simply having a unit able to get 2 dodges (plus heavy cover nearly eliminates infinate aim quite well)

As has been said, its a good card but doesn't need fixing. Not sure why the need to go on and on

The unit would be dead before you could set up two dodges and heavy cover, or they just shoot the unit that doesnt have all that built up yet. Frankly, I've had games where i didnt roll a white dodge for 4 turns straight, by then it really didn't matter bc my army was in my transport bag

16 hours ago, Thevshi said:

Another thought was that in a mirror match, you could have competing Coordinated Fire chains and make it look more like a Civil War reenactment rather than a Star Wars battle.

1

I mean, Geonosis wasn't all that far off from using ordered battle lines and firing by rank in volleys, so there is a SW precedent for it.

49 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I mean, Geonosis wasn't all that far off from using ordered battle lines and firing by rank in volleys, so there is a SW precedent for it.

For some reason, all this technology and they still love filing in line to get shot at.

1 hour ago, crx3800 said:

For some reason, all this technology and they still love filing in line to get shot at.

I always assumed it was because the Jedi were (unsurprisingly to anyone who gave it more than 10 seconds of thought) incredibly incompetent military strategists/tacticians and the clones were conditioned to obey even the most stupid of battle orders. I also preferred the old explanation as to why all the clones jumped at the chance to kill every Jedi they could get their hands, which was that the idiots had been wasting clone lives with their arrogant inexperience and incompetence for years and the clones hated their guts.

8 hours ago, costi said:

As was mentioned above, with several corps units you can have up to 6, and they don't go away after use.

I really, really hope I play against someone who actually does that in a game against me. I will simply not shoot at that unit and just destroy the rest of his army.

45 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I always assumed it was because the Jedi were (unsurprisingly to anyone who gave it more than 10 seconds of thought) incredibly incompetent military strategists/tacticians and the clones were conditioned to obey even the most stupid of battle orders. I also preferred the old explanation as to why all the clones jumped at the chance to kill every Jedi they could get their hands, which was that the idiots had been wasting clone lives with their arrogant inexperience and incompetence for years and the clones hated their guts.

Definitely a solid way to look at it. I think there was a book at some point that showed the perspective of clones watching the jedi totally get their unit killed.

54 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I always assumed it was because the Jedi were (unsurprisingly to anyone who gave it more than 10 seconds of thought) incredibly incompetent military strategists/tacticians and the clones were conditioned to obey even the most stupid of battle orders. I also preferred the old explanation as to why all the clones jumped at the chance to kill every Jedi they could get their hands, which was that the idiots had been wasting clone lives with their arrogant inexperience and incompetence for years and the clones hated their guts.

Yeah it always struck me as weird that the Jedi would be down with using engineered living beings as cannon fodder soldiers. If anything using droids is way more ethical.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Yeah it always struck me as weird that the Jedi would be down with using engineered living beings as cannon fodder soldiers. If anything using droids is way more ethical.

Until the prequels, you could take Obiwan's word that the Jedi brought order and civilisation to the galaxy. After prequels, you thought Obiwan had been taking hard drugs for decades or just plain lying to Luke about everything. Lucas' ruined everything he had built by showing the Jedi to be the most amoral, incompetent, elitist group of dim-witted pricks ever to have the fortune of ruling the galaxy. You wonder why more didn't rebel against them and how they ever came to be in power at all.

He just said they brought order and civilization. He didn't say they were good or efficient at it.

2 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Until the prequels, you could take Obiwan's word that the Jedi brought order and civilisation to the galaxy. After prequels, you thought Obiwan had been taking hard drugs for decades or just plain lying to Luke about everything. Lucas' ruined everything he had built by showing the Jedi to be the most amoral, incompetent, elitist group of dim-witted pricks ever to have the fortune of ruling the galaxy. You wonder why more didn't rebel against them and how they ever came to be in power at all.

Not to derail things, but this is one reason I like Luke's arc in the sequel trilogy. The Last Jedi retroactively made the prequels a little better by casting them in a new light, a showcase of the Jedi falling to their own hubris and complacency. I'm not interested in turning this thread into a TLJ debate, but that's my opinion.

Double post

Two games playing against it and the cracks are really showing in this card. Between order of activation issues, depleted units, aim tokens being passed for the sake of being passed (typically units so small they get little out of the re-roll or units that can only really use the DLT) suppressed units, dead units, units who need to do things other than shoot (like not die so they can achieve objectives) and units with little or nothing to shoot at, the card has hovered around 4-5 relevant aim tokens and a moderate increase in accuracy.

It's a small sample size and there's probably more than a little of the lost utility comes from me using Saboteurs very aggressively to force my opponent into suboptimal positioning or order of activations, but I still think against a skilled opponent, this card is going to struggle to get anywhere close to the optimal condition in the overwhelming majority of games especially because it relies on corps units and, more importantly having a lot of corps, but even a relatively novice player has probably realized that corps are both important to taking objectives and not terifically hard to kill, so most players will start whittling them down right off the bat with casualties, or depending on deployment and ranges, even dead units as early as turn 1.

I was skeptical initially that this was even close to broken and table time against it hasn't reversed that.

I'm glad you've had a better experience but again, it doesn't need to be optimal to be disproportionately great. We need a bigger sample size sure, but lets not pretend its not amazing.

in 98% of games I would imagine that would be the case (4-5 tokens is still good though) My concern is more for the competitive side of the game and the design of the game. Designers should at least try to keep things balanced or avoid loop-holes or ways to exploit a card. Just my luck that my son, who is my most consistent opponent runs up against the Legion Savant, who gets 25 aim tokens and wipes out his list in one turn. A bad experience can turn off new players if they think the game system is broken or going after that trend.

On 1/29/2019 at 3:29 AM, costi said:

As was mentioned above, with several corps units you can have up to 6, and they don't go away after use.

If all six dodge tokens are on one unit, all but one of them goes away after use (if all are used against a single attack). Nimble returns a single dodge token if one or more have been spent, not one dodge token for each dodge spent, if the unit with all the dodge tokens even HAS Nimble.

Plus, it takes 6 activations to get those dodges, and if you have a single unit important enough to receive all of the dodge tokens, then it is important enough for your opponent to attack with their 5-6 intervening activations.

I see your point, but it also does take 6 activations to get those theoretical 32 Aim tokens, which people here seem to ignore...

2 minutes ago, costi said:

I see your point, but it also does take 6 activations to get those theoretical 32 Aim tokens, which people here seem to ignore...

Except that unlike with the dodge tokens, as you build them up you continue to get use very effective attacks from other Corps units with more aim tokens than would otherwise be available, which when combined with Precise is even more effective.

43 minutes ago, costi said:

I see your point, but it also does take 6 activations to get those theoretical 32 Aim tokens, which people here seem to ignore...

Actually 7, you need Veers

I think your reading too much into this card.

“After a friendly corps unit spends an aim token, another friendly unit at range 1-2 may gain 1 Aim token.”

The keyword in the sentence above is actually "an".

The word "an" means one or lone. Re-read the text of the card again, this time substituting the word one for an (since that's what it means).

Where in the card does it say rinse and repeat? Remember the word "an" also means lone.

I think at best you can transfer the same aim token across multiple units giving good action efficiency but not multiple aim tokens.

After a Friendly corps unit spends an aim token, another friendly unit at range 1-2 may gain 1 aim token.

In other words... After a Friendly (Stormtrooper/Snowtrooper) unit spends 1 aim token, another friendly (any) unit at range 1-2 may gain 1 aim token.

Stormtrooper unit 1 has 1 aim token upon activation, uses one action to gain one. Uses second action to do a ranged attack against ___ , doesn't like the dice result uses 1 aim token .... (now this is After friendly corps unit spends an aim token... 1 goes to another friendly unit at range 1-2), still doesn't like dice result, uses the 2nd one. (same as before).

It says, After a Friendly corps unit spends an aim token, another friendly unit at range 1-2 may gain 1 aim token. Doesn't say how many corps units, which ones, limits of spent aim tokens, limits of gained aim tokens, etc.

You can definitely copy multiple aim tokens per attack as currently written. Tokens are spent one at a time.

It is not like the nimble language, which is just “one or more.”

Tokous - Actually it does.

Re-read the definition of what "an" means. Go on, open up your favourite dictionary if you don't believe me.

One or lone.

How do you get multiple of anything from 1?

Also "another" literally means "one other". So it does say how many other units can gain 1 aim token

Orkimedes - the whole sentence uses singular context. This is how you should be comprehending that sentence.

“After a (singular) friendly corps unit (singular again) spends an (one or lone) aim token (again singular), another (one other) friendly unit (singular again) at range 1-2 may gain 1 (singular) Aim token (singular again).”

Nothing in that sentence is plural.