38 minutes ago, Prokins said:

Awesome @Derrault! Thanks for taking the time to learn a new tool and do some testing.

Bummer about your internet connection @thepopemobile100 . I think this would have been great to see two knowledgeable players test their hypotheses against each other. Maybe in the future!

I just finished painting my two T-47s and I'll be running at least one of them this Fri. night. This will be the first time I have one on the table, so we'll see how it goes.

Regarding the AT-ST and the T-47 being expensive, inefficient, sub-optimal...this very well may be by design. Luke Eddy, in this interview mentioned that the designers think about the MtG three different player types when designing their game. I wonder if the vehicles are there to draw in the "Timmy/Tammy" type of player. If so, it's quite possible that these units will never be competitive because they're not designed to be so.

That doesn't mean we should stop talking about improving them of course.

Good luck in your game this Friday. Whether or not the 47s actually perform well isn't the most important part of the game. The most important part is to have fun and maybe make a friend or two along the way.

6 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Good luck in your game this Friday. Whether or not the 47s actually perform well isn't the most important part of the game. The most important part is to have fun and maybe make a friend or two along the way.

Thanks! Completely agree.

Sorry for the minor necro. Anyone who doesn't feel the ATST and T47 are in need if boosts, please check out the excellent probability calculator in the thread linked below.

Plug in a typical attack from an ATST, against a Stormtrooper or Rebel Trooper, in cover. With and without aim. The damage is sad for a 175-225 point Unit. Please run some tests with this, you'll see.

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

13 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

It's probably due to an evolving sociolect peculiar to the people on the forum as a natural result of the cross pollination of the idiolects of English speakers around the world. 'Overcosted' may stick around or it may die out.

Like the airspeeder, I guess. 😁

47 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

Because gamers get a real high from creating and using game jargon, in my experience. It gets tiring, fast.

If I were to be generous I would offer that it's because it differentiates from real and pretend resources. So in Legion, "price" means money for a model and "cost" means points for a unit. Since the fandom largely attaches dollar value to game performance I find this a false distinction anyways.

4 hours ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

Yes! YES! Thank you! If they absolutely need to make a distinction between dollars and points they could say too costly.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Because gamers get a real high from creating and using game jargon, in my experience. It gets tiring, fast.

If I were to be generous I would offer that it's because it differentiates from real and pretend resources. So in Legion, "price" means money for a model and "cost" means points for a unit. Since the fandom largely attaches dollar value to game performance I find this a false distinction anyways.

My personal pet peeve recently created worthless jargon term is "theorycrafting." Every time I see/hear someone use it my ulcer starts acting up.

Yeah, what's wrong with theorizing?

17 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

My personal pet peeve recently created worthless jargon term is "theorycrafting." Every time I see/hear someone use it my ulcer starts acting up.

That and adding "ology" to any English word for something one takes an interest in.

Of course, language is all an artificial construct anyway. Language evolves through the ages. For one I’m glad we’re not all still speaking Middle English.

5 hours ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

When I took languages in university, they called them living languages, because they evolved and changed and grew. All it takes is for a phrase, expression or word to catch on and voila, you have something new added to the language.

Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard the expression “the ask”, or why Americans don’t use adverbs (despite “lolly lolly get your adverbs here”)? Times are a changing. 😁

I dislike the incorrect use of apostrophe's.

I’d like to buy an “ly” please and put it on the end of a word.

7 hours ago, TheGreenKnight said:

I just want to know why so many otherwise evidently fluent English speakers in this forum keep using ‘overcosted.’ That’s not a word. The term they’re looking for is ‘overpriced.’

No, bleep you. Linguistic drift is a thing, you don't get to decide what is and isn't word.

Well, the new Imp pilot sorts out the AT-ST with a surge to hit.

I suppose cover 2 will help the speeder a little but it's still only killing a stormtrooper here and there.
It does rock against vehicles though, so I guess it serves a purpose against more dangerous imperial armour.

1 hour ago, UnitOmega said:

No, bleep you. Linguistic drift is a thing, you don't get to decide what is and isn't word.

Yes it is. Today's common misspelling (or whatever) is tomorrow's correct thing. But not always, some drift stays "wrong". However, I do get to decide when it comes off as irritating, pretentious, opaque, and other things to me.

In a game thats supposed to be primarily an infantry battle game, high points for vehicles are justifiable.

2 hours ago, Katarn said:

Well, the new Imp pilot sorts out the AT-ST with a surge to hit.

I suppose cover 2 will help the speeder a little but it's still only killing a stormtrooper here and there.
It does rock against vehicles though, so I guess it serves a purpose against more dangerous imperial armour.

Seems like we might see more of that too. Also, just cover 2 alone is interesting because most heavy weapons you would split fire with cannot hurt the speeder on their own, in other words you kind of need to dump the whole squad into it.

83% chance of DLTs doing nothing to the speeder when it have cover 2. That will help a lot but damage output is still small and you have to be very careful about snows with impact grenades still. Ill have to put it on the table to see what I really think.

53 minutes ago, Qark said:

83% chance of DLTs doing nothing to the speeder when it have cover 2. That will help a lot but damage output is still small and you have to be very careful about snows with impact grenades still. Ill have to put it on the table to see what I really think.

So, 6 guys with impact grenades averages 3.75 hits, cover 2 1.75 hits, defense dice, 1.17 hits. So 1pt of damage basically. Seems not intimidating in the least.

Haven't done any number but cover 2 should be pretty solid and protect against all but large dice pools.

HH12, DLT, AtSt main gun, AtRt laser cannon etc all will be severely hampered by cover 2 without adding more dice.

4 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

No, bleep you. Linguistic drift is a thing, you don't get to decide what is and isn't word.

Nor do you...

Wiktionary speaketh!! Lol?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/overcost

49 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Wiktionary speaketh!! Lol?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/overcost

Wiktionary? Pfft. The oxford or nothin: http://www.oed.com/noresults?browseType=sortAlpha&noresults=true&page=1&pageSize=20&q=overcost&scope=ENTRY&sort=entry&type=dictionarysearch