Since I doubt it will get a price change, give it Surge to hit and add Supressive for the Ground Buzzer, now this would give us a unit way more worthy and fun to play for its points...

It just got two fixes via changes to the core rules, let's wait and see. I'll paint up my second one and try some things.

Though to be honest I find big fragile vehicles models to be "unplayable" for out of game reasons in all systems. But it's Star Wars so I'm stuck.

Pierce to help push through some damage would help to remove the 'my nearly 200 point model just did nothing' feeling.

I agree with Suppressive on the ground-buzzer, and I'd also put Pierce 1 on the Harpoon. If you're gonna use the harpoon, that damage really should actually be guaranteed.

38 minutes ago, riker2800 said:

Since I doubt it will get a price change, give it Surge to hit and add Supressive for the Ground Buzzer, now this would give us a unit way more worthy and fun to play for its points...

You mean points “price change” not actual $, right?

I’m hoping they do drop the point cost. With the Landspeeder coming out, the Airspeeder can easily be dropped 75 points, and that would make them close to equal as far as points go. And before anyone gets their dander in a ruffle, yes the AT-ST should be dropped a few points too, but it doesn’t need as much to make it competitive.

I hate when FF changes the wordings on things. I understand why and appreciate when they do, but in this case, the easiest, most efficient and elegantly way to fix the T-47, is to drop its points. There are other ways to fix it, but in truth you are paying for the Arsenal key word in the T-47 price and unlike the AT-ST, it’s just not as effective on the T-47. On the AT-ST, you have the option of splitting your fire, or combining into one big hit, but with the T-47 you must split your fire. If the T-47 could combine both weapons and maybe delete a unit with one big attack, it could be a force to be reckoned with, but now it does two separate attacks, and because of compulsory moves it ends up too far out and gets focus fired. The ability to remove one attacker as opposed to removing one or two minis from two units is the difference between life and death of the T-47.

Granted the T-47 would still be a more challenging unit to play. With compulsory moves, if you just charge out there, you will lose the T-47, point reduction or not, or even if they made it so both weapons could combine fire. Really I hope they don’t make it so both weapons can combine as it’s more thematic as is, but without a massive point reduction, it’s not playable.

Lastly I just want to say, I’m surprised it’s taken this long to get a fix for the T-47. I know FF’s release schedule has been hellish, but the T-47 was one of the first units released and we all knew fairly quickly it was a garbage unit as is.

Just my two cents, which is not worth the growing price of copper.

2 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

I agree with Suppressive on the ground-buzzer, and I'd also put Pierce 1 on the Harpoon. If you're gonna use the harpoon, that damage really should actually be guaranteed.

The harpoon should be two dice, even if one was white. One die is just dumb. No weapon should be one and with the exception of the harpoon, no weapon is.

The main gun needs to be range 4 as well as either having surge to hit or pierce on the main gun. There is no reason it should be doing so little damage in comparison to everything else the rebels can take as it's the most expensive unit for them in the game.

Armored vehicles all need the ability to cancel crits with cover.

What bothers me the most is that it seems the landspeeder may end up being the final nail in the coffin for the 47. If it can put out more damage and at a somewhat safer range while not flying into the middle of everything. The landspeeder is more frail, but I look at it as having cover 3 rather than armor 2 and it feels better because of it. It's obviously too early to tell, but I hate the possibility of "kit killers"

I think it's kind of cascading effect of trying to avoid problems with say like, X-wing 1E, where your opponent can drop some crazy tricks on you and basically you just don't play - it's like why Ion is always super expensive and exhaust you can't reliably completely shut down a vehicle - recent errata to "weapon disrupted" also kind of follows. The developers want you to put anything on the table to try it without worrying about like, hard counters or other NPE type stuff.

But I also think the environment they test and build stuff in is different than general play - they obviously have very serious access to terrain modelers and probably play with certain unit builds just to play them - this leads into my current running theory that the original Vehicles are meant to stop Vehicles - hence the heavy emphasis on Impact vs most vehicles being white defense with armor, sometimes no defensive surge. Our current issue arises in that minimum anti-armor on Infantry is really points efficient to include so vehicles always feel threatened but not in the sense that you can put like an AT-ST on the board, and you can get like double ions and literally can't activate it a round. Because if infantry couldn't scratch vehicles that'd also feel bad. Ideally, they need like a virtual testing environment, the equivalent to like a beta or test server for video games to let loads of people stress test some of this stuff in the open environment, I'm just pretty sure their business model and licensors won't necessarily like that.

The T-47's problem is it's not flexible enough or specialized enough. The harpoon is obviously intended to have a low damage cap but be "accurate" only the other guy can still roll blocks and no cable. The ground buzzer seems like an anti-infantry weapon, able to roll a whole bunch of decent dice at once only without sharpshooter, pierce or anything it's only good for shooting infantry in the open, and Imperials have 50/50 saves and no Rebel squad would cross open ground if you paid them. The primary is some sick nasty dice, but less range than other big box guns and again, all impact focused. The X-34 goes the other way - on it's own it's cheaper than Speeder Bikes, and deserves it naked - but if depending on what you want to spend it looks like you can give them quite a few options to do different things against different units. For pretty cheap you can basically make it a ghetto blaster and drive by infantry to dump white dice in them and fly away, or you can glue heavy weapons to it and make it a technical to annoy Armor.

That said, I am still against direct points errata unless they want to commit to adjusting it every 6-12 months when they release new stuff which interacts with it, because the value of your points isn't static, different units will feel more or less worth their point costs at different periods in the game's development as different things are both available and popular. There could be a pilot upgrade to give some vehicles Sharpshooter pretty cheap (considering how cheap keywords usually are) or some other weird abilities, or there could be a commander with a vehicle synergy focus, or whatever. And FFG knows that pipeline much farther in the future than they dein to reveal to us.

I think it’s too soon to tell what the fix is. I don’t think it needs quite as much as the average forum goer thinks. This is not xwing 2.0 where we can just nuke the points in an app and be done. There has to be some clear way to solve it on cards or in rules reference.

I am interested in seeing more of them on the table.

I'll say it again: change the RRG so that Speeder X forces you to do X compulsory moves when you activate. That way the T-47 could be as mobile as it needs to be to get out of dodge and/or have a crazy big threat area. Also it would fly more realistically fast.

13 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I'll say it again: change the RRG so that Speeder X forces you to do X compulsory moves when you activate. That way the T-47 could be as mobile as it needs to be to get out of dodge and/or have a crazy big threat area. Also it would fly more realistically fast.

Ugh, that seems like a nightmare to keep the unit relevant in the game though, since you have to ensure the T-47 is in a position where moving a linear distance of 22.48 inches doesn't leave it surrounded or unable to bring it's weapons to bear.

Honestly, at this scale they CAN'T get the speed "realistic" since we're dealing with a space smaller than an American Football field, all Speeders SHOULD wiz off the board on turn 1 given their speeds (roughly 158 meters/second for Legends attack speed of T-47, while the 74-Z according to Legends is capable of speeds of 100 meters/second). So for the sake of being playable, the speeds, like the ranges, are severely cut. For instance, Range 4 (24 inches) roughly translates to a real world distance of 28 meters. That's a REALLY short range for any sort of battle rifle, and even taking that as the "effective range" of the weapon seems VERY short. But(as people are reminded on Historical wargaming forums), it's a game not a simulation, so it's GOING to get some stuff "wrong" for the sake of game balance.

On the main topic: One issue I have with the T-47 more so than the AT-ST, is that part of the points cost of the T-47 is Arsenal 2, when it only innately has one weapon. Honestly, I wouldn't miss Arsenal if it hadn't been on the model in the first place, since the Legends design had both sets of weapons normally handed by the rear facing gunner, with the pilot able to take control of the weapons in an emergency (and I don't think we're ever shown in canon both weapons firing at the same time?). Regardless, I would almost prefer if the Arsenal cost had been built into the cost of adding the different weapons, since without a Hardpoint upgrade, the T-47 has no way of utilizing Arsenal 2. But I agree that a points change now is fairly problematic for myriad reasons.

I said more realistically, not absolutely realistically fast.

Picture this, with two compulsory moves you are much more likely able to put yourself in a good position to aim+shoot instead of having to use an action to move again. With the way vehicles can corner in this game you can do a lot with that extra speed 3 with both a front and a back arc.

Also, if you are trying for last/first activations (as all speeders should be doing if played well) you would have a way better chance of getting clear of multiple enemy ranges with two compulsory moves +1 or 2 regular move actions. Not to mention getting behind tall LoS blocking terrain. Not to mention getting 2 chances to displace and suppress troopers with the compulsory moves.

It also makes it practically impossible to target the same unit with the front guns multiple turns in a row without first pivoting to turn around. Having to cover almost 45 inches of the board each turn would likely make the T-47 much harder to control, especially as it is easier to eyeball the result of a single move from a current location, much harder to eyeball two speed 3 moves to predict a good final resting point.

Are you just theorycrafting or have you tested this in a game out of curiosity?

Speeder 2 ignores cover 2.

Two simple fixes for this forum:

1.) Stop making "T-47 get gud" threads.

2.) Stop making "What am Clone Wars Units?" threads.

Please and thank you.

If a heavy unit is shooting a weapon with impact against a target without the armour keyword (or armour X) that attack gains pierce equal to the impact value.

Have no idea if this will actually be a good thing to do. Just popped into my head

50 minutes ago, Qark said:

If a heavy unit is shooting a weapon with impact against a target without the armour keyword (or armour X) that attack gains pierce equal to the impact value.

Have no idea if this will actually a good thing to do. Just popped into my head

That's pretty good really.

You can still hide and use cover but if you are hit you die which makes sense when lasers designed for punching through armour hit humans.

1 hour ago, Qark said:

If a heavy unit is shooting a weapon with impact against a target without the armour keyword (or armour X) that attack gains pierce equal to the impact value.

Have no idea if this will actually a good thing to do. Just popped into my head

That's pretty good. Probably a bit too much, but still, pretty good.

5 hours ago, lologrelol said:

Speeder 2 ignores cover 2.

Then, by logical extension, Speeder 1 should ignore Cover 1. I could see Speeder X providing Cover X though.

7 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

It also makes it practically impossible to target the same unit with the front guns multiple turns in a row without first pivoting to turn around. Having to cover almost 45 inches of the board each turn would likely make the T-47 much harder to control, especially as it is easier to eyeball the result of a single move from a current location, much harder to eyeball two speed 3 moves to predict a good final resting point.

Are you just theorycrafting or have you tested this in a game out of curiosity?

I like this proposal, I have played the T-47 a few times and I happen to use often a move action after the compulsory move, which indeed mean Im woul'd have used this action to take an aim, which is required without the surge to hit. Also Wedge could be more useful with its full Pivot when you overpass your target.

So, give it 2 Compulsory moves, Surge to hit and suppressive to the ground buzzer and now we have an effective unit.

5 hours ago, Qark said:

If a heavy unit is shooting a weapon with impact against a target without the armour keyword (or armour X) that attack gains pierce equal to the impact value.

Have no idea if this will actually a good thing to do. Just popped into my head

Do you want AT-STs ruling the world? This is how you get AT-ST ruling the board. Pierce 3 with that many dice (or 4 if the side gun is added to the dice pool) would be way too terrifying for most units.

32 minutes ago, riker2800 said:

I like this proposal, I have played the T-47 a few times and I happen to use often a move action after the compulsory move, which indeed mean Im woul'd have used this action to take an aim, which is required without the surge to hit. Also Wedge could be more useful with its full Pivot when you overpass your target.

So, give it 2 Compulsory moves, Surge to hit and suppressive to the ground buzzer and now we have an effective unit.

I’d be ok with speeder 2 requiring two compulsory moves. Seems like it would be hard to fly well, but very rewarding if you do, and free up actions for aiming to shoot or pivot to gain arc.

8 hours ago, Qark said:

If a heavy unit is shooting a weapon with impact against a target without the armour keyword (or armour X) that attack gains pierce equal to the impact value.

2 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Do you want AT-STs ruling the world? This is how you get AT-ST ruling the board. Pierce 3 with that many dice (or 4 if the side gun is added to the dice pool) would be way too terrifying for most units.

I think this isn't a bad idea, however make it so that it is Impact/2 (rounded up). There would have to be a caveat about units that have Pierce and Impact (like Vader) not getting extra Pierce though. Hmm, the more I think about it this could be abusable with Impact grenades, so maybe not a good answer after all.

Do target designators exist in the Star Wars universe? You could have a card that can be equipped as a comms upgrade that puts a 'tag' token on an enemy unit for an action. Repulsor 2 vehicles could gain sharpshooter 1 and an aim when attacking a unit with a tag.

It would help the T47 without having to change it and encourage units to work together.

1 hour ago, Katarn said:

Do target designators exist in the Star Wars universe? You could have a card that can be equipped as a comms upgrade that puts a 'tag' token on an enemy unit for an action. Repulsor 2 vehicles could gain sharpshooter 1 and an aim when attacking a unit with a tag.

It would help the T47 without having to change it and encourage units to work together.

I think it’s a good idea for a future unit. could probably be multi purpose comms allowing for heavies to get a bonus shooting at the tagged unit, or allowing an indirect fire keyword weapon to target them regardless of LoS (only range restriction)

2 hours ago, Katarn said:

Do target designators exist in the Star Wars universe? You could have a card that can be equipped as a comms upgrade that puts a 'tag' token on an enemy unit for an action. Repulsor 2 vehicles could gain sharpshooter 1 and an aim when attacking a unit with a tag.

It would help the T47 without having to change it and encourage units to work together.

Another great idea indeed, will make for nice combo with 2 airspeeder