Hello,

As a newer player that has two games under my belt and playing with all of my shiny toys, vehicles are entrusting to me.

I like bring bikes and feel like there a good balance of points without wasting a spot for troopers.

The idea of the ATST and Tank are cool but for the cost I like having 3-4 units of troops more that can combine more firepower and hold objectives.

I played with my ATST last week and though it shot a bunch it did not do enough against troops running around and blanked out against an HQ.

So are vehicles over costed or need an adjustment or is it just my play style?

Heavies in general have difficulty being worth it for their cost. The new ones seem to fair better, especially the imperial tank with the new generic pilot. The new generic pilots will help a lot for both faction's, but it'd require you to pick up a new expensive heavy to make your old one better. You might be able to pick up their cards off of eBay once the general public gets ahold of them.

Use what you like ultimately. If you like running with more troopers, then do that instead of trying to force a heavy to work for you.

AT-RT, tank, landspeeder and speeder bikes are pretty decent for their points

AT-ST is a bit sub par

T-47 airspeeder is not worth its points by a decent margin and needs a cost adjustment.

When putting vehicles in your list you will have better success when you center the list around them. So speeder bikes do best as 2-3 squads run side by side with veers and HQ uplink. It's harder to just toss one into a random list.

The new pilots will help the AT-ST, but I think the T-47 will still be an uphill battle.

I really like the AT-ST still, but it requires some building around it.

I really like it on missions like breakthrough where no matter what they **have** to get by me. The walker works to delete enough units they can’t have as many in my deployment zone as I have in theirs. You have to use Terrain to advantage on that one.

AT-RT are solid too. Bikes are great except when facing Leia or snipers.

I have no experience yet with the new heavies.

Deployment, conditions, and objective play into the usefulness of vehicles as well as board setup (terrain size, amount of blocking, and placement, etc.). I played a game recently where an AT-ST completely shut down one side of the map allowing my opponent to capture supplies and run away while I got chewed up in pursuit.

It is also worth considering your play environment. My FLGS has a small player base where everyone pretty much buys one of each expansion rather than loading up on the most effective units. The heavies do much better in this kind of environment, even the T-47. If you are largely playing highly competitive tournaments, you probably won't have the same results.

The new SURGE driver for the AT-ST is actually pretty okay. I used him over the weekend and the ATST was a pain to deal with. It never died and just slaughtered stuff, I do think the units people bring will change due to the vehicles. Your mileage may vary. They are still a heavy investment, but in the thick of things, if you've deployed well and selected your objectives so that your vehicle can squat on one and the opponent has to come through you, it can make its points back.

I've not had a lot of experience with the AT-ST, but running one with General Weiss and all the guns can dish out a lot of suppression to many different units at once.

And the new Hammer Pilot sounds cool too

The 74-Z bikes can be deadly, but they're also fragile, and you need 2 or 3 of them.

@Cubanboy It depends on your local meta. If you have a lot of players bringing impact and lots of activations vehicles can be a little cumbersome in play. I've found that taking an R4 droid with my corps units tends to make the AT-ST live long enough to pull it's weight. (adding the new generic pilot should also make it much better). Since they're cheaper than an 11 point storm trooper, it also shaves a few extra points in army building.

Don't just use your AT-ST as a bunch of attack dice that cost a certain number of points. That's not all they are. I can park them in an alleyway and then suddenly the opponent has to walk ALLLLLL the way around the buildings. I can walk it ahead of my squads and set off mines with them and ignore the damage. Don't forget that ****er can see over things you might assume block LOS. I've lost games cause I forgot to check LOS from different angles, AT-ST's are so tall they can see things you think they can't. A bunch of attack dice that get their own portable sniper-tower are worth more.

2 hours ago, buckero0 said:

The new SURGE driver for the AT-ST is actually pretty okay. I used him over the weekend and the ATST was a pain to deal with. It never died and just slaughtered stuff, I do think the units people bring will change due to the vehicles. Your mileage may vary. They are still a heavy investment, but in the thick of things, if you've deployed well and selected your objectives so that your vehicle can squat on one and the opponent has to come through you, it can make its points back.

Yeah, The AT-ST really needed a surge to hit and now it has it. It should see more play now.

3 sets of speeder bikes can really wreak your opponent for 270 pts.

6 hours ago, Cubanboy said:

Hello,

As a newer player that has two games under my belt and playing with all of my shiny toys, vehicles are entrusting to me.

I like bring bikes and feel like there a good balance of points without wasting a spot for troopers.

The idea of the ATST and Tank are cool but for the cost I like having 3-4 units of troops more that can combine more firepower and hold objectives.

I played with my ATST last week and though it shot a bunch it did not do enough against troops running around and blanked out against an HQ.

So are vehicles over costed or need an adjustment or is it just my play style?

Well, they aren’t overpriced.

1 minute ago, Derrault said:

Well, they aren’t overpriced.

I think that's something a lot of people will argue about with you.

2 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I think that's something a lot of people will argue about with you.

And? They’d be wrong.

28 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I think that's something a lot of people will argue about with you.

True but this is a SW fan forum. People will argue regardless.

38 minutes ago, Derrault said:

And? They’d be wrong.

So...what's your contention? Are they perfect where they are? Underpriced, even?

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

So...what's your contention? Are they perfect where they are? Underpriced, even?

I believe that means that his opinion is perfect and that anything that even remotely disagrees with him is beneath them regardless of subject.

7 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

So...what's your contention? Are they perfect where they are? Underpriced, even?

No, just accurately priced.

10 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

I believe that means that his opinion is perfect and that anything that even remotely disagrees with him is beneath them regardless of subject.

Given his reply above, it appears he's just being obtuse to amuse himself.

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

Given his reply above, it appears he's just being obtuse to amuse himself.

As someone who has gotten into waaaay too many arguments with him about this topic, I can assure you that he's not being obtuse.

8 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

As someone who has gotten into waaaay too many arguments with him about this topic, I can assure you that he's not being obtuse.

I was referencing the terseness of his replies and the fact that they don't add anything to the discussion whatsoever.

Just now, arnoldrew said:

I was referencing the terseness of his replies and the fact that they don't add anything to the discussion whatsoever.

I found your question leading in two directions that did not reflect my actual view.

The reply was terse to avoid any confusion.

22 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I found your question leading in two directions that did not reflect my actual view.

The reply was terse to avoid any confusion.

Not really. "Accurately priced" is the same as "perfect where they are." I'm just trying to get a feeling for why you could think that. Are we using different definitions for things? Is there some assumption one or both of us is making? Why do believe you don't see AT-STs and Airspeeders in high-level play?

I enjoy AT Rts still figuring out which weapon to use but go between the gatling cannon or the anti vehicle blaster cannon

15 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

Not really. "Accurately priced" is the same as "perfect where they are." I'm just trying to get a feeling for why you could think that. Are we using different definitions for things? Is there some assumption one or both of us is making? Why do believe you don't see AT-STs and Airspeeders in high-level play?

No.

Perfect includes a value judgment that suggests I think no modification of the underlying system is valid either. Which I have no opinion on, so to say that would be imprecise.

Accurate, on the other hand, only indicates that the pricing is correct for the scheme that’s in place.

edit: As to the frequency of use, that boils down to the personal preferences of individual players and nothing else.