2 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

I saw something similar last night and it got absolutely annihilated by the imperial player. Neither of the players were particularly skilled, but it was quite one sided. In my experience, Wookiees aren't worth their points, and the flamer is the last weapon you want to put on an AT-RT because it requires you to bum rush your opponent. With the AT-RT's terrible defensive die, that's not a good option. Against armies that can just sit back at range 3-4 and pelt you with snipers, DLTs, and command card bombardments, that's an even worse option. Baring the normal terrible rolls on either side, I don't see it working out. EDIT: Especially against a player of the skill level of the World's players.

FWIW, per point, Wookies aren't as durable as Royal Guard, though pierce on the snipers changes the math on that. Either way, I've definitely delivered Guard to Stormtroopers and lost that fight....

8 hours ago, LunarSol said:

FWIW, per point, Wookies aren't as durable as Royal Guard, though pierce on the snipers changes the math on that. Either way, I've definitely delivered Guard to Stormtroopers and lost that fight....

Technically the pierce is less meaningful versus the Wookies than it is on, say, Deathtroopers.

edit: That and the Wookies are basically designed to pole vault LOS blocking difficult terrain, and can bring their own pierce.

32 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Technically the pierce is less meaningful versus the Wookies than it is on, say, Deathtroopers.

I think that was his point, it hurts the IRG a lot more.

53 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Technically the pierce is less meaningful versus the Wookies than it is on, say, Deathtroopers.

edit: That and the Wookies are basically designed to pole vault LOS blocking difficult terrain, and can bring their own pierce.

If by pole vault you mean take 4 actions to go over LOS blocking terrain, then sure. Pole Vaulting is more Luke/Sabine/Boba.

2 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

I think that was his point, it hurts the IRG a lot more.

Whoopsie

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

If by pole vault you mean take 4 actions to go over LOS blocking terrain, then sure. Pole Vaulting is more Luke/Sabine/Boba.

Well, if it’s difficult terrain they can freely move over it (think slopes, high hedges, buildings with windows; not walls). That being said, clambering only takes 1 action, and Wookies don’t suffer clamber wounds. So, two actions, technically, not 4.

9 hours ago, Derrault said:

Whoopsie

Well, if it’s difficult terrain they can freely move over it (think slopes, high hedges, buildings with windows; not walls). That being said, clambering only takes 1 action, and Wookies don’t suffer clamber wounds. So, two actions, technically, not 4.

Assuming we're talking any sizable building or other obstecle, four actions is right: one to get into base to base, one to go up, one to go to the next edge, one to go down.

At least on my tables, vertical walls (be they ruins, part of buildings, or wrecks) are far more common than difficult terrain.

13 hours ago, Derrault said:

Whoopsie

Well, if it’s difficult terrain they can freely move over it (think slopes, high hedges, buildings with windows; not walls). That being said, clambering only takes 1 action, and Wookies don’t suffer clamber wounds. So, two actions, technically, not 4.

For terrain to completely LOS block a Wookiee it has to be taller than the dude with the sword over his head.

So that means it's not difficult terrain but rather a climb, so as @Alpha17 said (and thinking about it now it's possibly 5)

1) Approach to base contact

2) Climb to top

3) Move to other side of terrain if it is wider than the leader's base

4) Climb to Bottom (still in base contact)

5) Move.

Personally I think that "clamber" should be an action in which you go from base contact with LOS blocking terrain and come out in base contact on the other side (so long as the terrain isn't longer than a speed 1 move) rather than top of terrain, then bottom of terrain as separate moves. ...so like popping over one of these walls or containers:

But that's not what it is....so here we are.

Well, you can do it with the Imperial terrain stuff as he puts all kinds of handholds and crates next to the wall to make passing them difficult rather than impassable. but you've gotta remember to discuss that beforehand.

Personally, I see high velocity as the game representation of a sniper firing on an unsuspecting target. Unless you have the Force, you don't know to dodge the shot that you don't see coming. Further, I think that greater use of LoS blocking terrain mitigates the effectiveness of snipers. In a barren battlefield, snipers will be incredibly deadly. Additionally, I think that strategy/tactics come into play- if the opponent is using a sniper heavy army, you will need to assess how you intend to deal with them and probably make better use of cover and sight blocking terrain.

I don't think they are necessarily broken, but I do think that people need to use more *and* varied terrain if they want a better shot at getting in range to take out snipers... You could also consider using your own snipers as a deterrent/counter.

I don't have an issue so much with high velocity. But I could like to see something else.

Make it so you have to recover after two shots

Make it so you can't use the sniper rifle unless you have an aim token

Give the gun a minimum range. 3-infinite rather than 1-infinite

Oooh....new Keyword "Sighted in X" When this unit gains an aim token it also gains Sharpshooter. X is the number of times this can occur per round. Or just make it Sighted In, give some reward for multiple aim tokens, it naturally caps at 2 anyway.

2 hours ago, Alpharaider47 said:

You could also consider using your own snipers as a deterrent/counter.

And this is how you get sniper spam/sniper meta. If the best counter to a thing is that thing, then that's what you will see on the map most often.

Repeat after me, activation spam wins games. The fact that they can push through one damage from across the map makes that activation useful. It is still all about activation spam. Please go check out Armada and the nearly useless transports used as activation spam to great effectiveness.

There isn't anything wrong with snipers. It's the activation spam that is killing you, not the one damage a turn.

4 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

And this is how you get sniper spam/sniper meta. If the best counter to a thing is that thing, then that's what you will see on the map most often.

There is historical precedence here though. In Legion we are at least limited by how many of each unit may be brought. The alternatives are either better units to take out snipers, or better tactics.

3 hours ago, Mep said:

Repeat after me, activation spam wins games. The fact that they can push through one damage from across the map makes that activation useful. It is still all about activation spam. Please go check out Armada and the nearly useless transports used as activation spam to great effectiveness.

There isn't anything wrong with snipers. It's the activation spam that is killing you, not the one damage a turn.

If that is true, then how is it that lower activation count lists best higher activation count lists?

How do you reconcile that?

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

If that is true, then how is it that lower activation count lists best higher activation count lists?

How do you reconcile that?

We see 10-12 activation lists achieving higher placements in tournaments on average mate.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

If that is true, then how is it that lower activation count lists best higher activation count lists?

How do you reconcile that?

It doesn't happen, so nothing to reconcile.

1 hour ago, CaptainRocket said:

It doesn't happen, so nothing to reconcile.

https://swlegionodds.com/2019/02/10/lvo-top-6-lists-and-brief-reca/

Not true at all.

Dipintos went 5-0 with 9 activations placed 2nd

Kingsley went 5-0 with 11 activations placed 3rd

Kropp went 5-0 with 11 activations, placed 4th

Casslasy went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 5th

Zelenograd went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 6th.

So the 2nd place player was running 2 fewer activations than the players in 3rd-6th. First place had 10, so the winner still had fewer than nearly all the competition.

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

We see 10-12 activation lists achieving higher placements in tournaments on average mate.

I just skimmed through the list breakdowns on the odds pages, and I don’t see any 12 activation lists at all. There are a bunch of 11s, sure, but they’re scatter shot with the 10s, and there doesn’t seem to be any particular order to them.

Ie not all 11 lists best all 10s, which you would expect if the greater activations was actually overwhelming.

That there are high placing 9 and 8 activation lists is fairly dispositive of the claim that greater activation numbers == win

26 minutes ago, Derrault said:

https://swlegionodds.com/2019/02/10/lvo-top-6-lists-and-brief-reca/

Not true at all.

Dipintos went 5-0 with 9 activations placed 2nd

Kingsley went 5-0 with 11 activations placed 3rd

Kropp went 5-0 with 11 activations, placed 4th

Casslasy went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 5th

Zelenograd went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 6th.

So the 2nd place player was running 2 fewer activations than the players in 3rd-6th. First place had 10, so the winner still had fewer than nearly all the competition.

I just skimmed through the list breakdowns on the odds pages, and I don’t see any 12 activation lists at all. There are a bunch of 11s, sure, but they’re scatter shot with the 10s, and there doesn’t seem to be any particular order to them.

Ie not all 11 lists best all 10s, which you would expect if the greater activations was actually overwhelming.

That there are high placing 9 and 8 activation lists is fairly dispositive of the claim that greater activation numbers == win

Dude, your own example just proved my point. Out of top 6 we have 1 mid-low activation list. The rest are high activations. 🤣

FWIW, the functional low activation list is the Emperor, simply because his big turn generally earns him activation advantage by deleting 2-3 activations from the opponent's army and gaining the advantage.

14 hours ago, Alpharaider47 said:

There is historical precedence here though. In Legion we are at least limited by how many of each unit may be brought. The alternatives are either better units to take out snipers, or better tactics.

Armor, Air Strikes and Indirect Fire. All of which are generally lacking in the game.

It's also an unrealistic representation. an M16 is accurate at 100 yards. Which is about the length of the maps we use. Modern tanks can make accurate shots at 3500 meters. So snipers live in that world.

Legion snipers have range abilities that are unrealistic compared to the other units on the field.

9 hours ago, Derrault said:

https://swlegionodds.com/2019/02/10/lvo-top-6-lists-and-brief-reca/

Not true at all.

Dipintos went 5-0 with 9 activations placed 2nd

Kingsley went 5-0 with 11 activations placed 3rd

Kropp went 5-0 with 11 activations, placed 4th

Casslasy went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 5th

Zelenograd went 4-1 with 11 activations, placed 6th.

So the 2nd place player was running 2 fewer activations than the players in 3rd-6th. First place had 10, so the winner still had fewer than nearly all the competition.

I just skimmed through the list breakdowns on the odds pages, and I don’t see any 12 activation lists at all. There are a bunch of 11s, sure, but they’re scatter shot with the 10s, and there doesn’t seem to be any particular order to them.

Ie not all 11 lists best all 10s, which you would expect if the greater activations was actually overwhelming.

That there are high placing 9 and 8 activation lists is fairly dispositive of the claim that greater activation numbers == win

9 activations is most decidedly not a low activation list. It is the very bottom of what's needed for a high activation list. As a list it still took a Strike Team and was willing to sacrifice two DLTs to do so (both reducing token mix and padding an extra activation).

Every list still needs a way to deal reliable big damage at the point of focus, which is why all high activation lists still spend big points on Luke, Bosk, etc.

Double AT-STs, double T-47s. Special Forces and Supports lists etc. drive towards a sweet spot of 7-8, which gets trounced by high activation lists (note none of the Worlds players went "as low as" 9 activation despite Joe's example).

However once I again I would like to remind us all of the salient point of the conversation. Why are there so many gosh durn Snipers?

There are two ways to articulate the answer. One is reductive but points out the most salient feature:

"High activation lists beat low activation lists"

It is possible to nit pick at the simplified version by focusing on outliers, let's call this the #NotAllWinningLists position. Nonetheless the reality remains which is what is fueling interest in the discourse.

There is also the more nuanced and specific way to point out the answer:

"It's not snipers it's Strike Teams. They allow padding of activation counts combined with swarms of core units to create a 2-4 activation advantage over other builds. This activation advantage allows the exploit of the end of a turn by the player with more activation in a way that lets them act with impunity (this is best understood through a family of adversarial feedback loop system dynamics but the concepts are straightforward). Combined with the similar value of controlling token diversity, there is an overwhelming incentive to build corp spam + snipers + heavy hitter and thus many many units are left nonviable."

It is also possible to rathole this nuanced version by debating each step of the analysis, the precise mechanisms, or sometimes just the definitions used. The intention of this rathole is not to actually acquire a better understanding of the mechanisms in play and consider mitigations, but to indirectly deny the validity of the question posed by the community. I call this the "Yes, yes, sure... but can you prove it?!" approach. Again however, the reality of the outcome remains and the community is looking to understand and address it.

32 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

It's also an unrealistic representation. an M16 is accurate at 100 yards. Which is about the length of the maps we use. Modern tanks can make accurate shots at 3500 meters. So snipers live in that world.

Legion snipers have range abilities that are unrealistic compared to the other units on the field.

Yes snipers are good dissproportionately to the class of unit they model versus other units. However their disruption factor on our plastic space dollies is weak comparatively.

Sabs are equally effective at creating viable lists. However they require more skill to play.

Nontheless Snipers are a good unit game wise, and a safe choice for their primary role of activation control.

@lologrelol
"Dude, your own example just proved my point. Out of top 6 we have 1 mid-low activation list. The rest are high activations."

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes? I'm not classifying a range of activations as 'high' and others 'low'; I'm describing an objective comparison.

10 < 11; 9 < 11; yet both those LOWER ACTIVATION LISTS, defeated the ones with MORE activations.

That literally contradicts the response I quoted:
ME: "If that is true, then how is it that lower activation count lists best higher activation count lists?"

Rocket: "It doesn't happen,"

Rockets statement was Objectively false.

Your statement which provided a range that included 12 activations (which doesn't seem to have ever happened, at all, so it makes me question if you just pulled that claim out of the air), but also doesn't address my specific query to Mep of how one reconciles when a lower activation list (i.e. 9) defeats a higher activation list (i.e. 11) if # of activations is supposedly an overwhelming advantage.

I am left whelmed by your response.

@LunarSol
"FWIW, the functional low activation list is the Emperor, simply because his big turn generally earns him activation advantage by deleting 2-3 activations from the opponent's army and gaining the advantage."

See, that's exactly why I think the whole malarky about >activations = win! is ...well, malarky. The lower activation lists are generally lower because they are buying more expensive units that are more likely to delete an entire enemy unit in one go, or in combination with fewer total attacks.

@CaptainRocket
"9 activations is most decidedly not a low activation list. It is the very bottom of what's needed for a high activation list. As a list it still took a Strike Team and was willing to sacrifice two DLTs to do so (both reducing token mix and padding an extra activation)."

9 < 11; So, how many activations does the 'higher activation list' need above and beyond the 'lower activation list' to qualify as an advantage?

The fewest possible activations (5) that uses 800 points is a Palpatine, 3x snowtrooper, 1x AT-ST list (Palpatine and the Snowtroopers fully upgraded)
The most possible activations (16) pre-CIS is a Rebel list that uses 781 points and fills every slot except operatives.

So, if all that's important is having a big hammer and the ability to swing it last; why is it you think that 9 activations is 'high' but 8 is 'low'? It's not like the 11 activation list isn't able to delay past both to activate their 1-2 "hammer" units. Why aren't players using essentially the same setup, but with even more activations, since it's easily possible?

The simple fact is that there's no meaningful difference between 8 or 9 activations from the standpoint of the 11 activation list and the only existing evidence does not corroborate the claim that the higher activation list beat the low activation list in a matchup.

14 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@LunarSol
"FWIW, the functional low activation list is the Emperor, simply because his big turn generally earns him activation advantage by deleting 2-3 activations from the opponent's army and gaining the advantage."

See, that's exactly why I think the whole malarky about >activations = win! is ...well, malarky. The lower activation lists are generally lower because they are buying more expensive units that are more likely to delete an entire enemy unit in one go, or in combination with fewer total attacks.

Except they don't. It's actually exceptionally difficult to kill units in one go in this game (which I think is largely a positive for its balance, fwiw). More expensive units also don't generally have significantly higher output in the first place. An AT-ST outputs less than half the hits per point as a DLT trooper. Palpatine only gets away with it by having an unmatched number of high quality attacks on his key turn. Nothing else is really close to it.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

So, if all that's important is having a big hammer and the ability to swing it last; why is it you think that 9 activations is 'high' but 8 is 'low'? It's not like the 11 activation list isn't able to delay past both to activate their 1-2 "hammer" units. Why aren't players using essentially the same setup, but with even more activations, since it's easily possible?

Because geometry, variability in setup, token draw, and other 'battlefield' friction. You don't control enough of the situation to guarantee the perfect setup.

1 activation margin is not sufficient to have a devastating advantage.

3 is significant. 4 is huge.

However there are diminishing returns. Gaining a 3-4 advantage at the cost of a big hammer, or at the cost of increasing order token diversity undermines the OODA loop exploit you are going for (because you can't start deleting units without risk next turn, or can't have enough control of delaying the right units in the right place).

Which is why when players experimented going higher they kept losing big hammers, or adding too much chaos to their draw, and kept falling back to the 10-11 meta we see today.

This problem space has been pretty well explored, and while it was not obvious during the exploration, in retrospect it seems clear what the dynamics are that bring us to this solution.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

Except they don't. It's actually exceptionally difficult to kill units in one go in this game (which I think is largely a positive for its balance, fwiw). More expensive units also don't generally have significantly higher output in the first place. An AT-ST outputs less than half the hits per point as a DLT trooper. Palpatine only gets away with it by having an unmatched number of high quality attacks on his key turn. Nothing else is really close to it.

I said ‘more likely’, that means there’s a higher probability (which there is).

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

how one reconciles when a lower activation list (i.e. 9) defeats a higher activation list (i.e. 11) if # of activations is supposedly an overwhelming advantage.

First off, you're confusing the issue, and I'm not sure if its intentional or not.

When the rest of the community says "low activation list" they mean 7 and fewer.

When they say "high activation list" they mean 9+

You however are taking "high activation/low activation" to mean that any list which has even one more activation than its opposing list is going to win. We do not mean that.

Low activation lists (much as I love building them) have the problem that they crumble too easily. If you kill my sniper strike team you took two hit points off the field, and two dice per round coming at you. They also aren't moving usually and aren't holding objectives.

If I kill your DLT Squad I removed 5 hit points and 6 attack dice, two of which are red from your possible attack pool every round, removed an objective holder, and possibly widened the gap of time where I have impunity on the board each round. You have less ability to pick up slack.

Also, like the Captain said....

1 hour ago, CaptainRocket said:

1 activation margin is not sufficient to have a devastating advantage.

3 is significant. 4 is huge.

However there are diminishing returns. Gaining a 3-4 advantage at the cost of a big hammer, or at the cost of increasing order token diversity undermines the OODA loop exploit you are going for (because you can't start deleting units without risk next turn, or can't have enough control of delaying the right units in the right place).

Which is why when players experimented going higher they kept losing big hammers, or adding too much chaos to their draw, and kept falling back to the 10-11 meta we see today.