2 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

For those of you who are talking about how assassination isn't thematic for the light side/rebellion.

It’s more like it doesn’t work for me how Legion’s done it and I don’t want more of that.

Also, to agree and add to JediPartisan's statement,

Infiltrate is marginally powerful when paired with Blue player because the infiltrating unit can set up on the middle box. I point you to all the vast numbers of ppl using Jyn/Pathfinders to box grab as an example of how useful that has turned out to be. Jyn has never made the top 8 of any major event I am aware of.

Infiltrate is of less use in other missions, it still helps to get into position but the opponent can, through a combination of their deployments and scout moves block out and restrict where these units can be placed. The key take away is how there is counter play against it. Also Recover the Supplies is 1 of 5 possible missions where KP, MV, and RS constitute 3 of the 5 options. One mission can usually be selected around unless it is in the far right slot and the opponent digs down to it. when 3 of the 5 options can be greatly affected by a rule like bounty, it is a much bigger deal with a much higher chance of being leveraged and with less counter play to stop it.

The statement, "its hard to collect bounty," is not a concern. It is not if the VP is hard or easy to get, it is that the VP is POSSIBLE for one player and not the other. This is compounded by the fact that Bounty is NO THREAT to the one using it, but a CONSTANT threat to the one playing against it and must be accounted for.

Make jokes all you want, bounty is a fire and forget weapon that is easily employed without much thought, but places a large mental load on the opponent with poor counter play options.

If you even look at the world championships Boba skewed the lists that much that only 50% of a he imp players decided to bring him along , 1 VP will make a massive difference on one, maybe two objectives at most and at a hefty cost. If someone skews into both hunters then they are spending a lot of points to gain 1VP. Last game I played I parked m y pathfinders on an objective in cover and they lost 1 figure over 4 rounds (with an atst shooting them half that time) for half that cost and scored 4 pts with them. Spending 150 pts on the chance of getting a kill and hoping you don't get countered yourself is a large chunk of your army. Don't get me wrong it is also far from a waste, but unlike the original key positions it isn't massively slanting things in favour of one side or another.

6 minutes ago, Angry Ewok said:

Also, to agree and add to JediPartisan's statement,

Infiltrate is marginally powerful when paired with Blue player because the infiltrating unit can set up on the middle box. I point you to all the vast numbers of ppl using Jyn/Pathfinders to box grab as an example of how useful that has turned out to be. Jyn has never made the top 8 of any major event I am aware of.

Infiltrate is of less use in other missions, it still helps to get into position but the opponent can, through a combination of their deployments and scout moves block out and restrict where these units can be placed. The key take away is how there is counter play against it. Also Recover the Supplies is 1 of 5 possible missions where KP, MV, and RS constitute 3 of the 5 options. One mission can usually be selected around unless it is in the far right slot and the opponent digs down to it. when 3 of the 5 options can be greatly affected by a rule like bounty, it is a much bigger deal with a much higher chance of being leveraged and with less counter play to stop it.

The statement, "its hard to collect bounty," is not a concern. It is not if the VP is hard or easy to get, it is that the VP is POSSIBLE for one player and not the other. This is compounded by the fact that Bounty is NO THREAT to the one using it, but a CONSTANT threat to the one playing against it and must be accounted for.

Make jokes all you want, bounty is a fire and forget weapon that is easily employed without much thought, but places a large mental load on the opponent with poor counter play options.

Which three , and how many victory points are possible to win in each. Only one has the potential where one point makes that difference and even then it forces a draw.

Just run e stims then blow your guy up with a mine they did not kill um so they dont get the point

2 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

I never said Fett and Bossk alone can force defensive play.

Any point of damage that the targeted unit takes means that that unit is closer to being used as the means to gaining that VP. If the target unit is low enough in health, either Boba or Bossk can use range 4 to finish the job. Since there are few rebel units that can answer at that range, the duo will more than likely be successful. Also in two commander lists, one commander is usually risked to reap enemy units. Rebel units usually use Luke or Leia, both are very good on the attack, yet the rebel now has to keep the targeted unit away from combat other wise risk losing them. Keep in mind the only Commanders or operatives on the rebel side that have weapon ranges greater that 2 are Chewie and Jyn and to not use an expensive unit in combat is wasting points. Even if Bounty isn’t collected, the threat is still there and the fact that one side has a possibility for more VP is more than enough of an advantage. And as I’ve said it before, would you play Monopoly and give all the other players $500 more to start? Why should one side have access to more possibilities to victory than the other? There is no other ability in the game that has a possible VP attached, and that’s the whole point. If Bounty were setup so the Bounty player gains a VP if successful, but if the target survives, the target player gains the VP, and if the target is killed by another unit, no one gets the VP, things would be more fair (of course they would also have to add “may” to the bounty key word, so it’s not mandatory). Or just give the Rebels a unit that can gain a VP through some means (doesn’t have to be Bounty).

Infiltrate and Suppressive don’t give or guarantee a VP if successful.

Except that's exactly what you indicated:

19 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Meanwhile the player with bounty has the ability to exert more control over the table than the other player forcing one of their commanders to play defence and stay hidden, or risk losing a victory point without any way of gaining a VP of their own.

So if having a bounty targeted commander forces defensive play, then units that have Bounty (Bossk and Fett) forces defensive play as they are the only units with Bounty at this time.

Every time the targeted unit is shot at by a unit that isn't the bounty hunter is a chance the unit dies unless you are ONLY targeting the unit with attack pools that are smaller than the remaining wounds the model has. Yes, the odds are against this occurrence (in some cases it would need all crits), but it is still possible with flubbed defense rolls. The best defense in the game is only a 3+ after all. The Rebel list doesn't have to answer at Range 4 from the commander, they have to answer at range 3 from the attacking unit, which shouldn't be in the exact same location as the targeted unit anyway.

I don't think your Monopoly example is accurate, especially as presumably the keyword Bounty has some point cost that is taking up a portion of the list. So it would be more if a player could start with less money, but have the option of being slightly more likely to win if the game is close. But even Monopoly isn't balanced, since the players who get to go earlier in the turn order have a lower probability of landing on owned spaces (particularly in the early game). Playing Ticket to Ride with fewer trains but the ability to draw an extra ticket at the beginning of the game is almost closer to Bounty in my mind.

Your redesign of Bounty would reward hiding the Bounty target in a corner, whereas the current design slightly incentivises being aggressive (away/out of LoS of the Bounty unit). But I do understand what you are trying to do. I think requiring the unit to have in some way participated would be better, but that can be difficult to accomplish in a simplistic game (which is what Legion tries to be). As for why one side has access but not the other: because it's thematic. This game isn't balanced, otherwise all the units would be exactly the same and we'd be playing on a black and white grid (and even that game is unbalanced). So far, FFG has been pretty good (compared to some other companies) about FAQing things that unbalance the game, such as Key Positions. CIS will more than likely also have access to Bounty, but I doubt that the GAR will, so it will be 2/4 factions with Bounty. If/when a criminal faction is released they also would have Bounty, so 3/5. Now, I would have liked something like "Gather information" where some Rebel named model has to do a thing at a piece of terrain and if they survive, they get a VP similar to Bounty, but Jyn would have made the most sense for that kind of keyword.

Personally, I've seen Suppressive and Infiltrate used to "guarantee" VP by either preventing a unit from moving to claim an objective or Infiltrate allowing for turn 1 repair/sabotage/claim or otherwise keeping units from getting to a broadcast on objectives that are far removed from the deployment zone. For moisture evaporators, that's either a VP earned or denied the opponent, regardless of if the infiltrating unit survives past turn 1.

The resources of The Empire are not limitless- an imperial commander should be punished for using a bounty hunter.

If Boba Fett takes down Leia, you have to pay him. A lot.

If Boba Fett slaughters two dozen troopers but Leia is bagged by TK429, Fett is not getting paid. Maybe some chump change to gas up Slave 1, but definitely not the big bucks. TK429 gets promoted to surf shore trooper and kicks back for a cycle which costs nothing.

And while we're at it, The Emperor should always give a VP if defeated. It's silly that assassinating Sheev is worthless compared to repairing a moisture vaporator. I appreciate a glass of cool water on a hot day as much as the next sapient but I feel our priorities in The Alliance have been muddled.

4 hours ago, Katarn said:

And  while we're at it, The Emperor should always give a VP if  defeated

Then it should be the same for Luke XD.

7 hours ago, Staelwulf said:

Then it should be the same for Luke XD.

Leia too. And Vader.

The others are comparatively low profile for most of their choked careers.

Who are the rebels going to bounty hunt...themselves...

4 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Who are the rebels going to bounty hunt...themselves...

Bounties in Star Wars are more assassination/kidnap contracts, so thematically the Rebels having Bounty keyword would represent them hiring bounty hunters to kill/capture/defeat prominent Imperials. Jabba wasn't a legal authority, just a crime lord with a lot of money. Anyone with sufficient resources can post a bounty in Star Wars.

On 7/17/2019 at 8:01 AM, Zrob314 said:

For those of you who are talking about how assassination isn't thematic for the light side/rebellion.

Luke was an assassin.

The entire point of training him was to kill Vader and the Emperor. Luke came up with the idea to try to redeem Vader, Yoda and Obi Wan were squarely against it.

Luke: "I can't kill my own father
Obi Wan: "Then the Emperor has already won, you were our only hope."

Also, Cassian was ordered to assassinate Galen. Even though he didn't they still bombed the facility thereby achieving the same goal.

And don't tell me there's not a few guys in the rebellions like this guy here.

This guy. This guy wants his Imperial scalps. 100 from everyone under his command. Hmm... Teebo with bounty...

I think the scalp collecting is trumped by the desire to eat them... which given the helmets they're banging like drums at the end of RotJ is probably the fate of the Imps at Endor.

On 7/17/2019 at 4:11 PM, Barbarickendar said:

Just run e stims then blow your guy up with a mine they did not kill um so they dont get the point

Is this actually legal?

7 hours ago, Dcalov said:

Is this actually legal?

Yes

Yes there is nothing in the rules that say about trying to play to try and preserve the life of a unit. In fact running cheap units at mines to clear them is a viable tactic as well. You can even argue that removing the mine was a beneficial play for the person who suicides the bounty

9 hours ago, Dcalov said:

Is this actually legal?

I will make it legal.

Sorry, had to say it.

1 hour ago, syrath said:

Yes there is nothing in the rules that say about trying to play to try and preserve the life of a unit. In fact running cheap units at mines to clear them is a viable tactic as well. You can even argue that removing the mine was a beneficial play for the person who suicides the bounty

Roger Roger...