Would the T-47 gaining barrage make it a playable option? And lets clarrify on semantics so this thread dosent devolve into another mess. Does giving it barage make it cost effective?

Barrage: When you declare an attack, if you did not use arsenal, you make perform 2 attacks

This would make the groundbuzzer a saftey blanket, rather than "better spend 20 more points so the arsenal keyword I payed for dosent go to waste"

Yes. I believe the Barrage keyword makes both the T47 and the ATST significantly better.

With the T47, most people I've played with don't do a standard move at all. They either aim & shoot or dodge & shoot after doing their compulsory move. Getting to shoot twice after the compulsory move would be a big improvement.

Similarly, The ATST's range 4 means that it is often able to fire on multiple targets as soon as the game begins, which means that in theory it could begin to make use of barrage every round after the first.

I have no doubt that a future vehicle expansion for the rebels/Imps will have a generic pilot upgrade (probably 10 points) that gives the vehicle barrage, but personally I'm hoping for an errata to just give it to both vehicles as an innate keyword. Or better yet, a free ATST/T47 Only upgrade that doesn't take up any slots- that way there's no need for an errata.

I think T47 should have Manoeuver, the key word to avoid crit with Dodge, as it is a pretty nimble vehicle, and not Barrage, as for me Barrage need to be stable and take no move.

But AT-ST with Barrage would be a good improvment, as giving him a white dice surging def I think. In order to get in par with the survivability of the new CIS and GAR tanks (13,5 health vs 14,66 for the AT-ST).

I sincerely hope for a card that grants the t47 barrage if we can’t get it just hard errata. The poor thing needs help and really can’t use its arsenal keyword anyway without dying (by flying into the middle of it all)

I think barrage on the at-st would be too strong. There are already multiple ways to give it aim tokens before activating and with the surge-to-hit pilot two attacks might be a bit much. Plus it could also double shoot with the mortar and give 4 suppression which seems too powerful. I could be wrong though.

12 minutes ago, dukncuver said:

I think barrage on the at-st would be too strong. There are already multiple ways to give it aim tokens before activating and with the surge-to-hit pilot two attacks might be a bit much. Plus it could also double shoot with the mortar and give 4 suppression which seems too powerful. I could be wrong though.

That may make it the imposing unit it should be, especially for ~200 points. Dont forget, Ion is rarely, if ever, used and it is devastating against vehicles.

That's primarily why vehicles need a MAJOR boost. If they are used, Ion will be used and keep them in check. People don't realize how nasty Ion is against vehicles.

19 minutes ago, dukncuver said:

I think barrage on the at-st would be too strong. There are already multiple ways to give it aim tokens before activating and with the surge-to-hit pilot two attacks might be a bit much. Plus it could also double shoot with the mortar and give 4 suppression which seems too powerful. I could be wrong though.

I agree. It sounds perfect for the Airspeeder, though.

If they keep following X-Wing 1.0 pattern then I would say they will either do Chardaan Refit to lower the point cost a lot, or if they do give barrage to the T47 it will have be a super cheap unique card to make the ship worth it.

I find the ship works best hiding it in the back with Wedge since it melts as soon as an enemy sneezes at it. For the life of me I would have loved to see them testing it to see how they got it to work at all. **** that back gun is just a trap to get it up close and die even faster. I have seen the arguments for a price drop for over 20 points, but I have no idea what would be best to fix this ship.

Two shots with that attack pool would be painful tho. but I wonder if they should also add blast or pierce? That way it could be used as a glass cannon against both infantry and vehicles.

Just want to Make sure I am understanding: Barrage uses two separate actions to attack twice, right? Or is it one attack action, but two shots?

7 minutes ago, Dosiere said:

Just want to Make sure I am understanding: Barrage uses two separate actions to attack twice, right? Or is it one attack action, but two shots?

Two separate actions as far as I understand it.

so you want to give a unit 6 red and 6 black with impact 3 per shot so impact 6 total in one turn and a free movement. yeah......no that would make it really OP.

8 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

so you want to give a unit 6 red and 6 black with impact 3 per shot so impact 6 total in one turn and a free movement. yeah......no that would make it really OP.

If the card that gives it barrage takes the additional value into effect, it would be balanced. It would make the t47 a glass cannon as oppose to just glass as it is now

12 minutes ago, TheHoosh said:

If the card that gives it barrage takes the additional value into effect, it would be balanced. It would make the t47 a glass cannon as oppose to just glass as it is now

so give it barrage and raise the unit cost? its not a glass now or do you not realize that with cover 2 and armor and immune to melee attacks (so basicly all jedi) and blast (which gets rid of cover) can't be used against it, plus it surges defense.

Actually, solid question. Even after the pilot to raise to Cover 2 came out (which should negate DLT-19 chip shots) I don't really know anybody who gave the T-47 the old college try. Are people still just burned from it, or have they actually tried playing it and still found it coming up short - and in what way? Is something specific killing it, is there something it can't kill? I'd like actual experience, not just "I don't feel like it does x". Like, obviously I think it would be cool if you could get some of these newer keyword on older stuff, but will that help directly.

7 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Actually, solid question. Even after the pilot to raise to Cover 2 came out (which should negate DLT-19 chip shots) I don't really know anybody who gave the T-47 the old college try. Are people still just burned from it, or have they actually tried playing it and still found it coming up short - and in what way? Is something specific killing it, is there something it can't kill? I'd like actual experience, not just "I don't feel like it does x". Like, obviously I think it would be cool if you could get some of these newer keyword on older stuff, but will that help directly.

I've only done a few games with it, and while it does help it isn't enough. The big problem originally was, as you mentioned, random range 4 DLT shots and the pilot does fix that.

When fighting an imperial army the okay damage output of the T-47 is still weak enough to be ignored for the most part. Units only shoot at it if the player doesn't want to advance or is in position already and doesn't have a better target to attack. I get that it is far more dangerous to enemy vehicles, but I haven't been able to test if cover 2 is enough to take on an AT-ST by itself. No one around here owns an occupier so I won't be seeing it's performance against that. I guess you could shoot dewbacks to gain the benefit of impact, but it's only armor 1.

Nothing has changed when fighting a rebel army. Rebels already don't use a lot of impact for the most part and rely on critical hits to deal damage to armored targets; cover 2 hasn't changed that. In an instance of Landspeeder vs Airspeeder, the Landspeeder won.

Overall, when actually being shot back at, the T-47's weakness now is critical hits. With the new critical keyword and how prevalent it looks like it'll be, the T-47 isn't going to have a better time.

Sounds like somebody upthread was right, and T-47 needs an Outmaneuver pilot (possibly with Agile 1) more. I thought the T-47 would be a good tank hunter, but that requires tanks to hunt. And also it seems like FFG is very strongly leaning in to Weak Point to balance those, so you don't need as much big blobby impact. Clones with a non-exhaust rocket launcher also won't help either.

New hardpoints and pilots could help. Obviously hard errata could do, but the question is if they want to make the T-47 more applicable or not, because even if it's just outright cheaper it still may not be productive because there's nothing good for it to engage. Just because you squeak an extra activation in there doesn't mean the heavy slot will be worth it... Food for thought, thanks for you input.

well one of the bigger questions i emailed FFG on and i recommend everyone following this thread email them also is can we safely lower the t47 closer to the base (like almost touching or even a inch above) and still have it tournment legal. this i think will greatly help the t47 alot as it makes no such a big target.

Personally, I don't think that barrage is the right way to go for the T47. Its not that its a bad idea, but giving it barrage takes away any reason to take a tail gun at all, which I feel goes against what the designers were trying to achieve. Outmaneuver with agile 1 would make a great defensive pilot, and I really feel that's what Wedge should have been, but offensively, you would probably have to make a new ability. Maybe an action like Overcharged Weapons: when attacking this activation, each hit or crit rolled adds an additional dice of the same color to your attack pool. These additional dice cannot produce more dice themselves. Additionally, after all your attacks have been resolved, you gain a weapon disrupted token until the end of your next activation.

Its not perfect by any means, but something like that would play up the T47s hit and run nature and not try to turn it into a flying tank.

I think Barrage is exactly what the T47 needs to be viable.

The T47s main problems are: it dies to a stiff breeze (C2 pilot helps this) and it costs as much as 3 Z6 squads and does nowhere near the same damage (Barrage would help this).

I hate the idea.

It would make the rear hardpoint even more useless instead of making it viable.

It would also take a lot of other units completly out of competitive play.

Who would even bother to play out a game against such an Airspeeder if the opposing player brought 2 Dewbacks, a few ATRTs or a few B2 Battledroids?

The idea to put barrage on an ATST sounds even more... odd to me. The ATST is in a good place with the right upgrades. It defintetly does not need such a huge increase in damage output.

27 minutes ago, M.Mustermann said:

I hate the idea.

It would make the rear hardpoint even more useless instead of making it viable.

It would also take a lot of other units completly out of competitive play.

Who would even bother to play out a game against such an Airspeeder if the opposing player brought 2 Dewbacks, a few ATRTs or a few B2 Battledroids?

The idea to put barrage on an ATST sounds even more... odd to me. The ATST is in a good place with the right upgrades. It defintetly does not need such a huge increase in damage output.

There is so much wrong with this comment, I don’t know where to start.

There are plenty of ways to fix the output issue of the T-47. Barrage would be a terrible solution and would create more problems than it solves. If you don't get that, I guess we have to agree to disagree.

The best, most direct, and most elegant way to fix the T-47 and the AT-ST is to reduce their points through errata. If the two units are weak, then their cost should reflect that weakness.

Adding new cards or changing rules to benefit these particular units creates a house of cards issue, where future upgrades from other units can cause the problem of making these units too powerful when combined with those cards added to fix them. We’ve seen as much in X-Wing 1.0 and had several cards stacked on ships just to make them playable, then a new ship would introduce a new card that pushed the once troubled ship into OP range, then nerfs were required.

Adding something new to a unit should be a lateral move, like the corps unit upgrades. None of those really make any of the existing units more powerful, it just makes them more versatile. Just my opinion.

3 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

The best, most direct, and most elegant way to fix the T-47 and the AT-ST is to reduce their points through errata. If the two units are weak, then their cost should reflect that weakness.

Adding new cards or changing rules to benefit these particular units creates a house of cards issue, where future upgrades from other units can cause the problem of making these units too powerful when combined with those cards added to fix them. We’ve seen as much in X-Wing 1.0 and had several cards stacked on ships just to make them playable, then a new ship would introduce a new card that pushed the once troubled ship into OP range, then nerfs were required.

Adding something new to a unit should be a lateral move, like the corps unit upgrades. None of those really make any of the existing units more powerful, it just makes them more versatile. Just my opinion.

Yepp. I have nothing against buffing units in general like they did with changing the rules for danger sense, repulsor vehicles or repair droids, but I agree that there are more elegant ways thant just adding a keyword to an existing card.

Apart from that, there is a real danger that Barrage would be too much at once. 2 Airspeeders would be at least ok against pretty much every list, but absolutly broken against a lot of commanders and any unit with armor. There is almost no way to counter them because they outrange pretty much everything with their complusory move. There are few commanders that survive one or two volleys from 2 T-47 with barrage. The groundbuzzer would be an even more useless upgrade, because everyone will just attack twice with the front gun. Just imagine what 2 Airspeeders would do to one of these new Saber Tanks or the Gocat if they approach it from a weak spot. With upgrades like Targeting Array, HQ-Uplink and a Commander with Aggressive Tactics they will generate even worse alphastrikes against single high priority units.

An ATST with Barrage would be even more bananas because of all the free aim tokens and surge to hit can get. Everything visible within Range 4 is toast within 2 activations. The hardpointupgrades would be just a waste of points. Other than Deathtroopers, almost noone can remove an ATST at maximum range.

57 minutes ago, M.Mustermann said:

Yepp. I have nothing against buffing units in general like they did with changing the rules for danger sense, repulsor vehicles or repair droids, but I agree that there are more elegant ways thant just adding a keyword to an existing card.

Apart from that, there is a real danger that Barrage would be too much at once. 2 Airspeeders would be at least ok against pretty much every list, but absolutly broken against a lot of commanders and any unit with armor. There is almost no way to counter them because they outrange pretty much everything with their complusory move. There are few commanders that survive one or two volleys from 2 T-47 with barrage. The groundbuzzer would be an even more useless upgrade, because everyone will just attack twice with the front gun. Just imagine what 2 Airspeeders would do to one of these new Saber Tanks or the Gocat if they approach it from a weak spot. With upgrades like Targeting Array, HQ-Uplink and a Commander with Aggressive Tactics they will generate even worse alphastrikes against single high priority units.

An ATST with Barrage would be even more bananas because of all the free aim tokens and surge to hit can get. Everything visible within Range 4 is toast within 2 activations. The hardpointupgrades would be just a waste of points. Other than Deathtroopers, almost noone can remove an ATST at maximum range.

Very simple fix to your problem is to attach the barrage keyword to a unique name. Everything can be balanced via point cost.... Right now the speeder is unplayable.