13 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

The fact that it can move once and go from range 1 to potentially 3 as we don't know how big the base is.

You'd have to get behind it first, which in itself will be a trial as it can sit at range 4 and pound targets. Depending on deployment (read battle lines, disarray, and advanced positions) it may be impossible to get behind it as the range is far enough that it can justify sitting on the edge of the table. T-47 doesn't do enough damage to validate going for the rear to begin with as you don't deal enough damage to actually take advantage of impact 5 and would then also require to stay in that arc, which also depending on where you approach from will also be impossible. Vader is scary for all vehicles and that isn't changing. He still will have to take the minimum of 2 rounds of bee-lining straight to the AAT before he could take advantage of impact 5. It's also a lot less scary in general since the opponent has to play it turn 1 and you'll know ahead of time so you can plan on going first anyway.

Do you really wanna go down possibilities again? Because averaging your whole 3.75 damage with barrage after defense and trying to say its feasible to more than double that is dumb. Because it's possible for a Z-6 squad to kill an AAT in one turn, but no one is gonna say it will happen.

The 47 can easily move across the board on turn one.

Vader infiltrates, so.

If it’s stuck in a corner, it’s a glorified FD1.4, for nearly 3x the points.

And it’s an average of 7.5 damage, 3.75 wounds, so it’s entirely possible to blank out against that, suffering the full hit.

13 hours ago, Matt Antilles said:

Doesnt the AAT have red defense dice? If so then lol.

Yes, that’s why I calculated the average wounds, assuming a red defense die. Red defense die is not enough.

45 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The 47 can easily move across the board on turn one.

Vader infiltrates, so.

If it’s stuck in a corner, it’s a glorified FD1.4, for nearly 3x the points.

And it’s an average of 7.5 damage, 3.75 wounds, so it’s entirely possible to blank out against that, suffering the full hit.

Yes, that’s why I calculated the average wounds, assuming a red defense die. Red defense die is not enough.

But with your argument, the T-47 won't get to use the "overpowered" barrage. And even if it does move across the board, then that puts it in range of my army and the T-47 is very fragile. I just don't see this as a valid argument.

I'm not worried about dealing with an overcosted Vader. He currently doesn't see any competitive play and the empire already has lots of other toys that people want to play with.

Trust me, the AAT will be a powerhouse. You just wait.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

The 47 can easily move across the board on turn one.

Vader infiltrates, so.

If it’s stuck in a corner, it’s a glorified FD1.4, for nearly 3x the points.

And it’s an average of 7.5 damage, 3.75 wounds, so it’s entirely possible to blank out against that, suffering the full hit.

Yes, that’s why I calculated the average wounds, assuming a red defense die. Red defense die is not enough.

where are you getting 7.5 damage shouldn't it be 6.5?

I am considering playing it stripped down and seeing what happens. Arsenal 2 may be a red herring. I am running out of Hoth rebel ideas since the Atgar and tauntauns take up the same force org slot. Something along the lines of 6 small Corps units, 3 support, a Rebel Officer commander, and a T-47.

4 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I am considering playing it stripped down and seeing what happens. Arsenal 2 may be a red herring. I am running out of Hoth rebel ideas since the Atgar and tauntauns take up the same force org slot. Something along the lines of 6 small Corps units, 3 support, a Rebel Officer commander, and a T-47.

I think the harpoon is worth having for 8 points. It's not good value in terms of damage output or anything like that, but it's a 75% chance of giving out a suppression token should the opportunity arise. There are better choices, but we don't fly the T47 because it's efficient, we fly it because it's right to do so.

Also, before firing it, point at a stormtrooper.

"You see that guy?"

"Uh-huh"

"His name is Hoban. Hoban Washburne. Wash to his friends."

"Huh?"

"He's a leaf on the..." Roll the dice.

With luck your opponent will break into tears.

22 minutes ago, Katarn said:

There are better choices, but we don't fly the T47 because it's efficient, we fly it because it's right to do so.

I'm flying it because I'm running out of force org slots!

8 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I'm flying it because I'm running out of force org slots!

Pathfinders wouldn't look too out of place with a winter colour scheme.

34 minutes ago, Katarn said:

Pathfinders wouldn't look too out of place with a winter colour scheme.

Eventually, a 3rd box of veterans, a second snowspeeder, and a total of three boxes of Wookie Warriors & Pathfinders (dunno which I want 2 of) will be added to the army. But that involves buying more stuff, which is off in the theoretical future. I am so far behind on painting it's ridiculous, I can't add more to the queue right now.

@R3dReVenge
"But with your argument, the T-47 won't get to use the "overpowered" barrage. And even if it does move across the board, then that puts it in range of my army and the T-47 is very fragile. I just don't see this as a valid argument.

I'm not worried about dealing with an overcosted Vader. He currently doesn't see any competitive play and the empire already has lots of other toys that people want to play with.

Trust me, the AAT will be a powerhouse. You just wait."

I would argue it doesn't need barrage, yes, as demonstrated 'with' barrage it annihilates the tank in very short order. Take two T-47s with barrage and you are very very likely to kill those tanks within 4 turns.

More importantly if they had barrage, and the tank wants to hang back to protect its rear, the 47s can safely ignore the tanks and simply use those barrage attacks to wipe out the infantry units before the tanks could destroy them, making it virtually impossible for a CIS player to win no matter what objective is played. The raw tanks simply don't deal enough damage with barrage, on average to a 47 to make it more than a pesky nuisance.

Here: Two AAT's are, at a minimum 340 points.
Grievous 175; Dooku 200+ (it looks like maybe he costs 205, but the later numbers are a bit blurry).
So we're looking at ~255 to 285 points to invest in infantry; you can get 4 b1 battle droid units with 8 figures, and 1 with 7 for that.
With the worst save in the game, and no cover gain from suppression, the 47s each average kill 3.125 x 2 droids per activation. So, 12.5 droids per round.

All the B1 infantry die within 3.12 rounds just from T-47 attacks, and there's little chance that the wide tanks will be able to sit with their backs to a board edge and maintain clear line of sight, most boards have quite a few obstrutions.

@Tirion
3.75 x 2 = 7.5 damage (3.75 expected wounds on a tank per 47 used)

If it's using barrage.
I'm saying that barrage would be absurdly powerful on the 47, and the AAT (let alone b1 infantry) wouldn't be able to stand up to that kind of withering...ahem...barrage.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I would argue it doesn't need barrage, yes, as demonstrated 'with' barrage it annihilates the tank in very short order. Take two T-47s with barrage and you are very very likely to kill those tanks within 4 turns.

I believe there is a miscommunication between us. For the third time, abilities like barrage should not be glued onto a generic pilot. The 'barrage pilot' should be a unique pilot restricted to one per list. The AAT is incredibly durable. I've played a few games against it and it is incredibly resilient to damage due to red defense dice, 9 wounds, and the ability to gain defensive surges. I can't think of one unit that can easily deal with the AAT alone.

Your example is hard for me to envision because you are claiming that the T-47 can easily deal with the AAT in 4 turns. What is your opponent doing for those 4 turns? Ignoring the fragile speeder? How does your opponent let his AAT go down easily? I'm just struggling to get over this hurdle.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

More importantly if they had barrage, and the tank wants to hang back to protect its rear, the 47s can safely ignore the tanks and simply use those barrage attacks to wipe out the infantry units before the tanks could destroy them, making it virtually impossible for a CIS player to win no matter what objective is played. The raw tanks simply don't deal enough damage with barrage, on average to a 47 to make it more than a pesky nuisance.

The AAT thrives at range 4. How can the T-47 consistently stay out of it's range when the T-47 has a compulsory move? Not to mention that the Separtist player will almost always out deploy you (due to cheap core units). The bolded is just a wrong statement. We've already talked about this about this. The T-47 averages ~7.5 hits with barrage. This assumes no cover or no defense saves. The AAT averages ~7 hits. This assumes no cover or no defense saves. The AAT costs 170. The T-47 costs 175 + Barrage pilot (30) = 205. I don't see how the tank doesn't do enough damage with barrage.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Here: Two AAT's are, at a minimum 340 points.
Grievous 175; Dooku 200+ (it looks like maybe he costs 205, but the later numbers are a bit blurry).
So we're looking at ~255 to 285 points to invest in infantry; you can get 4 b1 battle droid units with 8 figures, and 1 with 7 for that.
With the worst save in the game, and no cover gain from suppression, the 47s each average kill 3.125 x 2 droids per activation. So, 12.5 droids per round.

All the B1 infantry die within 3.12 rounds just from T-47 attacks, and there's little chance that the wide tanks will be able to sit with their backs to a board edge and maintain clear line of sight, most boards have quite a few obstrutions.

I don't think we'll see 2 AATs + an expensive commander. Most likely a list with them will have the AAT as the commander (field commander card), and or a cheap droid commander (equivalent to Veers/Rex/Leia). 340 + ~100 = 440. The Separtist player has 360 to spend on the rest of the army.

Do you play with enough cover? It seems like all of your estimates assume no cover and that your opponents units are wide in the open. I find that this is not the case with my games.

2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

I believe there is a miscommunication between us. For the third time, abilities like barrage should not be glued onto a generic pilot. The 'barrage pilot' should be a unique pilot restricted to one per list. The AAT is incredibly durable. I've played a few games against it and it is incredibly resilient to damage due to red defense dice, 9 wounds, and the ability to gain defensive surges. I can't think of one unit that can easily deal with the AAT alone.

Your example is hard for me to envision because you are claiming that the T-47 can easily deal with the AAT in 4 turns. What is your opponent doing for those 4 turns? Ignoring the fragile speeder? How does your opponent let his AAT go down easily? I'm just struggling to get over this hurdle.

The AAT thrives at range 4. How can the T-47 consistently stay out of it's range when the T-47 has a compulsory move? Not to mention that the Separtist player will almost always out deploy you (due to cheap core units). The bolded is just a wrong statement. We've already talked about this about this. The T-47 averages ~7.5 hits with barrage. This assumes no cover or no defense saves. The AAT averages ~7 hits. This assumes no cover or no defense saves. The AAT costs 170. The T-47 costs 175 + Barrage pilot (30) = 205. I don't see how the tank doesn't do enough damage with barrage.

I don't think we'll see 2 AATs + an expensive commander. Most likely a list with them will have the AAT as the commander (field commander card), and or a cheap droid commander (equivalent to Veers/Rex/Leia). 340 + ~100 = 440. The Separtist player has 360 to spend on the rest of the army.

Do you play with enough cover? It seems like all of your estimates assume no cover and that your opponents units are wide in the open. I find that this is not the case with my games.

Even on a unique pilot, I don’t see a justification for 12 dice getting thrown. Barrage on the AAT is acceptable because it’s only 8 dice total.

I’ve provided the math behind the dice, red defense is merely one more side than white surge, it might feel great psychologically, but it’s just 1/6 additional blocks. 9 wounds with 3/6 block is effectively 18 hits required to kill, threshold 6 = 12 hits to cripple.

What exactly do you think the CIS player can do about it? There’s nothing they can do to stop the Speeder from closing to be inside the range of the tanks guns. It moves speed 3, with a huge base, two moves is 3 feet. At that point the tank is deprived of any impact, and there’s nothing else that presents a credible threat.

T-47 is melee immune, so Grievous does nothing, Droidekas lack impact and so would be crit fishing to little avail, B1s are a joke and can only get impact by taking the rocket launcher. Which, in the current meta is passé.

Essentially the AAT is profoundly ill-equipped to defend itself against a faster opponent, and there’s nothing else in the arsenal that does more than scratch ineffectually off the armor of the 47.

The AAT only does 4 damage on average to the Speeder, thanks to the Speeder getting innate cover 1, so you have to take that into account, always, and a Speeder with cover 2 reduces the total to 3 per barrage on the main cannon (1.5 average per attack). Expected wounds, if it gets a barrage cannon attack off, 2.667 (1.3 per attack) or only 2 (1 per attack). That’s enough that it would require 3 rounds to reach threshold (5) and 4 rounds of attacks to kill.

The 47 without barrage and not firing into its rear would have dealt 3.75 damage, for 1.875 expected wounds. Reached threshold (6) in 3, kills in 4, nearing on 5. With barrage you can halve that. Reached threshold in 2, kills in 3.

And that’s without circling around to strike from the rear for +2 impact.

Edit: The field commander means forgoing some very good command cards, that seems like a huge, even crippling, mistake on the face of it.

The 47 is fast enough that it can pretty much pick a target within 4 feet of its starting location and attack. You can figure out how to get past cover using its height, Speeder 2 and speed 3 moves, pretty much every time.

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

@R3dReVenge
"But with your argument, the T-47 won't get to use the "overpowered" barrage. And even if it does move across the board, then that puts it in range of my army and the T-47 is very fragile. I just don't see this as a valid argument.

I'm not worried about dealing with an overcosted Vader. He currently doesn't see any competitive play and the empire already has lots of other toys that people want to play with.

Trust me, the AAT will be a powerhouse. You just wait."

I would argue it doesn't need barrage, yes, as demonstrated 'with' barrage it annihilates the tank in very short order. Take two T-47s with barrage and you are very very likely to kill those tanks within 4 turns.

More importantly if they had barrage, and the tank wants to hang back to protect its rear, the 47s can safely ignore the tanks and simply use those barrage attacks to wipe out the infantry units before the tanks could destroy them, making it virtually impossible for a CIS player to win no matter what objective is played. The raw tanks simply don't deal enough damage with barrage, on average to a 47 to make it more than a pesky nuisance.

Here: Two AAT's are, at a minimum 340 points.
Grievous 175; Dooku 200+ (it looks like maybe he costs 205, but the later numbers are a bit blurry).
So we're looking at ~255 to 285 points to invest in infantry; you can get 4 b1 battle droid units with 8 figures, and 1 with 7 for that.
With the worst save in the game, and no cover gain from suppression, the 47s each average kill 3.125 x 2 droids per activation. So, 12.5 droids per round.

All the B1 infantry die within 3.12 rounds just from T-47 attacks, and there's little chance that the wide tanks will be able to sit with their backs to a board edge and maintain clear line of sight, most boards have quite a few obstrutions.

@Tirion
3.75 x 2 = 7.5 damage (3.75 expected wounds on a tank per 47 used)

If it's using barrage.
I'm saying that barrage would be absurdly powerful on the 47, and the AAT (let alone b1 infantry) wouldn't be able to stand up to that kind of withering...ahem...barrage.

sorry thought we were talking about the aat.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Even on a unique pilot, I don’t see a justification for 12 dice getting thrown. Barrage on the AAT is acceptable because it’s only 8 dice total.

There is an small upside to rolling more dice, but you look at the averages to assume the most likely scenario.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I’ve provided the math behind the dice, red defense is merely one more side than white surge, it might feel great psychologically, but it’s just 1/6 additional blocks. 9 wounds with 3/6 block is effectively 18 hits required to kill, threshold 6 = 12 hits to cripple.

What exactly do you think the CIS player can do about it? There’s nothing they can do to stop the Speeder from closing to be inside the range of the tanks guns. It moves speed 3, with a huge base, two moves is 3 feet. At that point the tank is deprived of any impact, and there’s nothing else that presents a credible threat.

T-47 is melee immune, so Grievous does nothing, Droidekas lack impact and so would be crit fishing to little avail, B1s are a joke and can only get impact by taking the rocket launcher. Which, in the current meta is passé.

I've played 40K for over a decade and one of the things I learned is that there is a big difference between a 33.3% save and a 50% saves. 18 hits is an incredibly high number to get while shooting at an armored vehicle. The T-47 averages ~6 hits per shot (assuming barrage).

I expect the CIS player to shoot at the speeder... The main reason why the T-47 aren't used is because they are fragile and severely overcosted. It has the damage potential, but takes damage to basically anything. If the Rebel player flies forward to get close enough to 'evade' the AATs main weapon, then...

1) It is in range of majority of the CIS army. They just need to shoot at it.

2) The T-47 wasted it's entire turn getting in close.

But I have trouble believing that the rebel player can easily evade the AATs main weapon. It seems more like wishful thinking than how the game is actually going to play out.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

The AAT only does 4 damage on average to the Speeder, thanks to the Speeder getting innate cover 1, so you have to take that into account, always, and a Speeder with cover 2 reduces the total to 3 per barrage on the main cannon (1.5 average per attack). Expected wounds, if it gets a barrage cannon attack off, 2.667 (1.3 per attack) or only 2 (1 per attack). That’s enough that it would require 3 rounds to reach threshold (5) and 4 rounds of attacks to kill.

How is the speeder getting both Cover 2 and Barrage? Currently, the T-47 sees no play with that option available.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

The 47 is fast enough that it can pretty much pick a target within 4 feet of its starting location and attack. You can figure out how to get past cover using its height, Speeder 2 and speed 3 moves, pretty much every time.

The T-47s problem isn't it's speed or firepower. It's the fact that it easily takes damage from anything and costs ALOT.

13 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

I don't think we'll see 2 AATs + an expensive commander. Most likely a list with them will have the AAT as the commander (field commander card), and or a cheap droid commander (equivalent to Veers/Rex/Leia).

I dont believe u could take the tank as a commander, I believe the field commander card only allows it to nominate the tank when u play a generic command card, it doesn't actually take up the commander slot, meaning you would still need a unit to fill in the commander role. And even if u could take the tank as a commander it only allows u to play the generic cards which the cis only have access to 3 at the moment u wouldnt have enough cards to build a command hand without adding another commander

1 hour ago, lunitic501 said:

I dont believe u could take the tank as a commander, I believe the field commander card only allows it to nominate the tank when u play a generic command card, it doesn't actually take up the commander slot, meaning you would still need a unit to fill in the commander role. And even if u could take the tank as a commander it only allows u to play the generic cards which the cis only have access to 3 at the moment u wouldnt have enough cards to build a command hand without adding another commander

I'm sure the community wouldn't mind the CIS player playing x2 Push, x2 Ambush, etc.

1 minute ago, R3dReVenge said:

I'm sure the community wouldn't mind the CIS player playing x2 Push, x2 Ambush, etc.

Sure that still doesn't change the fact that your commander slot would be empty since the tank still only fills the heavy slot even with the field commander card

1 minute ago, lunitic501 said:

Sure that still doesn't change the fact that your commander slot would be empty since the tank still only fills the heavy slot even with the field commander card

Read my statement again. I'm well aware that you still need a commander. Hence why, the list would be 340 points + 100 points for the commander. Leaves you 360 to spend.

2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

I'm sure the community wouldn't mind the CIS player playing x2 Push, x2 Ambush, etc.

I would mind. I would just ask them to play Legion instead of a game specifically homebrewed to allow them to take max tanks and no commander.

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

I would mind. I would just ask them to play Legion instead of a game specifically homebrewed to allow them to take max tanks and no commander.

What an extreme jump you've made.

@R3dReVenge
"There is an small upside to rolling more dice, but you look at the averages to assume the most likely scenario"

Of course, but having 12 dice means it really is possible to 1-shot something that has <12 wounds on it, and that can provide a 'huge' cascade advantage down the rest of the game.

i.e. Early possible, even if unlikely, gains mean that you can afford to get worse rolls down the line. It's better to get that huge win turn 1 than turn 6, because doing so has the potential to cripple your opponents offensive capabilities for the rest of the game.

I'm all for unique pilots (maybe a Luke pilot even), but I can't imagine barrage going for less than 10-15 points as an upgrade to something like the T-47.

By way of comparison, consider, getting a second powerful attack by Luke or Vader (+6 dice, and, yes, pierce, but still..+6 dice!) is a one-off requiring a command card at this point.

"I've played 40K for over a decade and one of the things I learned is that there is a big difference between a 33.3% save and a 50% saves. 18 hits is an incredibly high number to get while shooting at an armored vehicle. The T-47 averages ~6 hits per shot (assuming barrage).

I expect the CIS player to shoot at the speeder... The main reason why the T-47 aren't used is because they are fragile and severely overcosted. It has the damage potential, but takes damage to basically anything. If the Rebel player flies forward to get close enough to 'evade' the AATs main weapon, then...

1) It is in range of majority of the CIS army. They just need to shoot at it.

2) The T-47 wasted it's entire turn getting in close. 

But I have trouble believing that the rebel player can easily evade the AATs main weapon. It seems more like wishful thinking than how the game is actually going to play out."

I mean, it's 16%, it's one extra wound. Yeah, sometimes that's a big difference, and sometimes it's nothing. Most players seem to dramatize the difference far beyond the real value.

T-47 averages 3.75 damage (3 hits, .75 crits) per attack, 7.5 for 2 attacks. And because of Impact 3, it all goes through on average. So it gets that threshold, potentially, within 2 rounds with barrage. That's not nothing. And if it overperforms (as it sometimes will) it potentially cripples turn 1, kills turn 2, or (potentially) even kills turn 1 if there's overperformance + underperformance by the defensive rolls.

It might be a more powerful demonstration if we had a graphic chart showing the average distribution of roll results (both offensive and defensive) to show damage potential, since averages tend to elide this sort of thing.

Yes, of course, the CIS player can attempt to shoot at the 47, but the CIS weaponry is basically bupkiss. It's all impactless dice, so they're just praying for a critical hit to get through the 47's armor, which isn't terribly effective, as it would require 10.5 crits, on average, to get through the white surge dice and achieve the 7 wounds. 10.5 crits when crit fishing is 84 dice, or 14 attacks by B1 droids.

So, yeah, if you commit literally everything in the CIS army, and completely ignore your opponents other forces, it's achieveable within 2-3 turns? That still doesn't account for the certain attrition of the droids, or the ability of the 47 to respond by simply not be in range of those droids through moving appropriately. The beauty of the 47 is that it's basically impossible to pin down, and, if you play the game of positioning correctly, it gets to choose where it wants to be, and how many enemy units are capable of engaging it on any given round.

It does all depend on how the armies are positioned on the board, but there's plenty of room to maneuver, and I think, based on the numbers, it's sometimes worth forgoing an attack in order to achieve position superiority. i.e. Moving the T-47 to somewhere your opponent REALLY does not want it, can be (sometimes) better than just meat-grinding it into the waiting maw.

As for evading the main gun, it's just range 2-4, that makes it no worse (indeed, easier than) the same fight against an AT-ST which has access to both range 1-4 AND range 4+ weaponry (i.e. Everywhere that's visible) and which looks to have a major height advantage.

When it comes to closing range on the AT-ST (much like snipers), or really any enemy unit that has superior range, you have to consider the approach, how to move to not expose your army before it reaches its own ideal attack range. Use cover and concealment to mask until ready to engage and apply maximum force to the minimum possible enemy forces.

"How is the speeder getting both Cover 2 and Barrage? Currently, the T-47 sees no play with that option available."

It's not, I was outlining the different possibilities in one go. Sorry, if you want a clearer split:

T-47 w/Barrage (on a pilot) deals 3.75 average wounds to the AAT, cripples in 2 rounds, kills in 3.
AAT to T-47 w/Barrage deals 2.667 average wounds, cripples in 2, kills in 3;

If the T-47 gets within range 2, the AAT doesn't get those hits in, so it behooves the T-47 player to tilt the game to their advantage by closing range such that it can fire, but the AAT can't.

T-47 w/ORSJ deals 1.875 wounds per attack, cripples in 3-4, kills in 4-5
AAT vs ORSJ deals 1 wound per attack (2 per round), cripples in 3, kills in 4.

But, again, if the 47 closes range, the AAT won't be able to target.

"The T-47s problem isn't it's speed or firepower. It's the fact that it easily takes damage from anything and costs ALOT."

It's only 5 points more than the AAT...which also takes damage from anything, lacks immune to melee/blast, and has no cover to reduce the value of impact.

25 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Of course, but having 12 dice means it really is possible to 1-shot something that has <12 wounds on it, and that can provide a 'huge' cascade advantage down the rest of the game.

i.e. Early possible, even if unlikely, gains mean that you can afford to get worse rolls down the line. It's better to get that huge win turn 1 than turn 6, because doing so has the potential to cripple your opponents offensive capabilities for the rest of the game.

Possible and likely are two very different words. The odds of your opponent failing 9 straight saves with his armored AAT is 1/512. Combo this with the fact that you have to hit with 9 straight shots, means you will probably never come across this scenario. It's pointless to use this as an argument.

25 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I'm all for unique pilots (maybe a Luke pilot even), but I can't imagine barrage going for less than 10-15 points as an upgrade to something like the T-47.

A unique barrage pilot would cost at least 30 points, but probably more. I would prefer it to cost 1/3 of the vehicles point cost (rounded up for the best balance). It is unlikely that we actually see this pilot implemented because it's a very cheesy fix and will probably be the best pilot available for most vehicles. I do feel that it will not break the game, like some people are claiming though.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

T-47 averages 3.75 damage (3 hits, .75 crits) per attack, 7.5 for 2 attacks. And because of Impact 3, it all goes through on average. So it gets that threshold, potentially, within 2 rounds with barrage. That's not nothing. And if it overperforms (as it sometimes will) it potentially cripples turn 1, kills turn 2, or (potentially) even kills turn 1 if there's overperformance + underperformance by the defensive rolls.

As I've stated above, possible and likely are two different words. When we "math hammer", we factor in the likely scenario. Otherwise there would be no point to calculate the statistical odds. It would be just as likely as your opponent made all of their saves.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Yes, of course, the CIS player can attempt to shoot at the 47, but the CIS weaponry is basically bupkiss. It's all impactless dice, so they're just praying for a critical hit to get through the 47's armor, which isn't terribly effective, as it would require 10.5 crits, on average, to get through the white surge dice and achieve the 7 wounds. 10.5 crits when crit fishing is 84 dice, or 14 attacks by B1 droids.

So, yeah, if you commit literally everything in the CIS army, and completely ignore your opponents other forces, it's achieveable within 2-3 turns? That still doesn't account for the certain attrition of the droids, or the ability of the 47 to respond by simply not be in range of those droids through moving appropriately. The beauty of the 47 is that it's basically impossible to pin down, and, if you play the game of positioning correctly, it gets to choose where it wants to be, and how many enemy units are capable of engaging it on any given round.

The reason why I offer this strategy is because based on what you claim, the best option for the rebel speeder is to fly past everything into the CIS deployment zone which puts it in range of majority, if not all, of the CIS forces. At that point, it just makes logical sense that they shoot everything at the speeder. The rest of the rebels forces will be far back in the deployment zone and will need to take a turn to move up in position. I expect the speeder to fall within 1-2 turns assuming it does this strategy.

This is a large problem. How can you avoid the AATs range and the droids range? It just won't happen gameplay wise.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

It does all depend on how the armies are positioned on the board, but there's plenty of room to maneuver, and I think, based on the numbers, it's sometimes worth forgoing an attack in order to achieve position superiority. i.e. Moving the T-47 to somewhere your opponent REALLY does not want it, can be (sometimes) better than just meat-grinding it into the waiting maw.

As for evading the main gun, it's just range 2-4, that makes it no worse (indeed, easier than) the same fight against an AT-ST which has access to both range 1-4 AND range 4+ weaponry (i.e. Everywhere that's visible) and which looks to have a major height advantage.

When it comes to closing range on the AT-ST (much like snipers), or really any enemy unit that has superior range, you have to consider the approach, how to move to not expose your army before it reaches its own ideal attack range. Use cover and concealment to mask until ready to engage and apply maximum force to the minimum possible enemy forces.

The biggest difference between the AT-ST and the AAT is the "fixed front" keyword on it's primary weapon. The AAT doesn't need to waste an move action re-positioning the vehicle. This allows it to take full advantage of the barrage keyword. And if you do need to move the vehicle, then you can use the Arsenal keyword. It seems like a win-win for the AAT.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

T-47 w/Barrage (on a pilot) deals 3.75 average wounds to the AAT, cripples in 2 rounds, kills in 3.
AAT to T-47 w/Barrage deals 2.667 average wounds, cripples in 2, kills in 3;

If the T-47 gets within range 2, the AAT doesn't get those hits in, so it behooves the T-47 player to tilt the game to their advantage by closing range such that it can fire, but the AAT can't.

T-47 w/ORSJ deals 1.875 wounds per attack, cripples in 3-4, kills in 4-5
AAT vs ORSJ deals 1 wound per attack (2 per round), cripples in 3, kills in 4.

But, again, if the 47 closes range, the AAT won't be able to target.

It's only 5 points more than the AAT...which also takes damage from anything, lacks immune to melee/blast, and has no cover to reduce the value of impact.

This is quite interesting. I wonder if 2 AATs may be the route to go then (especially against speeder lists). 1 AAT more aggressively placed while the second AAT covers the first. If the T-47 doesn't move all out, then it gets crippled turn 2.

Your comments make me believe that you think the T-47 is quite durable. It really isn't and that's it's downfall. The AAT can atleast take cover in some situations while the T-47 is hovering in the air, vulnerable to all sorts of fire.

Why do you think the T-47 sees no competitive play (most casual gamers don't run it either).

3 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

As I've stated above, possible and likely are two different words. When we "math hammer", we factor in the likely scenario. Otherwise there would be no point to calculate the statistical odds. It would be just as likely as your opponent made all of their saves.

The reason why I offer this strategy is because based on what you claim, the best option for the rebel speeder is to fly past everything into the CIS deployment zone which puts it in range of majority, if not all, of the CIS forces. At that point, it just makes logical sense that they shoot everything at the speeder. The rest of the rebels forces will be far back in the deployment zone and will need to take a turn to move up in position. I expect the speeder to fall within 1-2 turns assuming it does this strategy.

This is a large problem. How can you avoid the AATs range and the droids range? It just won't happen gameplay wise.

The biggest difference between the AT-ST and the AAT is the "fixed front" keyword on it's primary weapon. The AAT doesn't need to waste an move action re-positioning the vehicle. This allows it to take full advantage of the barrage keyword. And if you do need to move the vehicle, then you can use the Arsenal keyword. It seems like a win-win for the AAT.

This is quite interesting. I wonder if 2 AATs may be the route to go then (especially against speeder lists). 1 AAT more aggressively placed while the second AAT covers the first. If the T-47 doesn't move all out, then it gets crippled turn 2.

Your comments make me believe that you think the T-47 is quite durable. It really isn't and that's it's downfall. The AAT can atleast take cover in some situations while the T-47 is hovering in the air, vulnerable to all sorts of fire.

Why do you think the T-47 sees no competitive play (most casual gamers don't run it either).

Yes I know that possibly and likely have different probabilistic connotations. That’s why I chose the words I did.

The AAT only fires at 2-4, and requires line of sight. It does depend on the deployment card, and the actual deployments used;

It seems like it wasn’t clear, but idea was, if the AAT is attempting to prevent its weak spot from being used, it is forced to keep the rear facing the edge of the board, which is almost certainly some distance from the objectives. Hence the CIS infantry very likely are not present at that location, by necessity of not wanting to de facto lose the game.

As it’s likely that a tank refusing to move up becomes unsupported, the 47 moving into range 1 of it carries little to no risk.

My expectation is that, executed right, the 47 places a stressor on the CIS player, because they either withdraw forces to try and protect the tank (and so far that means....another tank or the rocket launcher, and based purely on precedent I don’t anticipate many players choosing rocket launchers over the e5c blaster on their b1s) or lose the tank in a no contest situation.

Withdrawing forces wastes actions and there’s no reason at all to think B1 present a threat to the 47. As you say, it’s possible, but also highly unlikely.

I would tend to agree, two AATs widely dispersed are probably better than one in a corner

Lastly, the 47 is quite durable, and more importantly doesn’t attrit firepower the way an infantry squad does. Firing non impact weaponry doesn’t do much, very likely nothing at all.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

The AAT only fires at 2-4, and requires line of sight. It does depend on the deployment card, and the actual deployments used;

It seems like it wasn’t clear, but idea was, if the AAT is attempting to prevent its weak spot from being used, it is forced to keep the rear facing the edge of the board, which is almost certainly some distance from the objectives. Hence the CIS infantry very likely are not present at that location, by necessity of not wanting to de facto lose the game.

The Separtist player can protect the AAT's rear without parking it on the board edge.... It's all about the battlefield and how they decide to maneuver the AAT through it. The weak point on the TX-130 will come up much more frequently than the AATs weak point.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

My expectation is that, executed right, the 47 places a stressor on the CIS player, because they either withdraw forces to try and protect the tank (and so far that means....another tank or the rocket launcher, and based purely on precedent I don’t anticipate many players choosing rocket launchers over the e5c blaster on their b1s) or lose the tank in a no contest situation.

Withdrawing forces wastes actions and there’s no reason at all to think B1 present a threat to the 47. As you say, it’s possible, but also highly unlikely.

It's actually quite different. B1s are the cheapest core in the game. The chance of them rolling a Crit is the same as a Clone trooper squad. Except they get 2 more models and cost 16 less points. If you equip a sniper + extra trooper. You are looking at 2 crits a turn for ~60 points. Seems very reasonable. Imagine when the separatists get legit AV. The T-47 won't stand a chance.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Lastly, the 47 is quite durable, and more importantly doesn’t attrit firepower the way an infantry squad does. Firing non impact weaponry doesn’t do much, very likely nothing at all.

From your comments, it seems that you think the T-47 is good. You claim it is quite durable, has high fire power, it has a reliable anti-armor weapon. Then how come people don't take it?

37 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

The Separtist player can protect the AAT's rear without parking it on the board edge.... It's all about the battlefield and how they decide to maneuver the AAT through it. The weak point on the TX-130 will come up much more frequently than the AATs weak point.

It's actually quite different. B1s are the cheapest core in the game. The chance of them rolling a Crit is the same as a Clone trooper squad. Except they get 2 more models and cost 16 less points. If you equip a sniper + extra trooper. You are looking at 2 crits a turn for ~60 points. Seems very reasonable. Imagine when the separatists get legit AV. The T-47 won't stand a chance.

From your comments, it seems that you think the T-47 is good. You claim it is quite durable, has high fire power, it has a reliable anti-armor weapon. Then how come people don't take it?

Yes, I agree that sides mean the GAR tank is more likely to get its weak points exploited; but that doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that the 47 is, amongst the heavies, uniquely situated to exploit the weak point on the AAT.

Sorry, why is the inexpensive nature of the B1 relevant? They only have 1/8 crit; that’s it, and with 7 troopers that’s less than 1 crit per attack; even with the 3 dice of an E5C and the extra trooper they’re looking at a measly 1.25 critical results, which gets knocked down to .8333 expected wounds....but I already explained that. B1s do not present a threat to an armored target, at all, without a rocket launcher upgrade. With the sniper they are only looking at 1.4 wounds, still not great (and if it’s the only one able to hit, it’s only .33; next to nothing).

The tank ‘is’ the CIS antivehicle. They aren’t going to get much more than what they have now, their specialty is almost certainly going to continue to be anti-infantry.

The T-47 is potentially quite valuable, it really depends on how you use it. I would imagine most players who don’t use it wrote it off for the same reason they have ion, not enough vehicles (or armor).

If nobody runs vehicles, anti-vehicle options don’t get as easily justified.