8 hours ago, Derrault said:

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).

B1 cost is quite relevant because it means more B1s. A squad of 8 B1s will deal 2 critical hits -> 2 wounds unless the T-47 player rolls above average on saving throws.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

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.

All factions will have a balance of anti-armor and anti-infantry weapons. It's silly to think otherwise. In fact, during one of the legion podcasts, they mentioned that both CW factions will be getting significant AA options when their tanks come out.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

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).

It seems like you are one of the outliers. The community thinks that the T-47 is a poor option and I do aswell. The main reason is lack of durability and high point cost. It's damage potential is high, but not high enough to compensate for it's fragility and point cost. It only takes 10 critical hits to take it down...

But.... flat earthers and anti-vaxxers exist, so believe what you want.

26 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

B1 cost is quite relevant because it means more B1s. A squad of 8 B1s will deal 2 critical hits -> 2 wounds unless the T-47 player rolls above average on saving throws.

All factions will have a balance of anti-armor and anti-infantry weapons. It's silly to think otherwise. In fact, during one of the legion podcasts, they mentioned that both CW factions will be getting significant AA options when their tanks come out.

It seems like you are one of the outliers. The community thinks that the T-47 is a poor option and I do aswell. The main reason is lack of durability and high point cost. It's damage potential is high, but not high enough to compensate for it's fragility and point cost. It only takes 10 critical hits to take it down...

But.... flat earthers and anti-vaxxers exist, so believe what you want.

Yeah, see, the cost doesn’t matter because I actually did factor in the upgraded version of the B1, still not a threat.

A balance does not mean omnipresence, as you apparently think. The empire, by far, has the most access to Impact, Rebels Ion, and GAR critical.

I hate to ruin your day, CIS already has the de minimis Impact it’s going to get. And, in case you didn’t notice, this is the tank.

The loudest mouths have certainly put in their opinions, but they are invariably empty of actual facts; you know, basic math to support their propositions. My position is entirely with the facts, deny that if you like, you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

Yeah, see, the cost doesn’t matter because I actually did factor in the upgraded version of the B1, still not a threat.

2 Critical hits per B1 squad to the T-47 = 28% damage and that's not a threat?

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

A balance does not mean omnipresence, as you apparently think. The empire, by far, has the most access to Impact, Rebels Ion, and GAR critical.

I hate to ruin your day, CIS already has the de minimis Impact it’s going to get. And, in case you didn’t notice, this is the tank.

The game would become imbalanced if factions did not have equivalent access to dealing with armored units. The CIS will surely get more tools in later expansion and you would be a fool to believe otherwise.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

The loudest mouths have certainly put in their opinions, but they are invariably empty of actual facts; you know, basic math to support their propositions. My position is entirely with the facts, deny that if you like, you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

Yet you choose to ignore the biggest fact, lack of T-47s in competitive play. I ask you: What list won worlds? What lists were competing at the top table? What were the lists that were at the tournament? How many brought the T-47?

When you begin to answer these questions you'll notice that the T-47 doesn't see competitive play.

The next logical conclusion is to ask why? I've been asking you this question and you can't seem to answer it.

This makes me believe one of two things:

1. You actually think it's good despite evidence that it's not (anti-vaxxer/flat earther).

2. You like running the vehicle (despite it being pretty overcosted), so you are biased to support it.

Here's the thing, don't let me or anyone tell you what you can like or play with. Play with what you want and enjoy the game! However, trying to convince people that something is good despite conflicting evidence isn't fair.

23 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

2 Critical hits per B1 squad to the T-47 = 28% damage and that's not a threat?

The game would become imbalanced if factions did not have equivalent access to dealing with armored units. The CIS will surely get more tools in later expansion and you would be a fool to believe otherwise.

Yet you choose to ignore the biggest fact, lack of T-47s in competitive play. I ask you: What list won worlds? What lists were competing at the top table? What were the lists that were at the tournament? How many brought the T-47?

When you begin to answer these questions you'll notice that the T-47 doesn't see competitive play.

The next logical conclusion is to ask why? I've been asking you this question and you can't seem to answer it.

This makes me believe one of two things:

1. You actually think it's good despite evidence that it's not (anti-vaxxer/flat earther).

2. You like running the vehicle (despite it being pretty overcosted), so you are biased to support it.

Here's the thing, don't let me or anyone tell you what you can like or play with. Play with what you want and enjoy the game! However, trying to convince people that something is good despite conflicting evidence isn't fair.

If that same B1 fires on a unit of say, Fleets, it could expect to deal 2.5 wounds, which is >33% damage, which also reduces that h it’s output by 1.875 damage.

1 wound against a unit that doesn’t suffer from attrition really isn’t a big deal.

The game is balanced just fine, if a CIS player wants anti-armor, it exists, it just has greater access to anti-infantry. It’s ok for the factions to have different ratios and greater levels of access to different abilities.

If you don’t get it, it’s a basic GIGO equation, if no one bothers to bring lists with a given unit, that unit won’t be present in the final result.

For example, when most seed lists bring 3 snipers, it would be ‘more’ surprising to have a final 8 where 1 or more lists don’t have 3.

Controlling for the general population is a 101 level principle of evaluating stats mate

You know what the makeup of the winners does tell us? Those unit choices are, invariably, the most popular ones. Nothing else. It’s ok, it’s a rookie mistake for those without a background in math or statistical analysis.

Hey @R3dReVenge save yourself the headache just stop arguing with dingus. You're playing chess with a pigeon.

41 minutes ago, Derrault said:

1 wound against a unit that doesn’t suffer from attrition really isn’t a big deal.

It's 2 wounds. And it becomes a big deal if there are multiple units. 3 units of B1s shoot down the T-47 in 2 turns...

41 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If you don’t get it, it’s a basic GIGO equation, if no one bothers to bring lists with a given unit, that unit won’t be present in the final result.

For example, when most seed lists bring 3 snipers, it would be ‘more’ surprising to have a final 8 where 1 or more lists don’t have 3.

Except if the T-47 is so good then how come these players don't bring it? By your comments it has no weakness, yet no one plays it? Why?

41 minutes ago, Derrault said:

You know what the makeup of the winners does tell us? Those unit choices are, invariably, the most popular ones. Nothing else. It’s ok, it’s a rookie mistake for those without a background in math or statistical analysis.

This is a lazy excuse to a failed argument. These players are playing in a competitive tournament and are choosing not run "powerful" units like the T-47. Something seems very off with this logic. Instead of snipers being everywhere, it would be the T-47..... right?

I've played 40k for a decade and this is the case for all tournament lists. Weak units get left out. Powerful units are brought in great quantities. People want to win!

When you begin to look at the evidence of local tournaments, it's very obvious that the only conclusion to be made is that the T-47 is quite bad.

10 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Hey @R3dReVenge save yourself the headache just stop arguing with dingus. You're playing chess with a pigeon.

This will be my final post on this thread. After his last post, I think it's become very clear that he's unwilling to look at the community stats. He dismissing tournament results, just how anti-vaxxers dismiss medical findings.

Just now, R3dReVenge said:

It's 2 wounds. And it becomes a big deal if there are multiple units. 3 units of B1s shoot down the T-47 in 2 turns...

Except if the T-47 is so good then how come these players don't bring it? By your comments it has no weakness, yet no one plays it? Why?

This is a lazy excuse to a failed argument. These players are playing in a competitive tournament and are choosing not run "powerful" units like the T-47. Something seems very off with this logic. Instead of snipers being everywhere, it would be the T-47..... right?

I've played 40k for a decade and this is the case for all tournament lists. Weak units get left out. Powerful units are brought in great quantities. People want to win!

When you begin to look at the evidence of local tournaments, it's very obvious that the only conclusion to be made is that the T-47 is quite bad.

Hits != Wounds. I can’t help you if you don’t put any effort in.

Wow, it's been a few weeks since a good, interesting thread was absolutely destroyed by someone arguing for page after page with Derrault about whether or not the T-47 is good.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

Wow, it's been a few weeks since a good, interesting thread was absolutely destroyed by someone arguing for page after page with Derrault about whether or not the T-47 is good.

Sometimes it’s impossible to help the ignorant.

On 8/8/2019 at 7:19 AM, RaevenKS said:

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).

Even with added survivability though, the T-47 needs to be able to affect the game outcome equal to it's cost. Which means it needs to be able to deal good enough damage to justify it's cost. If it deals no damage, it can be invincible and it still won't have a place.

3 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

Sometimes it’s impossible to help the ignorant.

That’s a surprising amount of introspection based on your previous posts.

17 hours ago, Kingsguard said:

Even with added survivability though, the T-47 needs to be able to affect the game outcome equal to it's cost. Which means it needs to be able to deal good enough damage to justify it's cost. If it deals no damage, it can be invincible and it still won't have a place.

I think a barrage pilot is a perfect solution to this problem. It would put the T-47 to costing around ~210 points = 25% of the list.

i think outmaneuver would a be something we would see over barrage for the t47 and it will make it more of a tank then what it is now.

25 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

i think outmaneuver would a be something we would see over barrage for the t47 and it will make it more of a tank then what it is now.

Do you think outmaneuver would be taken over the cover 2 pilot?

6 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

Do you think outmaneuver would be taken over the cover 2 pilot?

spend dodge to cancel crit hit not sure they are about even there.

6 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

spend dodge to cancel crit hit not sure they are about even there.

I wonder if FFG will just rework the Speeder entirely. Reduce points by ~20. Add outmaneuever onto the unit card and go from there.

Possibly rework it's attack dice pool...

9 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

I wonder if FFG will just rework the Speeder entirely. Reduce points by ~20. Add outmaneuever onto the unit card and go from there.

Possibly rework it's attack dice pool...

its the same price as the tank it doesn't need point drop for the speeder. even with upgrades its cheaper then the at-st. the pilots they added so far have been great to make it more playable it doesn't need barrage just maybe a pilot that adds both cover 1 and outmaneuver at 30 points then it will be really a tank :-D.

6 minutes ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

its the same price as the tank it doesn't need point drop for the speeder. even with upgrades its cheaper then the at-st. the pilots they added so far have been great to make it more playable it doesn't need barrage just maybe a pilot that adds both cover 1 and outmaneuver at 30 points then it will be really a tank :-D.

Yet, it still doesn't see any competitive play. People will tell you that the AT-ST is overcosted aswell (but not as bad as the T-47).

A dual pilot seems like an interesting idea, but quite expensive at 205 points for only 6 attack dice.

But at the end of the day, I'm not a rebel player. If the T-47 isn't playable, it only reduces the diversity of my competition and makes it easier when I list build.

1 hour ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

i think outmaneuver would a be something we would see over barrage for the t47 and it will make it more of a tank then what it is now.

That would be terrible. Having to spend an action on Dodge would neuter the Airspeeders already terrible (for the cost) offense.

57 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

Do you think outmaneuver would be taken over the cover 2 pilot?

Never, unless it was free. See above.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

That would be terrible. Having to spend an action on Dodge would neuter the Airspeeders already terrible (for the cost) offense.

it gets a free movement already, and 3 red (even if the weapon breaks) and 3 black is great offense compare to 2 red and 2 black and 2 white

2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:

Yet, it still doesn't see any competitive play. People will tell you that the AT-ST is overcosted aswell (but not as bad as the T-47).

A dual pilot seems like an interesting idea, but quite expensive at 205 points for only 6 attack dice.

But at the end of the day, I'm not a rebel player. If the T-47 isn't playable, it only reduces the diversity of my competition and makes it easier when I list build.

the at-st is not over cost and i play it alot, the biggest benift the at-st has over the speeder is for alot more points you can add in more fire power and a pilot that gives surge to hit (which it needs) but it doesn't have cover or ignore blast.

3 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

That would be terrible. Having to spend an action on Dodge would neuter the Airspeeders already terrible (for the cost) offense.

Never, unless it was free. See above.

It deals 3.75 @1-3 for 175

Luke Skywalker deals 3.75 at range 0 for 160.

You don’t think range 1-3 from 0 is worth 15 points??

2 hours ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

it gets a free movement already, and 3 red (even if the weapon breaks) and 3 black is great offense compare to 2 red and 2 black and 2 white

the at-st is not over cost and i play it alot, the biggest benift the at-st has over the speeder is for alot more points you can add in more fire power and a pilot that gives surge to hit (which it needs) but it doesn't have cover or ignore blast.

That’s awesome that you run it! I’m glad that people are playing it somewhere.

Unfortunately, no one runs it at my Chicagoland store. And I didn’t see any ATSTs at worlds which makes me believe that it isn’t good in the current meta.

Look at the TX-130 and how it’s priced. It’s basically better than the ATST in every way and it costs 25 points less.

1 hour ago, azeronbloodmoone said:

it gets a free movement already, and 3 red (even if the weapon breaks) and 3 black is great offense compare to 2 red and 2 black and 2 white

It averages 3.75 damage. Even if they are standing in the open, it will kill less than 2 Stormtroopers on average. That's pathetic for a unit that costs about 25% of your points. It desperately needs to be spending actions on moving to a better postion or Aiming to make it slightly less pathetic on offense. Having ot spend actions on Dodge makes it 200 pts of worthless.

2 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

It averages 3.75 damage. Even if they are standing in the open, it will kill less than 2 Stormtroopers on average. That's pathetic for a unit that costs about 25% of your points. It desperately needs to be spending actions on moving to a better postion or Aiming to make it slightly less pathetic on offense. Having ot spend actions on Dodge makes it 200 pts of worthless.

You may not have noticed, but the points you’re paying go into the armor and the speed more than the offense (although that is still superior to ...every other Rebel unit, so...