All I see in this thread is @Derrault knocking down literally any changes people suggest without making any of his own. He is defending the Airspeeder 100%, but doesn't seem to realize this unit is NEVER used. So, how about instead of knocking everyone's suggestions, you make an actual suggestion of how to get the Airspeeder more competitive play. Note: Saying "players shouldn't fly it into range of their opponent's entire army on turn 1 or 2" isn't a suggestion.

So I am looking forward to hearing how YOU would make changes, not to the rulebook, not to other units, not to a keyword, but to the airspeeder so it actually sees competitive play.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Given what we see in the movie: They should be completely immune to anything smaller than an e-web. And dedicated anti-vehicle weapons like shoulder missile launchers. Let the points fall where they may.

Arguably, so should the AT-ST and the tanks. I understand the Armour keyword is a simplification, but this is part of why I like the way Bolt Action handles armour with a set value and penetration values on weapons.

2 hours ago, Uchidan1 said:

All I see in this thread is @Derrault knocking down literally any changes people suggest without making any of his own. He is defending the Airspeeder 100%, but doesn't seem to realize this unit is NEVER used. So, how about instead of knocking everyone's suggestions, you make an actual suggestion of how to get the Airspeeder more competitive play. Note: Saying "players shouldn't fly it into range of their opponent's entire army on turn 1 or 2" isn't a suggestion.

So I am looking forward to hearing how YOU would make changes, not to the rulebook, not to other units, not to a keyword, but to the airspeeder so it actually sees competitive play.

Think of this as the Socratic method. If you can’t defend your ideas, why should I think they’re worthy ideas to begin with?

The premise of the claim that it was weak was foundationally flawed, using the assumption that people were sending the unit into the jaws of death, Ie close range on the entire enemy army. The problem with that assumption is that it’s just bad play. My suggestion was basically: Don’t judge a units utility on the basis of someone doing something dumb, because using such a flawed assumption we can make any unit look like a huge waste of resources.

I don’t think it’s anything but misguided to make changes to units simply to ensure that they see play. Making a unit mathematically imbalanced just to surmount the echo chamber of meta will just lead to that unit being omnipresent.

That said, nothing needs to be adjusted, just reprice the unit and test until you reach the mid-point between: Everyone uses and No one uses. If you really think that it needs to be cheaper than 140, game test it at different price points, heck do the extreme: 0 points.

What’s your plan to use this when it’s entirely free? Then scale up by 10 point increments until you reach the level at which you feel it’s no longer worth it. Bearing in mind that the only alternative right now, in the heavy slot, is the X-34, and that’s going to come in at around 150 for equivalent offense, but much weaker defense, and much slower. So if you do drop the T-47 price, you’re implicitly saying the X-34 must be cheaper too.

7 hours ago, Uchidan1 said:

All I see in this thread is @Derrault knocking down literally any changes people suggest without making any of his own. He is defending the Airspeeder 100%, but doesn't seem to realize this unit is NEVER used. So, how about instead of knocking everyone's suggestions, you make an actual suggestion of how to get the Airspeeder more competitive play. Note: Saying "players shouldn't fly it into range of their opponent's entire army on turn 1 or 2" isn't a suggestion.

So I am looking forward to hearing how YOU would make changes, not to the rulebook, not to other units, not to a keyword, but to the airspeeder so it actually sees competitive play.

While I can agree on his point that unit not being used dosen't mean it's automaticly bad as there are other variables and such.

However he is a know troll on these forums, just so you know.

The T-47 seems to have multiple small issues that when combined cause the lack of desirability.

The main weapon is range 3. This is good for troops on the ground but bad for a vehicle that is pretty much designed to fight other vehicles. It has to get in close to do damage but all other vehicles have a range 4 option and are able to shoot first.

The main weapon is fixed: Front. This means that it has to fly directly at whatever it's shooting at. Direct attacks are the only option and this telegraphs its moves making it easier for enemies to prepare and counter.

Speed 3 Compulsory move. Most lists have their units staying somewhat close to each other for various effects. Even if it is able to shoot at one of the units on the outskirts of the enemy formation the next turn will almost force it to fly directly into range of more units that can return fire.

Arsenal 2 requires being in a bad position. In order to use the added hardpoint weapon the T-47 needs to be surrounded by enemy units. The current options are all Fixed: Rear which only allow it to shoot at a different target than it would with the main weapon. No focusing fire on a single target. This results in at least 2 units ready to return fire if the attack was unable to take out the targets with a good possibility of more. Critical hits are easier to get when more dice are being rolled.

These issues result in the T-47 needing to be in an undesirable position on the board to perform it's job. The physical defense is good with cover 1 (2 with wookiee help) and full armor. Red dice would be nice but the white dice keep it more inline with the movie performance. The defense problem is positional defense and what most people are experiencing when they say it's weak and dies easy. There is no hiding behind terrain or staying back and shooting from afar. Avoiding combat all together is an option but this results in a felt waste of points that could have been used more effectively elsewhere.

I would like to see a hardpoint upgrade that gives the T-47 (and possibly the AT-ST) the new ordinance slot to trade additional guns for missiles/bombs. It should be Fixed:Front to compliment the main gun along with the arsenal 2 and could add a range 4 weapon. This would allow the T-47 more combat options and possibly a different roll on the battlefield. An ordinance option that drops mines would be interesting and would let the T-47 to be played completely different.

I just recently tried the T-47, it didn't do terribly but I think it's still missing something. I like the idea of barrage on the main weapon, or a new upgrade that would give it access to the new CW ordnance. I don't mind it being fragile, it just needs to hit a little harder than it does for its points.

1 minute ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

I just recently tried the T-47, it didn't do terribly but I think it's still missing something. I like the idea of barrage on the main weapon, or a new upgrade that would give it access to the new CW ordnance. I don't mind it being fragile, it just needs to hit a little harder than it does for its points.

It actually is pretty good in my opinion. I agree that he may be lacking in terms of damage, but when played defensively it can be a real pain to shut down. I like to use it as a bait so my rebels can get in range of the imperials without getting absolutely destroyed by the gunline. If they don't take the bait, I'll use the T-47 as a Gav killer (my playgroup isn't very competitive). It might not be competively strong, but it's a very fun unit to play and that is the important in a game imho.

I would make the argument that FFG should have made the poor thing OP for at least a year. Played enough video games and board games to know that if they if they let it drag out too long then you end up with another twin laser turret (Vietnam noises intensifies).

The T-47 is the face of failure in Legion and while they did make it at least okayish that still would not be enough to get rid of the stigma on it. Made worse in a game that almost all vehicles struggle to be meta in, and the fact that I personally think the core mechanic of the airspeeder has never worked. **** I just listened to a Legion podcast in which they consider T-47 a curse word (the other being tauntaun lol). Kill all the jokes/debate and make a success story and maybe even sell a few in the process.

Will be interesting to see if they try again since they seemed reluctant at all to do point changes in the first place. On the other hand, they just released a rules change that both buff and nurfed several units so meh?

I personally don't see the T47 as weak anymore but in comparison to other vehicles especially the new ones it is overcosted. For me there are two arguments in here, one I buy and one I think is overblown (it isn't weak to critical).

It is way more survivable than when we had DLT spam where you could reliably ping the T47 for one wound per stormtrooper unit per round while letting that storm trooper squad still move and shoot the rest of their guns at whatever target was most advantageous. Throw Veers in there and it was pretty bad. Today with most units having critical I am finding it actually pretty survivable and disruptive. It usually takes an entire army focus firing for over 1 turn to take down a T 47 now. If you don't rush in turn one, when you engage you usually have support and multiple threats for an enemy army to deal with at that point. The rebel army tends to be a range 3 to melee army so as a cohesive strategy it isn't too bad.

That being said it is overcosted and doesn't represent a heavy vehicle as compared to the other factions. It doesn't have rage 4 guns and it does have to dive into something somewhere to use its guns, its arsenal isn't functionally usable until turn 3, it doesn't have a weak point to get red defense dice but weak points are a "weak mechanic" (get it) because in actual gameplay most weakpoints won't be exposed until late game.

If its cost was reduced 10 points to 15 points it allows the rebels to take a T47 and a basic squad for the same points as the other sides tank. That seems balanced then.

@jocke01
"However he is a know troll on these forums, just so you know."

Don't get all cranky just because the ideas that have been presented didn't hold up under even minimal consideration.

@jocke01 @RyantheFett ; I had a very simple ask: Pick a price point at which you think the T-47 is competitive but not mandatory. @Uetur suggested 125-130 points, did you think it should be lower than that?

9 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@jocke01
"However he is a know troll on these forums, just so you know."

Don't get all cranky just because the ideas that have been presented didn't hold up under even minimal consideration.

@jocke01 @RyantheFett ; I had a very simple ask: Pick a price point at which you think the T-47 is competitive but not mandatory. @Uetur suggested 125-130 points, did you think it should be lower than that?

I'm not cranky, just stating the facts after several threads

I never suggested more points reduction, good evenening!

6 minutes ago, jocke01 said:

I'm not cranky, just stating the facts after several threads

I never suggested more points reduction, good evenening!

It’s not a fact mate, it’s just libel.

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a fact mate, it’s just libel.

Yes and a very fitting one 😋 .

Either way, back on the topic at hand. I feel that the buffs and the point reduction helps some of the design flaws in defence and cost.

However I have played with it in several occacions, with different loadouts and lists and like most players experience I find the same problems:

It needs to get within range 3 to fire and have a hard time surviving the return fire.

Cover 1 is to little to help you dodge at range 4 and even with the wookie pilot, the influx of critical makes it about the same as before.

When it fires the lack of surge-hit and weapon keywords to fight ifantry makes it feel toothless. Often only deliver around 4 hits vs troops in cover resulting in around 1-2 dead, wich is to little for a unit that almost covers a 4th of your list.

The arsenal gun also lacks useful keywords and is hard to use enough times to make it worth it espechially with the large base that can't fit everywhere.

I think more points wont make it more compeditive unless we go crazy and drop it to 100 or below. Things that could be done is to swap impact 3 into critical 3 to make the guns actually so enough damage as well as add supressive on the buzzer. This combined with everything else that has been done might be enough. If that isn't enough then release a rebel commander that has command cards to help vehicles and not just troopers.

jocke01 signing out.

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

@jocke01 @RyantheFett ; I had a very simple ask: Pick a price point at which you think the T-47 is competitive but not mandatory. @Uetur suggested 125-130 points, did you think it should be lower than that?

I guess I could pick a price point, but where is the fun in that? Maybe if they did point changes like in X-wing I would throw out some points, but we only got a shot once a year. And these forums got a lot right about past nurfs, so I like to see where everyone lands land for airspeeder changes.

I think the core of the T-47 is flawed, just look at other post that do a way better job of explaining the issues. Like:

10 hours ago, Captain Pachu said:

The T-47 seems to have multiple small issues that when combined cause the lack of desirability.

The main weapon is range 3. This is good for troops on the ground but bad for a vehicle that is pretty much designed to fight other vehicles. It has to get in close to do damage but all other vehicles have a range 4 option and are able to shoot first.

The main weapon is fixed: Front. This means that it has to fly directly at whatever it's shooting at. Direct attacks are the only option and this telegraphs its moves making it easier for enemies to prepare and counter.

Speed 3 Compulsory move. Most lists have their units staying somewhat close to each other for various effects. Even if it is able to shoot at one of the units on the outskirts of the enemy formation the next turn will almost force it to fly directly into range of more units that can return fire.

Arsenal 2 requires being in a bad position. In order to use the added hardpoint weapon the T-47 needs to be surrounded by enemy units. The current options are all Fixed: Rear which only allow it to shoot at a different target than it would with the main weapon. No focusing fire on a single target. This results in at least 2 units ready to return fire if the attack was unable to take out the targets with a good possibility of more. Critical hits are easier to get when more dice are being rolled.

These issues result in the T-47 needing to be in an undesirable position on the board to perform it's job. The physical defense is good with cover 1 (2 with wookiee help) and full armor. Red dice would be nice but the white dice keep it more inline with the movie performance. The defense problem is positional defense and what most people are experiencing when they say it's weak and dies easy. There is no hiding behind terrain or staying back and shooting from afar. Avoiding combat all together is an option but this results in a felt waste of points that could have been used more effectively elsewhere.

So instead of a points change that will force people to take the T-47 because it is soooo cheap, let them add a keyword or two to change the whole concept into something new!

Sure in a casual game it can get stuff done, but doesn't the airspeeder deserve better then just good? The Clone Wars heavies look like they could change the whole meta, so I think it is a fair question to ask why the T-47 should not have its time to shine?

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a fact mate, it’s just libel.

At this point it's a fact, as much a fact as the T-47 is not viable in the current meta

16 minutes ago, TheHoosh said:

At this point it's a fact, as much a fact as the T-47 is not viable in the current meta

Oh really, you have actual data of T-47 lists entering tournaments and how they performed?

Just now, Derrault said:

Oh really, you have actual data of T-47 lists entering tournaments and how they performed?

Ah I see you caught my loophole, so now you have to figure out if the T-47 is viable or if you truly are a troll

1 minute ago, TheHoosh said:

Ah I see you caught my loophole, so now you have to figure out if the T-47 is viable or if you truly are a troll

You mean, the loophole that says it’s not a fact? 😂

11 minutes ago, Derrault said:

You mean, the loophole that says it’s not a fact? 😂

Yep

38 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Oh really, you have actual data of T-47 lists entering tournaments and how they performed?

you mean high level tournament data like this:

https://legiontournamentcircuit.com/tournament-data-2019/

I went through the first 20 rebel lists that won tournaments, not a single T-47 among them, there were a couple land speeders even, but zero T-47's

I'm sure if I were to continue the fruitless task of going through many more rebel winning lists I would find few, but likely 0 T-47's.

If this isn't enough evidence of the T-47's lacklustre performance then nothing will be enough for your unrealistic expectations of evidence that its not bad.

And here is a top 8 with three rebel list https://thefifthtrooper.com/las-vegas-open-top-8-lists/

Pretty boring list, but good for Papa Palp.

1 hour ago, Mace Windu said:

you mean high level tournament data like this:

https://legiontournamentcircuit.com/tournament-data-2019/

I went through the first 20 rebel lists that won tournaments, not a single T-47 among them, there were a couple land speeders even, but zero T-47's

I'm sure if I were to continue the fruitless task of going through many more rebel winning lists I would find few, but likely 0 T-47's.

If this isn't enough evidence of the T-47's lacklustre performance then nothing will be enough for your unrealistic expectations of evidence that its not bad.

Zero use is not performance data.

edit: It’s a total lack of data, which literally supports the point I made. The claim that it’s bad is baseless and has no data to demonstrate that.

6 minutes ago, Derrault said:

The claim that it’s bad is baseless and has no data to demonstrate that.

It is surely pure coincidence that nobody has ever won a major tournament with a list including a unit that has been available for the entire lifetime of the game.

This list could be fun.

We Don't Care About Your Suppression

795/800 : 1 : 0 : 3 : 0 : 3 : 2

16 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

It is surely pure coincidence that nobody has ever won a major tournament with a list including a unit that has been available for the entire lifetime of the game.

It's not just that no-one has won with the T-47, it seems to be next to impossible to find any tournament lists that include the it, despite (as you said) it being available since the very beginning of the game. I think I've even seen the occasional list with Speeder bikes or AT-ST, at least towards the beginning of the game...

@SoonerTed Especially after the next terrain/combat condition card release since I think at that point it should be possible to make an objective deck with 4 objectives vehicles can contribute to.