Critical hits are gameplay accelerators. Without some amount of automatic wounds going through, games would go on significantly longer.

36 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

Critical hits are gameplay accelerators. Without some amount of automatic wounds going through, games would go on significantly longer.

I just want to ensure that you don't think crits are automatic wounds. You are thinking of Pierce, if so.

Edit: to be honest, the frantic, breathless way a lot of people talk about Critical X could give people the impression that they don't allow a defensive roll, so maybe I should be asking this question more often, especially given the fact that I have seen newbies playing the game as if crits were piercing.

49 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

Critical hits are gameplay accelerators. Without some amount of automatic wounds going through, games would go on significantly longer.

That’s a good thought. My concern is it creates a game that favors red saves. If cover and dodges can’t help my Rebel Troopers survive, then how do I navigate the board for objectives? It puts significant skill based play on white save armies with little skill needed for red save gun lines.

Of course, the answer to my own question is Luke Skywalker.

50 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I just want to ensure that you don't think crits are automatic wounds. You are thinking of Pierce, if so.

Edit: to be honest, the frantic, breathless way a lot of people talk about Critical X could give people the impression that they don't allow a defensive roll, so maybe I should be asking this question more often, especially given the fact that I have seen newbies playing the game as if crits were piercing.

Oh I do know you get a save!

It's just that heavy cover is so strong, imagine a world where troopers shot at each other over heavy cover without crits, that would mean squads getting taken out a lot less often, which means longer games, etc. The game is long enough as it is!

10 minutes ago, smickletz said:

That’s a good thought. My concern is it creates a game that favors red saves. If cover and dodges can’t help my Rebel Troopers survive, then how do I navigate the board for objectives? It puts significant skill based play on white save armies with little skill needed for red save gun lines.

It does skew towards red saves, and I honestly disagree with dodge tokens not cancelling crits, and the devs seem to agree with me with Situational Awareness coming into existence. It probably can't be equipped on regular Rebel troopers since it might be a little strong for 2 points on baseline troopers with Nimble? Time will tell as people get used to the upgrade.

15 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

It does skew towards red saves, and I honestly disagree with dodge tokens not cancelling crits, and the devs seem to agree with me with Situational Awareness coming into existence. It probably can't be equipped on regular Rebel troopers since it might be a little strong for 2 points on baseline troopers with Nimble? Time will tell as people get used to the upgrade.

By default, is cannot be equipped on regular Rebel Troopers. However Rebel Troopers can also take the Rebel Trooper Captain to allow them to equip Situational Awareness, but it then costs them 16 points (though they also get an extra trooper and a useful exhaust ability).

3 hours ago, Lochlan said:

By default, is cannot be equipped on regular Rebel Troopers. However Rebel Troopers can also take the Rebel Trooper Captain to allow them to equip Situational Awareness, but it then costs them 16 points (though they also get an extra trooper and a useful exhaust ability).

Rebel vets my friends rebel vets

51 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Rebel vets my friends rebel vets

Sure, but his concern was Rebel Troopers with Nimble. I do think it's a pretty compelling option for Vets, though.

6 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

I just want to ensure that you don't think crits are automatic wounds. You are thinking of Pierce, if so.

Edit: to be honest, the frantic, breathless way a lot of people talk about Critical X could give people the impression that they don't allow a defensive roll, so maybe I should be asking this question more often, especially given the fact that I have seen newbies playing the game as if crits were piercing.

I still have my breath thank you very much. I just point out that crits in legion are very powerful, far more powerful than crits in the other star wars games using d8's. Critical is not overpowered in itself, but it distrupt game balance, by negating cover and dodge wich really unfavours some units and critical can often be more effective vs armor than impact wich is supposed to be the keyword to use.

A thing can be unbalanced or working werid without it being overpowered and an instant win button.

I don't think red saves have ever been costed properly, especially on those pesky core units. Having a red save is such a good hard counter to issues around crit and cover, and all at all low low cost.

10 hours ago, Memorare said:

I don't think red saves have ever been costed properly, especially on those pesky core units. Having a red save is such a good hard counter to issues around crit and cover, and all at all low low cost.

Maybe it's just the dice rolls in my games, but I don't see red saves as a "hard counter" to anything. It's easiest to see the difference in the saves by converting from the color to the equivalent on a standard d6:
Red with surge: 3+
Red: 4+
White with surge: 5+
White: 6+

So a red save is (only stopping 1/6 more hits) EDIT: results on average, in 50% more saves, that's not that huge of a difference in my experience, models are still removed from the table fairly quickly compared to some other games. Cover and Dodge are still important, regardless of the unit's save, as any time you roll dice you risk taking a wound.

What's interesting to me, is that the difference in cost between Critical and Impact is only 4 points. Primarily because there are ways of stopping Impact from being activated by cancelling hits with Cover and Dodge tokens. I suppose the intended balancing factor is that Critical only has a 1/8 chance of applying to any single die, so is less likely to trigger from smaller dice pools, but it does increase the odds of rolling a Crit on any one die to 1/4.

I suppose that would be another interesting design change that might prevent Critical from feeling unbalanced: it only allows for conversion of surges until the pool has a number of crits in it equal to the value of X. Say I have a pool with Critical 1 and I roll 1 crit, 2 hits, and 2 surges. Since the results already have a crit in them, I can't convert the surge using Critical. If that same pool had Critical 2, then I could convert 1 surge to a crit, ending up with 2 crits, 2 hits, and 1 surge in the results.

Maybe hard counter is overly strong. Let's say the best available counter. That 4+ really pays.

4 hours ago, Lochlan said:

Sure, but his concern was Rebel Troopers with Nimble. I do think it's a pretty compelling option for Vets, though.

I was just wondering aloud if this was made a training because it would have been really strong on Rebel Troopers with Nimble (although it couldn't have been much else). I know they can't equip it without an upgrade!

Red saves are strong but I don't know that they're under costed, most units with red saves pay for it, either with weaker weapons, lower speed, or a higher point cost.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So a red save is only stopping 1/6 more hits, that's not that huge of a difference in my experience, models are still removed from the table fairly quickly compared to some other games. Cover and Dodge are still important, regardless of the unit's save, as any time you roll dice you risk taking a wound.

Red saves have 1/6 higher chance of rolling a save. This is NOT the same as stopping only 1/6 more saves! In fact, red saves stop 50% more saves: The save probability for white is 1/3, the save probability for red is 1/2. for example: 6 hits before saves result on average in 4 wounds on white/surge and 3 in red saves. So 2 blocked vs 3 blocked -> 50% more blocks. This is a lot. Plus you can push red saves to 2/3 save probability (stopping twice the hits as whites) with a surge token.

When using math, please do it properly 😉 .

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

8 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

Red saves have 1/6 higher chance of rolling a save. This is NOT the same as stopping only 1/6 more saves! In fact, red saves stop 50% more saves: The save probability for white is 1/3, the save probability for red is 1/2. for example: 6 hits before saves result on average in 4 wounds on white/surge and 3 in red saves. So 2 blocked vs 3 blocked -> 50% more blocks. This is a lot. Plus you can push red saves to 2/3 save probability (stopping twice the hits as whites) with a surge token.

When using math, please do it properly 😉 .

Lesson here kids is don't try to do statistics late at night. Edited original post to better reflect the math.

@SailorMeni Correct me if I'm wrong, but a surge token shouldn't perfectly equate to having a 2/3 chance of blocking on all the dice in the pool, but it should change the statistics by some lesser amount, since the odds of getting at least one block are increased. As far as I am aware, it should not have the same effect as innate Surge->Block, since it only changes the result of 1 die per token.

Also, in a game where the unit health is generally between four and six (especially for red die units), 1 to 2 more saves isn't likely to keep a unit in the board for a significant period of time. On average, it might mean one more activation of attacking, which I admit, depending on the game state can be beneficial. But it doesn't change red dice into an easy win vs white dice needing a bunch of tricks.

Since this is a dice game rather than just using abstract math, the extremes of the curve do happen. So we sometimes have a white defence dice pool roll nothing but blocks, and a red with surge defence pool roll nothing but blanks. Any time you have to roll a defence die, there is a chance you are taking a wound. The ability to force that roll, or to avoid that roll is very good, regardless of the defence die.

@jocke01

"I still have my breath thank you very much. I just point out that crits in legion are very powerful, far more powerful than crits in the other star wars games using d8's. Critical is not overpowered in itself, but it distrupt game balance, by negating cover and dodge wich really unfavours some units and critical can often be more effective vs armor than impact wich is supposed to be the keyword to use.

A thing can be unbalanced or working werid without it being overpowered and an instant win button."

If you could 'choose' to critical, it'd be a button. This is chance. What if we just make sure the odds are appropriately stacked in favor of the alternatives? Like, what if the non critical results were, combined, 7 times more likely than the critical attack results?

Just looking at the ratios involved, when it comes to keywords Critical is better than Impact on targets in cover, but worse against armor, which is fine, and exactly how it should work whenever there's a choice of upgrading for impact or upgrading for critical. Impact is specialty vs armor, Critical is just a generalized damage buff.

The keywords have fairly clear counters: Impact vs Armor; High Velocity vs Dodge; Sharpshooter/Blast vs Cover.
Critical is very middle of the road. It's good against everything, but not nearly as effective as the counter keywords are.

The ratio is not 1/8 crits, it's 2/8 with critical, but that's not important.

Impact is in theory better than critical vs armor, the problem is that for impact to work you need enough hits. Sadly impact weapons often have black and white dice that aren't so reliable and that's before cover and dodge comes in and stops impact from working. This is also followed by high point cost and often exhaust to use. If included in a big pool with re-rolls and or better dice impact have a bigger impact. Critical weapons often don't require exhaust for usage, cost less and gives some units more hits by giving then offensive surge. I just don't think an all round weapon should be equal if not more powerful than a specialised weapon.

My overall point is that armor vehicles have a hard time in Legion atm. Armor dosen't offer enough protection to make people bring the big impact guns and/or the vehicles aren't threatening enough to draw primary enemy fire and critical pot shots is enough.

I think critical could get a nerf, but I rather see armor buffed to make impact weapon compete in list building and make more varied lists where both vehicles and anti tank weapons are more popular. Critical isn't the ultimate bad guy here, but a symptom of the bigger problem IMO.

5 hours ago, jocke01 said:

The ratio is not 1/8 crits, it's 2/8 with critical, but that's not important.

Impact is in theory better than critical vs armor, the problem is that for impact to work you need enough hits. Sadly impact weapons often have black and white dice that aren't so reliable and that's before cover and dodge comes in and stops impact from working. This is also followed by high point cost and often exhaust to use. If included in a big pool with re-rolls and or better dice impact have a bigger impact. Critical weapons often don't require exhaust for usage, cost less and gives some units more hits by giving then offensive surge. I just don't think an all round weapon should be equal if not more powerful than a specialised weapon.

My overall point is that armor vehicles have a hard time in Legion atm. Armor dosen't offer enough protection to make people bring the big impact guns and/or the vehicles aren't threatening enough to draw primary enemy fire and critical pot shots is enough.

I think critical could get a nerf, but I rather see armor buffed to make impact weapon compete in list building and make more varied lists where both vehicles and anti tank weapons are more popular. Critical isn't the ultimate bad guy here, but a symptom of the bigger problem IMO.

Sorry, but what?

Even a white impact die without surge is literally as good at bypassing armor as a red die with critical. Critical is worse at getting through armor under every possible circumstance.

For the sake of argument, it's possible that the pools of dice in the game with critical are bigger than those with impact...but I think we should count them first before making the claim.

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

Sorry, but what?

Even a white impact die without surge is literally as good at bypassing armor as a red die with critical. Critical is worse at getting through armor under every possible circumstance.

For the sake of argument, it's possible that the pools of dice in the game with critical are bigger than those with impact...but I think we should count them first before making the claim.

2 hits with impact vs cover will be 0-1 crit. Granted you can get more crits with full hits and impact vs not cover.

Vs cover and with not enough hits you don't get your impact. However my point is that impact is not needed nor optimal vs vehicles if they can get cover. There is no need to take exhaust impact weapons vs cheaper critical weapons that works vs any target

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

Critical is worse at getting through armor under every possible circumstance.

Critical is often better against Armor targets in cover, as @jocke01 pointed out. The B1 E-5s (Critical 1) outperforms the E-60R (Impact 2) against targets in heavy cover (assuming a full unit). The Stormtrooper T-21 (Critical 2) outperforms the DLT-19 (Impact 1) in all situations, and outperforms the HH-12 (Impact 3) against targets in heavy cover.

2 hours ago, jocke01 said:

There is no need to take exhaust impact weapons vs cheaper critical weapons that works vs any target

Critical weapons are more expensive that Impact weapons. The DLT-20A is more expensive than the MPL-57 and the SX-21. The T-21 is more expensive than the DLT-19 and the HH-12. The DC-15 is more expensive than the RPS-6. The only one that's not more expensive is the E-5s, which is the same cost as the E-60R.

10 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Critical weapons are more expensive that Impact weapons. The DLT-20A is more expensive than the MPL-57 and the SX-21. The T-21 is more expensive than the DLT-19 and the HH-12. The DC-15 is more expensive than the RPS-6. The only one that's not more expensive is the E-5s, which is the same cost as the E-60R.

The issue with these points comparisons is it is hard to say how much of the points differences are due to differences in dice, ranges, etc. Subtracting the points of the unit's standard model gives you the actual points of the weapon (which holds up with the Z-6 on all units that can take it), which helps for comparing two almost identical weapons: the DC-15 (30-13=17) and the DLT-19 (24-11=13) so there is a 4 point difference between Impact 1 and Critical 1. Just a useful data point, at least until the next points change...

I'm truly amazed at anybody who can say that armor is forgettable or crits are too strong in this game. Granted, I'm relatively new to this, but I have yet to take down a tank. In my experience, you need to have a full anti-armor complement to have any hope to destroy a tank. In most of my games I'm simply choosing to ignore them because the amount of focused fire needed to take them down is simply not worth it. The results are better by simply letting the tank mow you down and do your thing.

Then there's force users. Let's just say I'm surprised to read that some people consider them too easy to take down, and I attribute it to heavy bias.

55 minutes ago, Qwar said:

I'm truly amazed at anybody who can say that armor is forgettable or crits are too strong in this game. Granted, I'm relatively new to this, but I have yet to take down a tank. In my experience, you need to have a full anti-armor complement to have any hope to destroy a tank. In most of my games I'm simply choosing to ignore them because the amount of focused fire needed to take them down is simply not worth it. The results are better by simply letting the tank mow you down and do your thing.

Then there's force users. Let's just say I'm surprised to read that some people consider them too easy to take down, and I attribute it to heavy bias.

I'm guessing the more you play the more you realize that in the end the game is objective based, and tanks can only do so much to help you in that regard.

Sure they're killy and they're hard to take down, but they still only get to shoot once a round, they usually don't score objectives, they're bulky and can't get into corners, etc.

Remember, you don't get any points for destroying that tank, so ignoring it is often the right call.

As for Force Users, they're really hard to take down when they have dodge tokens, and they can melt really quick when they don't. Since they have to get close to provide offensive value, it's easy to make a mistake and lose 1 or 2 hit points, and these stack up. You don't want to be down 2 HPs when you get in your opponent's melee troops or force users.

9 hours ago, OneLastMidnight said:

I'm guessing the more you play the more you realize that in the end the game is objective based, and tanks can only do so much to help you in that regard.

Indeed, but that's my point, if anything Armor as a keyword is too strong . So strong, that people simply can't be arsed about trying to destroy it. I'm baffled to read that this somehow means that it's crits that are OP and armor should be buffed.