36 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

You can't balance a game around stock.

Excellent point.

But, where’s Luke? How could he go from best unit in the game to outside of the top 10? Is he proving insufficient in experimentation?

Love how B1's made the top 10 list .... that's entertaining as every army has to take 3 core and its the only practical choice in CIS as they only have 200 point commanders and tanks as "good options" and no sniper teams / mortar teams to use as "cheap activation's"

1 hour ago, smickletz said:

Excellent point.

But, where’s Luke? How could he go from best unit in the game to outside of the top 10? Is he proving insufficient in experimentation?

Standby sharing makes it pretty difficult for any short range unit to get in against a clone ball.

That said, I think he is still great if somewhat difficult to play and was somewhat under represented. I actually think one of the best anti-GAR lists right now is Luke and Cassian.

8 hours ago, 5particus said:

yes up to 2 naked troopers works fine but everyone on this thread seems to think that GAR has 4 or 5 naked P1's in the list just to token spam, that doesn't work.

Nobody thinks that. The "meta-lists" are known for months now and it was always "pump ARCs and P2s as much as you can and fill the gaps with 1-2 naked P1s".

8 hours ago, 5particus said:

where did i say that i could do that, you can't call it a META when there have only been 2 pseudo tournaments (online barely counts) in the last 5 months, come back when we actually have 20+ tournaments being played every week around the world and then when the data actually exists then maybe we can talk about it.

If you choose to ignore data from hundreds of games played by the top players of the world and state they just need to grow a pair and learn to play better, you better back that up with results.

I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if another list and/or player can consistently beat the Cloneball lists. If you can't do that, then it's just theory crafting 😉 .

On 8/21/2020 at 12:31 AM, Tirion said:

Okay I keep hearing about these 10-11 activation lists.... How? I've played gar since release and have played exactly one game above 8 activations

Rex

R2-D2

x5-x6 Clone MK1s and MK2s (they use bare MK1 units as token factories to supply the MK2s with tokens)

x3 Arc Trooper Strike Teams

Something like 6 out of 10 of the top 10 lists for invader league all looked similar to that...

this is what we can all look forward to.

Quote

But, where’s Luke? How could he go from best unit in the game to outside of the top 10? Is he proving insufficient in experimentation?

Luke dies to clones. How is Luke supposed to survive a 20+ dice fire support attack that can share aim tokens? he just gets deathstar lasered off the board.

Clones are absurdly broken right now IMO. They throw so many dice in their attack pools with fire support that even heavy cover and dodge tokens are largely meaningless against them. They just completely overwhelm your defenses with more dice than you can possibly negate or save against.

The problem is fire support and the fact theres no reasonable limit on how many dice can be in an attack pool (20+ dice is not reasonable because very few things can actually survive that when combined with aim token sharing). Fire support allows clones to essentially frontload their offense with ridiculous alphastrikes so they can wipe out your units before they even get to activate. The standby token sharing is also a problem but would be way less of a problem if fire support wasnt so dumb.

I would really like to see a dice cap on attack pools. Like max of 12 dice in an attack pool. because other factions cant throw huge 20+ dice attack pools around like clones can and its really unfair that they get to do it while no other faction can. If clones had to split their fire support attacks between two targets it wouldnt be as unfair because at least youd get to apply dodge and cover separately to both attacks. And obviously standby token sharing needs a nerf too.

Besides hammering to death the fact that you think that clones are "omg broken!!!!1111oneone" and the the Airspeeder is underpowered, a lot of the things you say really make me question your grasp of the game.

The problem with Clones is a lot of things that should be addressed, but it is definitely not Fire Support .

Fire Support is not an amazing ability, especially on Clones. You forfeit so much utility by not activating a unit. You lose either mobility or token generation (or both if you have offensive push) by using it. It has its uses in specific scenarios but it's really not what makes the Clone ball so strong.

Rex is really good? Fair enough. Overwatch + Standby sharing is oppressive? Yeah that's true.

Fire support is a broken ability that's making the game unfair? Kinda leaves me scratching my head.

And you know that Legion is a game you play with real people right? Sure, in a tournament you might face your fair share of ultra-efficient lists, but that's the nature of high level competitive play. Those guys are gonna be in it to win.

If you're playing with friends or with people at the FLGS and you keep facing the same ultra-efficient Clone lists, then maybe ask your opponent to try something different? Or play against someone else? I'm trying to fathom the real life scenario where you're oppressed by those lists enough to dramatize by saying "this is what we can all look forward to".

This isn't League of Legends where you're forced to deal with random people you're matched with.

And also realize that the devs might disagree with you and not address the problem. I think there should be one strike team per army, period, but that's my opinion, it's not a super popular opinion, and it may never come to pass, but you gotta move on from that.

Fire support is a great tool to use once, maybe twice, in a game if the situation allows for it. That's about it. It is not something that can be used frequently without paying a very steep price for it. And, to maximize its effectiveness, tokens need to be generated ahead of time, signalling the possibility/probability of its use. It's not particularly hard reduce a fire supporting unit down to the point it is little more than another token generator.

As for the large GAR lists, they depend on Artoo to reach those numbers, and didn't use Fives or Echo. With both available, and Artoo almost certainly getting a points increase in the next couple of months, I doubt those lists will be valid for long. THAT is what we have to look forward to.

10 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Fire support is a great tool to use once, maybe twice, in a game if the situation allows for it. That's about it. It is not something that can be used frequently without paying a very steep price for it. And, to maximize its effectiveness, tokens need to be generated ahead of time, signalling the possibility/probability of its use. It's not particularly hard reduce a fire supporting unit down to the point it is little more than another token generator.

what steep price? fire support has no steep price at all. because you can always choose NOT to use fire support when its disadvantageous and the only time you ever use fire support is when its advantageous to use. that makes fire support only ever an advantage.

also you dont need to take tokens ahead of time at all. I dont know where youre getting that from. you can literally just activate a unit, take an aim token and an attack action, and then have another unit with a faceup command token provide fire support. you can do it as your very first activation of the turn and it requires absolutely zero setup other than giving a trooper unit a faceup token.

by allowing two units to combine their attack dice into one larger attack pool it effectively allows you to frontload the activation of two units. its essentially like getting to activate two units with one activation. that gives clones a frontloaded activation advantage on top of the inherent advantage of attacking a target with a larger dice pool as opposed to two smaller dice pools.

Quote

As for the large GAR lists, they depend on Artoo to reach those numbers, and didn't use Fives or Echo. With both available, and Artoo almost certainly getting a points increase in the next couple of months, I doubt those lists will be valid for long. THAT is what we have to look forward to.

I hope youre right and GAR does get nerfed. unfortunately i cant agree with you that R2 is the main problem. since GAR can still have a 10-11 activation list even without R2. R2 is symptomatic of the larger problem caused by cheap unit activations. A problem which will only continue to get worse as clones get new releases. R2 is simply used now due to lack of other options.

And as of right now clones havent been nerfed yet and are still overpowered....

14 hours ago, OneLastMidnight said:

Fire Support is not an amazing ability, especially on Clones. You forfeit so much utility by not activating a unit. You lose either mobility or token generation (or both if you have offensive push) by using it. It has its uses in specific scenarios but it's really not what makes the Clone ball so strong.

I like how you conveniently left out all the utility you gain from fire support. You get to frontload your activations and effectively do the damage of two units in the timespan of only a single activation. You also get to significantly increase the size of your dice pool as well which is highly advantageous for penetrating through cover and dodge tokens. The higher damage output also significantly increases your chances of erasing an enemy unit from the board before it gets to activate. Yes there are tradeoffs to using fire support but having the option to fire support is still better than than not having the option to fire support. And fire support is just that: optional, so youre only ever going to use it when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages which only ever makes it an advantage to have.

I also disagree that its not amazing. Fire support is absolutely an amazing ability. Even moreso on clones because of their ability to share tokens with eachother. particularly standby tokens.

Do I think fire support should be removed from clones? Absolutely not. But I do think some of the interactions clones have with fire support are overpowered. Especially with regard to standby tokens. I absolutely think some nerfs are warranted.

Quote

Besides hammering to death the fact that you think that clones are "omg broken!!!!1111oneone" and the the Airspeeder is underpowered

Are you really going to try and argue that airspeeders arnt underpowered? lol

They are undeniably the worst vehicle in the game.

4 hours ago, Khobai said:

what steep price? fire support has no steep price at all. because you can always choose NOT to use fire support when its disadvantageous and the only time you ever use fire support is when its advantageous to use. that makes fire support only ever an advantage.

also you dont need to take tokens ahead of time at all. I dont know where youre getting that from. you can literally just activate a unit, take an aim token and an attack action, and then have another unit with a faceup command token provide fire support. you can do it as your very first activation of the turn and it requires absolutely zero setup other than giving a trooper unit a faceup token.

by allowing two units to combine their attack dice into one larger attack pool it effectively allows you to frontload the activation of two units. its essentially like getting to activate two units with one activation. that gives clones a frontloaded activation advantage on top of the inherent advantage of attacking a target with a larger dice pool as opposed to two smaller dice pools.

I hope youre right and GAR does get nerfed. unfortunately i cant agree with you that R2 is the main problem. since GAR can still have a 10-11 activation list even without R2. R2 is symptomatic of the larger problem caused by cheap unit activations. A problem which will only continue to get worse as clones get new releases. R2 is simply used now due to lack of other options.

And as of right now clones havent been nerfed yet and are still overpowered....

I like how you conveniently left out all the utility you gain from fire support. You get to frontload your activations and effectively do the damage of two units in the timespan of only a single activation. You also get to significantly increase the size of your dice pool as well which is highly advantageous for penetrating through cover and dodge tokens. The higher damage output also significantly increases your chances of erasing an enemy unit from the board before it gets to activate. Yes there are tradeoffs to using fire support but having the option to fire support is still better than than not having the option to fire support. And fire support is just that: optional, so youre only ever going to use it when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages which only ever makes it an advantage to have.

I also disagree that its not amazing. Fire support is absolutely an amazing ability. Even moreso on clones because of their ability to share tokens with eachother. particularly standby tokens.

Do I think fire support should be removed from clones? Absolutely not. But I do think some of the interactions clones have with fire support are overpowered. Especially with regard to standby tokens. I absolutely think some nerfs are warranted.

Are you really going to try and argue that airspeeders arnt underpowered? lol

They are undeniably the worst vehicle in the game.

You don't actually play the game, do you? Front loading two activations is a disadvantage the vast majority of the time. It means that against most lists, your opponent will have several free activations that they don't have to worry about you being able to do a **** thing. That's exactly what Last/First units want to happen.

As for taking time to set up a fire support attack, sure, if you want to waste two activations to the luck of a white dice throw, you can just aim, fire, and hope for the best. If the GAR player's dice are anything like mine, that'll amount to 2-3 hits, and a surge or two. With a single aim, that's not really worth the effort, or the wasted activations. If you want to make the most out of it, you need to set up the attack. Two units with LOS/range, enough aim tokens generated to make the attack worth while. That takes time to set up, and telegraphs your intentions to a certain extent. Sure, you could always choose not to do fire support, but if you "front load" as you said, you're stuck with that decision (and it's results) early on in a round.

Besides, if "Fire Support" was really the massive game changer you seem to think it is, we'd see it in Rebel lists with the Mk II blaster, but we don't. Shocking. Extra dice and Critical 2 backing up the Pierce Spam that is Rebel lists would be a game changer, but it really isn't. Why? Because Fire Support is a niche move that only occasionally has more benefits than detriments. Using it as you describe is a trap, not a guaranteed surefire way to victory.

But hey, if you want to hate a single faction, be my guest. I hate Rebel hero spam for a variety of reasons myself. Doesn't mean I want the entire faction gutted for illogical reasons, but to each their own.

I personally don't find fire support broken. Even with fire support it is rare to ace a unit, with about 7-8 hits being average from my games (depending on how much token sharing goes on it can be more like 9-10). If you do wipe out a unit that hasn't activated you potentially don't lose activation advantage. However it does give clones more efficiency because sometimes if you break up an opponents then it doesn't matter if they out activate you because they can't actually respond meaningfully anymore and if you delete unactivated units you dont lose activation advantage. If you set up fire support and don't use it, isnt like you can still use all those aim tokens on single attacks. So lets not pretend it isnt a good tool.

Fire support doesn't work with the Mark 2 blaster because it is a cumbersome range 3 unit with white defense dice. As opposed to clones it is massively inefficient because it rarely shoots the turn it gets into range and fairly easy to kill. It isnt even close to clone fire support.

There is a big difference between a faction being OP and a faction being the META. The clone gun line is the faction you have to plan getting around, because if you can deal with it then you can deal with Imperial lists as well. That is why this list shows they currently have the best units.

9 hours ago, Khobai said:

Are you really going to try and argue that airspeeders arnt underpowered? lol

They are undeniably the worst vehicle in the game.

I would actually argue that airspeeders aren't underpowered and merely average. Currently I find them pretty solid against the GAR in fact. Worse vehicles imo are the landspeeder and occupier tank.

On 8/23/2020 at 9:38 AM, Alpha17 said:

You don't actually play the game, do you? Front loading two activations is a disadvantage the vast majority of the time.

you are completely wrong.

if I erase one of your units before it gets to activate that is an advantage for me. that is what fire support allows you to do. you can alphastrike enemy units off the board before they get to activate.

See how that works? Thats how you use fire support to gain activation advantage. By leveraging your massive attack pools to kill enemy units before they get to activate.

When you factor in token sharing and standby tokens it becomes downright abusive and overpowered. Clones are 100% getting nerfed in Q4 when they release the points update. My guess is token sharing, R2, and arc troopers (and strike teams in general) will all probably see nerfs.

On 8/23/2020 at 2:38 PM, Uetur said:

I would actually argue that airspeeders aren't underpowered and merely average. Currently I find them pretty solid against the GAR in fact. Worse vehicles imo are the landspeeder and occupier tank.

what? airspeeders are least effective against GAR. airspeeders have zero keywords to help them to penetrate through cover and dodges. airspeeders also struggle to beat the red armor saves of clones because of their lackluster damage output. Clones are also exceptionally good at critting airspeeders because of all their freakin tokens and critical X keywords. Airspeeders are complete garbage against clones. It is the absolute worst thing rebels can bring against Clones.

And airspeeders are not "merely average". They are absolutely terrible and a strong contender for the worst unit in the game (its certainly the worst vehicle). Especially since taking an airspeeder probably means you have to take less of the only good unit rebels actually have (tauntauns). I like how youre trying to marginalize how overpowered clones are by claiming the worst vehicle in the game is good against them. But you arnt fooling anybody.

Quote

Worse vehicles imo are the landspeeder and occupier tank.

The occupier tank is way better than the airspeeder. What are you talking about?

The occupier tank does significantly more damage than the airspeeder because the occupier tank can double up its weapons in the same firing arc and it surges to hit with its pilot; unlike the airspeeder which just has awkward firing arcs, bad damage output, and no offensive surge. The tank also has way better survivability than the airspeeder with one more wound and a red saving throw. And despite its 1 speed, its also deceptively fast because of how long its base is and the free pivot shenanigans you can do with it. It also has the bonus of being a transport which is useful. The occupier tank isnt better than the at-st but its certainly not the worst vehicle in the game either. Not by a longshot.

And yes the landspeeder is bad. But its not nearly as bad as the airspeeder because the landspeeder is fairly cheap while the airspeeder is moderately expensive. And the landspeeder also does more damage than the airspeeder while only being slightly easier to kill. So yeah its better than the airspeeder. I personally wouldnt use either of the rebel heavys because both are awful, but if I had to choose one I would choose the landspeeder because its a lot cheaper.

On 8/23/2020 at 9:45 AM, Khobai said:

what steep price? fire support has no steep price at all. because you can always choose NOT to use fire support when its disadvantageous and the only time you ever use fire support is when its advantageous to use. that makes fire support only ever an advantage.

also you dont need to take tokens ahead of time at all. I dont know where youre getting that from. you can literally just activate a unit, take an aim token and an attack action, and then have another unit with a faceup command token provide fire support. you can do it as your very first activation of the turn and it requires absolutely zero setup other than giving a trooper unit a faceup token.

by allowing two units to combine their attack dice into one larger attack pool it effectively allows you to frontload the activation of two units. its essentially like getting to activate two units with one activation. that gives clones a frontloaded activation advantage on top of the inherent advantage of attacking a target with a larger dice pool as opposed to two smaller dice pools.

I hope youre right and GAR does get nerfed. unfortunately i cant agree with you that R2 is the main problem. since GAR can still have a 10-11 activation list even without R2. R2 is symptomatic of the larger problem caused by cheap unit activations. A problem which will only continue to get worse as clones get new releases. R2 is simply used now due to lack of other options.

And as of right now clones havent been nerfed yet and are still overpowered....

I like how you conveniently left out all the utility you gain from fire support. You get to frontload your activations and effectively do the damage of two units in the timespan of only a single activation. You also get to significantly increase the size of your dice pool as well which is highly advantageous for penetrating through cover and dodge tokens. The higher damage output also significantly increases your chances of erasing an enemy unit from the board before it gets to activate. Yes there are tradeoffs to using fire support but having the option to fire support is still better than than not having the option to fire support. And fire support is just that: optional, so youre only ever going to use it when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages which only ever makes it an advantage to have.

I also disagree that its not amazing. Fire support is absolutely an amazing ability. Even moreso on clones because of their ability to share tokens with eachother. particularly standby tokens.

Do I think fire support should be removed from clones? Absolutely not. But I do think some of the interactions clones have with fire support are overpowered. Especially with regard to standby tokens. I absolutely think some nerfs are warranted.

Are you really going to try and argue that airspeeders arnt underpowered? lol

They are undeniably the worst vehicle in the game.

I think that you are forgetting how hard it is for clones to get face up order tokens outside of command cards, the only one of which that gives you an extra order is Rex's 3 pip. The clones currently dont have any kind of coordinate (except for fives coming out this month) the only way to get those extra order tokens is through HQ uplink which is a very expensive upgrade to put on clones (in points and in actions).

It is usually better to move and shoot, at least until you have gotten the unit where it is needed and if you fire support then you lose out on either an aim for their own shot or a move. When shooting at a target in no cover then it is better to aim + shoot with both units rather than just aim fire support, when there is cover involved it depends if one unit has a better shot or not as to whether you hould use the fire support, personally i have only really used it against heros and tanks, and even then i have thrown 22 dice at grevious and vader and still only given the unit 2 or 3 wounds , on mulitple occasions.

22 die dice pools usually suck when 12 of them are white and the others are only blacks, i think the most i have gotten is 12 hits/crits out of one and on that shot i only got 3 wounds on grevious from it. not exactly overpowered is it? i have also only gotten 3 hits total out of 20 dice. The big dice pools generally suck as they are usually just a lot of white dice.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

you are completely wrong.

if I erase one of your units before it gets to activate that is an advantage for me. that is what fire support allows you to do. you can alphastrike enemy units off the board before they get to activate.

Say I have 10 activations and you have 10 activations and I use firesupport to wipe one of your units off the board. Now I have 8 activations left and you have 8 activations left but I killed one of your units before it got to activate. So that effectively puts me up 1 activation.

See how that works? Thats how you use fire support to gain activation advantage. By leveraging your massive attack pools to kill enemy units before they get to activate.

When you factor in token sharing and standby tokens it becomes downright abusive and overpowered. Clones are 100% getting nerfed in Q4 when they release the points update. My guess is token sharing, R2, and arc troopers (and strike teams in general) will all probably see nerfs.

IF you get a big roll, IF you are able to eliminate a unit, IF it hasn't gone yet, then sure, it balances out. But if any of those don't happen, it doesn't. Which is more likely to occur, that the stars align and everything is perfect, or that randomness occurs and something doesn't work out? It's a gamble, because while your dice pool is smaller, you can and do kill units before they activate all the time, without giving up an action/activation to do so.

And you can't suddenly bring in token sharing and standby tokens because your entire argument has been that fire support was so good as an alphastrike, done early on with no preparation that can't be avoided. Token sharing is the opposite of that, as it uses activations to generate tokens. Fire Support actually hurts token sharing, because chances are your clones are generating fewer tokens when you waste two activations into a single attack. You might get lucky and have an aim token left over, but standbys absolutely will take a hit.

But, if all this stuff is changing anyway, why bother to complain about it? I mean, if these nerfs are guaranteed don't you just need to wait it out, and all your clone-hating wishes will be fulfilled?

3 hours ago, Khobai said:

The occupier tank does significantly more damage than the airspeeder because the occupier tank can double up its weapons in the same firing arc and it surges to hit with its pilot; unlike the airspeeder which just has awkward firing arcs, bad damage output, and no offensive surge. The tank also has way better survivability than the airspeeder with one more wound and a red saving throw. And despite its 1 speed, its also deceptively fast because of how long its base is and the free pivot shenanigans you can do with it. It also has the bonus of being a transport which is useful. The occupier tank isnt better than the at-st but its certainly not the worst vehicle in the game either. Not by a longshot.

And yes the landspeeder is bad. But its not nearly as bad as the airspeeder because the landspeeder is fairly cheap while the airspeeder is moderately expensive. And the landspeeder also does more damage than the airspeeder while only being slightly easier to kill. So yeah its better than the airspeeder. I personally wouldnt use either of the rebel heavys because both are awful, but if I had to choose one I would choose the landspeeder because its a lot cheaper.

Before I point out why I think you are wrong, I am merely arguing the airspeeder is average not good but I think the occupier is average in a Meta that favors the airspeeder. It wouldn't break my heart to see the airspeeder go down 10 points.

The airspeeder averages about 3.75 hits and the occupier with the surge pilot about 4.990. So at first glance it appears the occupier double firing is superior (+29 to +39 points of cost). However this ignored the airspeeders ability to go around blocking or heavy cover terrain which matters to a unit that is low to the ground. If the occupier has to deal with that and the airspeeder (due to its maneuverability) doesn't then the airspeeder out damages the occupier? So if it sits back the occupier is usually getting in attacks of opportunity, a lot of in cover, heavy cover hits and at that point it is more useful to take a shoretrooper mortar contingent. If it pushes up like the airspeeder has to. It exposes it rather large side weak points. It is so easy to poke damage through those side arcs it isn't even funny. Any squad can assign 1-2 person to hit that side arc and the rest of the guns elsewhere. Let alone strike teams, Jedi, etc. If we get a split deployment zone it auto exposes its weak points to piercing strike teams. Basically the the ways lists are constructed right now the occupier can be reliably poked at by a lot of units. The airspeeder has to be focus fired. Now consider all this for the extra cost you have to pay for the occupier. Is it really worth it?

As for the landspeeder if you upgrade its guns it is actually more expensive than the airspeeder. Around 154 to 158 points. If you don't upgrade the guns you might as well not attack anything because you are a massively overpriced unit. Finally it effectively gets cover 3 (armor 2 plus cover 1), you yourself just got done talking about large clone dice pools but any large dice pool is going to push damage through so for more price than the airspeeder you have an even more fragile unit.

1 hour ago, Uetur said:

Before I point out why I think you are wrong, I am merely arguing the airspeeder is average not good but I think the occupier is average in a Meta that favors the airspeeder. It wouldn't break my heart to see the airspeeder go down 10 points.

The airspeeder averages about 3.75 hits and the occupier with the surge pilot about 4.990. So at first glance it appears the occupier double firing is superior (+29 to +39 points of cost). However this ignored the airspeeders ability to go around blocking or heavy cover terrain which matters to a unit that is low to the ground. If the occupier has to deal with that and the airspeeder (due to its maneuverability) doesn't then the airspeeder out damages the occupier? So if it sits back the occupier is usually getting in attacks of opportunity, a lot of in cover, heavy cover hits and at that point it is more useful to take a shoretrooper mortar contingent. If it pushes up like the airspeeder has to. It exposes it rather large side weak points. It is so easy to poke damage through those side arcs it isn't even funny. Any squad can assign 1-2 person to hit that side arc and the rest of the guns elsewhere. Let alone strike teams, Jedi, etc. If we get a split deployment zone it auto exposes its weak points to piercing strike teams. Basically the the ways lists are constructed right now the occupier can be reliably poked at by a lot of units. The airspeeder has to be focus fired. Now consider all this for the extra cost you have to pay for the occupier. Is it really worth it?

As for the landspeeder if you upgrade its guns it is actually more expensive than the airspeeder. Around 154 to 158 points. If you don't upgrade the guns you might as well not attack anything because you are a massively overpriced unit. Finally it effectively gets cover 3 (armor 2 plus cover 1), you yourself just got done talking about large clone dice pools but any large dice pool is going to push damage through so for more price than the airspeeder you have an even more fragile unit.

I think you're wrong about the occupier. First of all it depends on what kind of table you're playing on. The majority of units I've seen getting cover are either from aria terrain, having suppression tokens, or being in contact with barricades. All of these will still provide cover against the airspeeder attacks just like the occupier, in which case the higher hit percentage of the occupier makes it better.

Second the occupier isn't as fragile as you seem to think. Red saves are nothing to snear at, even with critical on the sides. All that terrain you talk about moving around is also great for protecting the sides of the occupier. And if you want to split fire at the occupier or waist sniper shots at it, that's fine by me (fewer shots going into my troopers).

The occupier is in a reasonably good place right now, the T-47 isnt.

4 hours ago, Uetur said:

As for the landspeeder if you upgrade its guns it is actually more expensive than the airspeeder. Around 154 to 158 points. If you don't upgrade the guns you might as well not attack anything because you are a massively overpriced unit. Finally it effectively gets cover 3 (armor 2 plus cover 1), you yourself just got done talking about large clone dice pools but any large dice pool is going to push damage through so for more price than the airspeeder you have an even more fragile unit.

I dont know how you upgrade your landspeeder but mine are 118 points. They are cheaper than the airspeeder. They do more damage than the airspeeder. And are only slightly less survivable than the airspeeder. I consider it to be better than the airspeeder.

If youre taking the rocket gun youre landspeedering wrong. Because the rocket gun is terrible and not at all worth 36 points.

4 hours ago, Uetur said:

Before I point out why I think you are wrong, I am merely arguing the airspeeder is average not good but I think the occupier is average in a Meta that favors the airspeeder. It wouldn't break my heart to see the airspeeder go down 10 points.

The airspeeder averages about 3.75 hits and the occupier with the surge pilot about 4.990. So at first glance it appears the occupier double firing is superior (+29 to +39 points of cost). However this ignored the airspeeders ability to go around blocking or heavy cover terrain which matters to a unit that is low to the ground. If the occupier has to deal with that and the airspeeder (due to its maneuverability) doesn't then the airspeeder out damages the occupier? So if it sits back the occupier is usually getting in attacks of opportunity, a lot of in cover, heavy cover hits and at that point it is more useful to take a shoretrooper mortar contingent. If it pushes up like the airspeeder has to. It exposes it rather large side weak points. It is so easy to poke damage through those side arcs it isn't even funny. Any squad can assign 1-2 person to hit that side arc and the rest of the guns elsewhere. Let alone strike teams, Jedi, etc. If we get a split deployment zone it auto exposes its weak points to piercing strike teams. Basically the the ways lists are constructed right now the occupier can be reliably poked at by a lot of units. The airspeeder has to be focus fired. Now consider all this for the extra cost you have to pay for the occupier. Is it really worth it?

The airspeeder isnt average though. The occupier tank is average. The airspeeder is just plain bad.

The airspeeder doesnt have the blanket ability to ignore heavy cover. If something is standing in heavy cover or area cover the airspeeder suffers the full cover penalty just like the tank does. But the tank is throwing out more dice so its going to do more damage. The tank is also range 4. So theres conceivably situations where the tank can attack but cant be attacked back. Where the airspeeder can almost always be attacked back because range 3 is average.

The airspeeder gets a highly situational elevation advantage that might sometimes let it shoot over intervening terrain. But that elevation advantage of the airspeeder is a huge double edged sword as it means the airspeeder can NEVER hide and can always be hit by every weapon in range. When you only have a crappy white saving throw that is bad. Although usually I dont even bother trying to shoot airspeeders unless theyre the only target I can see.

Airspeeders arnt much of a threat. You can usually just ignore airspeeders because of how ineffective they are at everything they do. The only time airspeeders are scary is if they catch you out of cover so you just make sure they dont catch you out of cover. Whereas if I drive an Occupier tank right up in your face and park it on an objective you HAVE to deal with it. The occupier tank can also hang back out of range of most weapons since all its guns are range 4. You can play it either way. The airspeeders compulsory move is a huge disadvantage because it makes it hard to keep its front gun in the game and the airspeeder cant really perform the role other vehicles do by parking themselves in strategic locations. Compulsory move is one of the worst rules in the game IMO since speeders can absolutely hover in place they dont always have to race around at full throttle.

4 hours ago, Uetur said:

As for the landspeeder if you upgrade its guns it is actually more expensive than the airspeeder. Around 154 to 158 points. If you don't upgrade the guns you might as well not attack anything because you are a massively overpriced unit. Finally it effectively gets cover 3 (armor 2 plus cover 1), you yourself just got done talking about large clone dice pools but any large dice pool is going to push damage through so for more price than the airspeeder you have an even more fragile unit.

I dont know how you upgrade your landspeeder but mine are 118 points. They are cheaper than the airspeeder. They do more damage than the airspeeder. And are only slightly less survivable than the airspeeder. I consider it to be better than the airspeeder.

If youre taking the rocket gun youre landspeedering wrong. Because the rocket gun is terrible and not at all worth 36 points.

And sure if you concentrate fire on the landspeeder it will die. But so will the airspeeder. That is part of the reason both of them are bad because theyre both very fragile. But at least the landspeeder isnt clocking in at 140+ points.

5 hours ago, Khobai said:

The airspeeder isnt average though. The occupier tank is average. The airspeeder is just plain bad.

The airspeeder doesnt have the blanket ability to ignore heavy cover. If something is standing in heavy cover or area cover the airspeeder suffers the full cover penalty just like the tank does. But the tank is throwing out more dice so its going to do more damage. The tank is also range 4. So theres conceivably situations where the tank can attack but cant be attacked back. Where the airspeeder can almost always be attacked back because range 3 is average.

The airspeeder gets a highly situational elevation advantage that might sometimes let it shoot over intervening terrain. But that elevation advantage of the airspeeder is a huge double edged sword as it means the airspeeder can NEVER hide and can always be hit by every weapon in range. When you only have a crappy white saving throw that is bad. Although usually I dont even bother trying to shoot airspeeders unless theyre the only target I can see.

Airspeeders arnt much of a threat. You can usually just ignore airspeeders because of how ineffective they are at everything they do. The only time airspeeders are scary is if they catch you out of cover so you just make sure they dont catch you out of cover. Whereas if I drive an Occupier tank right up in your face and park it on an objective you HAVE to deal with it. The occupier tank can also hang back out of range of most weapons since all its guns are range 4. You can play it either way. The airspeeders compulsory move is a huge disadvantage because it makes it hard to keep its front gun in the game and the airspeeder cant really perform the role other vehicles do by parking themselves in strategic locations. Compulsory move is one of the worst rules in the game IMO since speeders can absolutely hover in place they dont always have to race around at full throttle.

I dont know how you upgrade your landspeeder but mine are 118 points. They are cheaper than the airspeeder. They do more damage than the airspeeder. And are only slightly less survivable than the airspeeder. I consider it to be better than the airspeeder.

If youre taking the rocket gun youre landspeedering wrong. Because the rocket gun is terrible and not at all worth 36 points.

And sure if you concentrate fire on the landspeeder it will die. But so will the airspeeder. That is part of the reason both of them are bad because theyre both very fragile. But at least the landspeeder isnt clocking in at 140+ points.

Let's start with the Landspeeder first for your build to outdamage the airspeeder you have to get to range 2. If you don't get to range 2 the airspeeder outdamages the landspeeder and for the prize of getting to range 2 you get an extra 0.25 damage.. As I said before the Landspeeder is effectively cover 3. That means you can damage it either by doing more than 3 damage, crit fishing or impact weapons. Because you had to get to range 2you are now highly exposed. A shoretrooper squad with an aim tokens hits for about 5.12 hits reduced to 2.12 versus 1.12 crits on the airspeeder. It is way more lethal for the landspeeder who has to overexpose or do less damage than the airspeeder. not the slightly less lethal you mentioned. The airspeeder needs around 7+ attacks with no saves from shore troopers to go down. A landspeeder is 4+. Where as the airspeeder can actually tank the landspeeder can't and in best case scenarios it does .25 more damage. (4 versus 3.75) Also which vehicle is superior when someone uses fire support against it, hint one unit on average can be one shot and the other suffers 2 wounds.

Bottom line the Airspeeder is much much more survivable than the Landspeeder and basically does the exact same damage. We aren't talking soft stats like greater speed, extra height as well.

As for the occupier it is either going to push up or snipe from range. If it shoots from range it is 4.99 hits for average minus 1 or 2 for cover which then equates to the airspeeder. If it pushes up it gets shot in its weak spot. If anything can hit its weakspot it then takes wounds at a faster rate than the airspeeder.

You are right though compulsory move is a very big double edge sword.

On 8/21/2020 at 8:16 AM, KarlVonCarstein said:

I've thought this since I started playing legion, glad someone here finally said it. Personally I refuse to take any squad without a heavy weapon.

I used to feel that way, but more and more naked squads are seeing the board for me with great results.

Love me some naked B1 hordes

17 hours ago, Icelom said:

I used to feel that way, but more and more naked squads are seeing the board for me with great results.

I'm happy that's working for you, I just don't ever see myself running any unit that way. Maby some future expansion will come out that changes my mind, but that's not likely.