43 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In my opinion, the vertical component of distances between units being ignored for measuring ranges is more common an occurrence in Legion games than the AT-RT, and far more damaging to any sort of suspension of disbelief.

Im confused what does that have to do with the BARC Speeder? Or why the AT-RT is better than the BARC Speeder?

Other aspects of the game not making sense doesnt justify the AT-RT not making sense. Because every aspect of the game that doesnt make sense should be fixed. But this topic isnt about fixing everything that doesnt make sense, its just about fixing the BARC Speeder.

The AT-RT's full armor not making any sense is only part of the reason it shouldnt have full armor. The bigger reason is an actual balance reason because the BARC Speeder will never appear favorable next to the AT-RT as long as it has full armor. Its a very powerful keyword and nothing the BARC speeder has can ever compete with it. Theres a very real internal balance issue with the AT-RT having full armor and the BARC Speeder having a laughable cover 1.

Which is what ive been trying to tell you in other threads but you obstinately refuse to listen. Cover 1 does not adequately protect speeders from being destroyed. Especially not when its expected to compete with much stronger keywords like Armor in the case of the BARC speeder vs the AT-RT.

11 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Im confused what does that have to do with the BARC Speeder? Or why the AT-RT is better than the BARC Speeder?

Other aspects of the game not making sense doesnt justify the AT-RT not making sense. Because every aspect of the game that doesnt make sense should be fixed. But this topic isnt about fixing everything that doesnt make sense, its just about fixing the BARC Speeder.

The AT-RT's full armor not making sense is only part of the reason it shouldnt have full armor. The bigger reason is an actual balance reason because the BARC Speeder will never appear favorable next to the AT-RT as long as it has full armor. Its a very powerful keyword and nothing the BARC speeder has can ever compete with it.

It was purely addressing that there are far worse rules for "breaking suspension of disbelief," which has nothing to do with something that should be fixed. Things that are broken or unbalanced should be fixed. It not fitting in with your idea of the world, is not a "problem" so long as the game rules are consistent, fun, and "balanced."

The BARC speeder will never appear favourable against ANY other unit in the GAR, the existence of the AT-RT doesn't matter. People don't play BARC speeders now, before the AT-RT has been able to be played in any capacity in a GAR list, so it is irrelevant for this conversation anyway.
Armour on the AT-RT is completely irrelevant to the conversation of fixing the BARC.

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The BARC speeder will never appear favourable against ANY other unit in the GAR, the existence of the AT-RT doesn't matter

The existence of the AT-RT does matter. Because its straight up better than the BARC Speeder.

Armor on the AT-RT is not irrelevant to the conversation about the BARC because they compete for the same slot in the army.

Just now, Khobai said:

The existence of the AT-RT does matter. Because its straight up better than the BARC Speeder.

Armor on the AT-RT is not irrelevant to the conversation about the BARC because they compete for the same slot in the army.

Phase 1 Clones, Phase 2 Clones, ARC troopers, Rex, Padme, and every other unit in the GAR list are all better than the BARC Speeder. And they "compete" for the same points in the army. The Support slot isn't required, and in many army lists is left empty in favour of spending more points in other locations of the force organizational chart.

13 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Phase 1 Clones, Phase 2 Clones, ARC troopers, Rex, Padme, and every other unit in the GAR list are all better than the BARC Speeder. And they "compete" for the same points in the army. The Support slot isn't required, and in many army lists is left empty in favour of spending more points in other locations of the force organizational chart.

But I already addressed that when I said GAR's corps units are too good and thats part of the problem with the army.

I also said GAR needs a vehicle commander that specifically encourages the use of vehicles and support units over cloneball.

The BARC speeder doesnt need to be viable in every single list. But it should be viable with at least one Commander and right now its not.

The whole point of commanders is to add different playstyles for different armies. It is entirely conceivable for GAR to have a commander that rewards the use of vehicles and doesnt reward cloneballing as much. That is the type of playstyle where the BARC Speeder has potential to be good if its not completely overshadowed by the AT-RT.

The problem is even if you have a vehicle commander that buffs GAR's vehicles most people are still going to take the AT-RT over the BARC. So yes it very much is a problem that the AT-RT is outright better. The vehicles need to be internally balanced with eachother so its not such an obvious choice which vehicle to always use.

@Khobai It doesn't matter if the GAR has a "vehicle commander" or not, vehicles are still generally worse in every faction than an equal number of points spent on infantry from a competitive standpoint.
Vehicles are only directly relevant in a subset of the possible Objectives while infantry are relevant in all objectives.

Additionally, barring a dramatic change to the force org chart, Core units will always be required. Since the strength of GAR's Corps units is the token sharing, then building a list around those required units is going to be more points efficient (meaning more activations) than building a list around a vehicle commander gimmick, which would only be relevant for a relatively small portion of the army.

Honestly, I don't even see AT-RTs being a common sight in GAR lists, bypassed in favour of ARC troopers.

The GAR doesn't "need" a vehicle commander. What they "need" are more units overall to give the army more variation.

The barc speeder has the same problem all the other factions have. Speeders just aren’t used. The speeder keyword needs a buff of some sort to make those units more appealing, however that’s a discussion going on in another thread. The biggest issue with the barc speeders are they get pushed out away from the rest of the army, don’t have the punch to do a lot of damage, and can’t survive out there alone. Even if they do get a commander that synergies well with the barcs unless you have long range comm links stapled to the speeder, by turn 3 (if it’s survived that long) it’s out of range of the commander. Add in the fact the game is won and loss over objectives, and with the exception of skirmish objectives and 2 regular objectives, vehicles can’t give you victory points, why would i take it? This isn’t to say that the barc speeder is a bad unit, it’s just not really a usable unit.

@Shadowhawk252 Vehicles are able to contribute the following objectives: Breakthrough, Key Positions (which is extra tricky for Speeders), Bombing run (they can be deployed with a bomb, just can't pick one up in the course of the game), and Payload (again, can be tricky for Speeders).
So a bit more than you identified, but that is still less than the majority, which means there is no guarantees of having a vehicle relevant objective in the blue player's battle deck.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Khobai The GAR doesn't "need" a vehicle commander. What they "need" are more units overall to give the army more variation.

How does giving GAR more units overall fix the BARC speeder? It doesnt. I have no clue what youre talking about but its not the same thing the rest of us are talking about which is the BARC Speeder.

Youre also the same guy that keeps insisting cover is a perfectly fine defensive mechanic for speeders. Youre the absolute last person that should be chiming in on how to fix the BARC speeder. Because you dont seem to understand that cover sucks for speeders and doesnt keep speeders alive at all. I have tried to explain it to you numerous times and you just dont get it. You keep insisting there is nothing wrong with the cover rule on speeders even though it clearly doesnt keep them alive. Now youre saying the BARC speeder is bad after telling me in the other thread cover works perfectly fine for speeders. You constantly flipflop on every single argument you make.

All speeders need a buff. They all do. Because cover by itself fails miserably at protecting them. I still believe that all speeders should get a free dodge token and outmaneuver. They can keep cover too but they need something else besides cover to increase their survivability.

And I completely disagree with you that a vehicle commander for GAR would not help incentivize the use of vehicles. Of course it would. Especially if you separately addressed the issue of GAR's corps troops being overpowered. Again the BARC speeder doesnt need to be competitively viable, it doesnt need to be viable in every list either, it just needs to be viable with ONE commander. A lot of units are only good with one commander. Right now the BARC speeder isnt even casually viable though; Its not even a unit you play for funsies because of how bad it is. And even if the BARC was better than it is now you would still just take the AT-RT anyway because armor is a way better keyword than anything the BARC has. Theres multiple problems with the BARC that need to be addressed: it has no commander support, it lacks a role within the faction, it has poor internal balance with other support vehicles, and GAR's corps troopers are borderline overpowered and theres not much of a reason to use anything else besides corps units and arctroopers.

10 hours ago, costi said:

Balance is necessary, but unit stats need to make some sort of sense. The full armor on the AT-RT just doesn't, when all other things with full armor in the game are heavy vehicles and tanks.

It gets even more ridiculous when you look at the clone version.

An AT-ST has white surge defense, Armor and Weakspot 1 in the back. A clone AT-RT has the same save, also has Armor but no Weakspot. So, an exposed guy in a shirt is tougher that a fully armored vehicle, which in the movies required a lot of effort to take down?

It simply breaks suspension of disbelief, at least for me.

Those are some good points, but if we are making it make sense we should also address the idea that an AT-RT is a fast moving target that shifts from side to side as it switches from one leg to another (just going by the animated version, the movie version was on for 10 seconds and didn’t show much), but the AT-ST by comparison is more like trying to hit a slow moving barn. In truth the RT should probably be more like the Tauntaun with Armour 1 perhaps as it does have some and gaining dodge for movement, but unfortunately (at least for the Republic version) there is now a legacy and the newer version can’t be too different than the original. Perhaps at the RT’s inception full armour made sense or perhaps the testing forced a need to change from Armour 1 or 2 as the unit was killed too quickly, or it may have just been that the Tauntaun method or approach had not occurred to them yet. So we have what we have. Without a complete rewrite it would be quite unfair to remove full armour from a unit that has proven to be fragile with it and FFG has a history of not liking to rewrite, minor corrections maybe, but rewrite no. I wouldn’t mind a version of the RT more like a Tauntaun hybrid with Armour 1. That would be more thematic and prevent the RT from being treated like a heavy without any benefits. I would further suggest that a petition could get FFG to change the RT as they have shown a willingness to sell card packs and that would be the best and maybe the only way to do a complete rewrite. I would sign such a petition. They say, “be the change you want to see”.

I kind of like the idea of RTs with Agile 1, Relentless, Reposition, Unhindered, Armour 1 and maybe Climbing Vehicle and Expert Climber (not sure where the last two came from originally and if it’s lore. I know the AT-TE can climb, but haven’t heard of the RT). The Rebel version could have white defence dice with surge and Republic could have red with surge, and continue with the surge to crit and hit as the originals, but price them the same. Weapons, load out, health and resilience could all be the same. Not sure on price as I’m not sure if this version would make it more or less powerful. It certainly would make them more mobile as their depiction, and they wouldn’t be quite as bothersome as Tauntauns as they don’t have Ram or Sharpshooter and have 2 less health and since RTs only have 1 model can’t play with cover as easily. Just a thought.

21 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

Those are some good points, but if we are making it make sense we should also address the idea that an AT-RT is a fast moving target that shifts from side to side as it switches from one leg to another (just going by the animated version, the movie version was on for 10 seconds and didn’t show much), but the AT-ST by comparison is more like trying to hit a slow moving barn.

The AT-ST moves faster than the AT-RT. So its more like a fast moving barn. And I think the barn-sized disadvantage is already represented in Legion by how difficult it is for the AT-ST to hide behind terrain. Whereas the AT-RT has a much easier time of hiding itself behind things. That advantage shouldnt be understated.

Im also not sure I like the idea of AT-RTs becoming Tauntauns. Tauntauns were a mistake. Besides if you start giving the AT-RT free movement then there really is no reason to ever take the BARC speeder when the AT-RT is also just as fast.

I think its important for the AT-RT and BARC speeder to have different playstyles. One should be an assault unit and the other should be a flanking unit. And they should both be equally viable in their respective roles.

You very much like to put word in other people's mouths. I have never said speeders were "fine." If I have, please quote the exact post I said that phase. I have said that your suggested changes are not addressing the root of the problem: They don't contribute enough for their points cost. Increasing survivability does NOTHING to address the inability of many of the Speeder vehicles to contribute to the game in a significant way. In an objective based game, it doesn't matter if your unit is still on the board if it:
A) Can't deny your opponent victory points and
B) Can't provide you with victory points.
The vehicle still being on the board only matters in the case of a tie on VP, which playing for the tie is a bad strategy.
I have disagreed with your justifications for why to include those keywords and pointed out how they still don't change the vulnerability to massed fire, or significantly increase the survivability at all. Speeders have a similar problem to Infiltration units: they can very easily end up unsupported staring down a significant portion of your opponent's army. Blocking a single hit or crit does not significantly increase survivability or else Rebel troopers would survive significantly longer than other white dice units.

Also, judging from your posts on this area, YOU seem to be complaining about the composition of GAR lists in competitive play, not the BARC in specific. Perhaps if you actually read comments instead of just skimming, you'd see that "fixing" the BARC speeder wouldn't lead to it being taken. Adding a "Vehicle commander" to GAR wouldn't change the army, regardless of the vehicles available in the Support slot. Adding more infantry units will change the current army lists (and result in more variation which is what I said), but it won't change it in any way that doesn't result in a bunch of infantry units, like most other competitive army lists for every other faction in the game.

41 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

In truth the RT should probably be more like the Tauntaun with Armour 1 perhaps as it does have some and gaining dodge for movement, but unfortunately (at least for the Republic version) there is now a legacy and the newer version can’t be too different than the original. Perhaps at the RT’s inception full armour made sense or perhaps the testing forced a need to change from Armour 1 or 2 as the unit was killed too quickly, or it may have just been that the Tauntaun method or approach had not occurred to them yet.

No argument there. I think part of the reason it ended up with Armour was to reduce the total number of keywords in the initial units. I don't think we'll see a change on the AT-RTs keywords before a theoretical V2 of Legion though, since that massive of a change to an existing unit is probably better suited to new versions.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Shadowhawk252 Vehicles are able to contribute the following objectives: Breakthrough, Key Positions (which is extra tricky for Speeders), Bombing run (they can be deployed with a bomb, just can't pick one up in the course of the game), and Payload (again, can be tricky for Speeders).
So a bit more than you identified, but that is still less than the majority, which means there is no guarantees of having a vehicle relevant objective in the blue player's battle deck.

Bombing run, ya honestly a speeder is probably the best choice for a bombing run unit. Payload, really unlikely that are going to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. Key position if you can time it right could be used to deny or gain a victory. Breakthrough is obvious. So 3 objectives it can reliably be expected to contribute to. Again in an objective heavy game what is the value it brings to the table?

7 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

No argument there. I think part of the reason it ended up with Armour was to reduce the total number of keywords in the initial units. I don't think we'll see a change on the AT-RTs keywords before a theoretical V2 of Legion though, since that massive of a change

How is it a massive change to change Armor into Armor 2?

Thats funny if thats your idea of a massive change lol.

Point costs are also already malleable so they can change the point cost easily too.

2 minutes ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

Bombing run, ya honestly a speeder is probably the best choice for a bombing run unit. Payload, really unlikely that are going to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. Key position if you can time it right could be used to deny or gain a victory. Breakthrough is obvious. So 3 objectives it can reliably be expected to contribute to. Again in an objective heavy game what is the value it brings to the table?

I mostly agree with your assessment, I was just ensuring the list of vehicle relevant objectives was complete to facilitate a better discussion.
I think Speeders are decent carrier for one of the bombs in Bombing Run for an early VP, likely at the cost of the unit though since they will end up unsupported and as the easiest target for a significant portion of your opponent's army. Although to be fair, unless it is completely unavoidable your opponent is unlikely to allow Bombing Run to be the objective if you have a speeder and they don't.

The other complication for vehicles in general is that unless the blue player deck has these exact four objectives, there is a decent chance your vehicles won't be able to contribute. If you opponent is blue player with an entirely infantry list, then they are likely to try for one of the Infantry Unit only objectives as they (probably) have more infantry units, which would give them an advantage.

6 minutes ago, Khobai said:

How is it a massive change to change Armor into Armor 2?

Thats funny if thats your idea of a massive change lol.

Point costs are also already malleable so they can change the point cost easily too.

So changing an existing unit to only block 2 hits instead of all hits is a minor change to a unit with white dice no surge defence?
It massively changes how the unit functions and how it plays. The AT-RT now can't be reliably used to provide cover to advancing infantry since it will now die in a single turn of focused, non-impact shooting just like Speeders. Where did I mention points costs?

I think vehicles have shown that they need order control on top of having good dice and mods in order to be effective. The best and really the only truly competitive vehicles in the game right now are the AAT and the STAPs. Both are benefitted from cheap but inherently useful corp, order control, and really strong dice and mods. I think every faction other than CIS will always struggle to add vehicles into their lists for these reasons.

8 minutes ago, Khobai said:

How is it a massive change to change Armor into Armor 2?

Thats funny if thats your idea of a massive change lol.

Point costs are also already malleable so they can change the point cost easily too.

You must be used to smaller dice pools with the people you play with. In my area it is not exactly uncommon to have 5,6,7 hits out of one attack. So going from 0 hits (armor) to 3,4,5 hits (armor 2) on a unit with white defense die is a significant difference.

25 minutes ago, Khobai said:

The AT-ST moves faster than the AT-RT. So its more like a fast moving barn. And I think the barn-sized disadvantage is already represented in Legion by how difficult it is for the AT-ST to hide behind terrain. Whereas the AT-RT has a much easier time of hiding itself behind things. That advantage shouldnt be understated.

Im also not sure I like the idea of AT-RTs becoming Tauntauns. Tauntauns were a mistake. Besides if you start giving the AT-RT free movement then there really is no reason to ever take the BARC speeder when the AT-RT is also just as fast.

I think its important for the AT-RT and BARC speeder to have different playstyles. One should be an assault unit and the other should be a flanking unit. And they should both be equally viable in their respective roles.

Unfortunately the RT and the BARC do share similar rolls as depicted in the movies/animated shows. The difference is, when squatting down in a storage type mode, the RT would be more compact and fit in the back of an AT-TE or an LAAT at least as far as “real world” concerns would go. Also even though the version I depicted is a more accurate version, the RT would still actually have an advantage to the BARC in Legion as the RT could stand still and/or back up. So we’re still at the same place you were claiming originally. The only way to make a less good unit worthy of taking over a better unit would be to make it cheaper, but you were against that too because of its comparison to the bikes (The BARC would need to be cheaper than the RT and so it would be cheaper than bikes). So if you want to keep them with different play styles, there is little that can be changed even with the RT’s points (it was proven that a higher point total on the RT didn’t make it viable in any competitive games). As I mentioned before, you can’t reduce the Armour of a unit that has proven vulnerable with it, without doing a massive rewrite and you can’t claim that the RT is an assault unit without giving it the abilities to fulfill that role. So we’ve gone full circle and maybe this is a glimpse of what the designers went through and why the RT has full Armour.

4 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

The only way to make a less good unit worthy of taking over a better unit would be to make it cheaper, but you were against that too because of its comparison to the bikes

Correct. I am against heavily buffing the BARC speeder and making the BARC speeder superior to all other speeders.

I am not however against buffing all speeders including the BARC speeder because I believe all speeders need to be buffed.

I believe all speeders should get a free dodge token and the outmaneuver keyword just for being a speeder. I also believe speeders should not have compulsory move. The compulsory move should be optional rather than compulsory. Although not taking the compulsory move should mean you dont get the free dodge token. That makes compulsory move take the carrot approach rather than the stick approach; it also doesnt make sense that speeders have to drive around at full throttle all the time because they can certainly should be able to stop and hover in place.

Quote

As I mentioned before, you can’t reduce the Armour of a unit that has proven vulnerable with it, without doing a massive rewrite and you can’t claim that the RT is an assault unit without giving it the abilities to fulfill that role. So we’ve gone full circle and maybe this is a glimpse of what the designers went through and why the RT has full Armour.

That's where we disagree.

I believe you can reduce the armor of the AT-RT and still have it fill the assault role. It doesnt need full armor to be an assault unit nor does full armor make any sense on it.

The AT-RT with armor 2 and a red saving throw would still be pretty tough. And actually tougher against certain things like crits. Because crits ignore armor anyway but against crits a red saving throw is better than a white saving throw with surge. Armor 2 with a red saving throw is the way to go.

Those stats make way more sense since the driver is an exposed clone trooper and clone troopers get red armor saves innately. And the armor 2 comes from riding the AT-RT. It also puts it more in line with similar units like the dewback, tauntaun, etc... where the rider is completely exposed. It adds a degree of consistency to those types of units which the AT-RT currently violates.

Again the AT-RT having better armor than an AT-ST just doesnt make any sense at all. Not from a logical standpoint or a game balance one. It really needs to be changed.

Quote

So if you want to keep them with different play styles, there is little that can be changed

No theres actually a lot of things that can be changed to differentiate the BARC speeder and AT-RT. Try thinking outside the box.

Legion can add new game mechanics anytime it chooses to. Just because a game mechanic doesnt exist now doesnt mean it cant exist in the future. Giving the BARC a new keyword is one possible way of helping it find a role within the army. For example if the BARC speeder had a designate keyword that let it designate targets to make them easier to hit for other units.

New commanders can also be released to encourage players to use underdog units more or try different playstyles with a faction. Like a vehicle commander for GAR that rewards GAR players for using vehicles more than cloneballs.

The objectives can also be changed any time to make vehicles like the BARC speeder better able to contribute. This is one of the biggest areas where FFG has let down the players with regards to vehicles by having so many objectives require trooper units.

Theres so many ways to make the BARC speeder better and different from the AT-RT. I just find a lot of you to be completely close minded to the possibilities.

9 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Khobai It doesn't matter if the GAR has a "vehicle commander" or not, vehicles are still generally worse in every faction than an equal number of points spent on infantry from a competitive standpoint.
Vehicles are only directly relevant in a subset of the possible Objectives while infantry are relevant in all objectives.

Additionally, barring a dramatic change to the force org chart, Core units will always be required. Since the strength of GAR's Corps units is the token sharing, then building a list around those required units is going to be more points efficient (meaning more activations) than building a list around a vehicle commander gimmick, which would only be relevant for a relatively small portion of the army.

Honestly, I don't even see AT-RTs being a common sight in GAR lists, bypassed in favour of ARC troopers.

The GAR doesn't "need" a vehicle commander. What they "need" are more units overall to give the army more variation.

THIS GUY GETS IT!

he really doesnt get it because GAR getting more releases wont fix the BARC speeder.

Its just more things to take over the BARC speeder.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

he really doesnt get it because GAR getting more releases wont fix the BARC speeder.

Its just more things to take over the BARC speeder.

Which is always going to be the case regardless of if the BARC is "fixed" or not. Vehicles are generally not as points efficient as infantry in Legion.

Extensive changes to cards that have already released is typically handled as a new edition, which is also the time in any wargame when the there is a sudden spike in armies for sale on eBay. Players already grumble about the points costs adjustments and eratta not being reflected on the newer printings of unit cards, changing over half of the Objective cards (and most of the past vehicle cards) isn't going to be welcomed, not because of what the change is but just because the cards that have been purchased do not reflect the actual game rules. Especially with as annoyed as players are right now with the various distribution issues. Even changing the objectives still wouldn't make vehicles better, you can often get more activations worth of infantry for the cost of a vehicle. More activations means more unit leaders, which means more scoring units, more activations to place damage/suppression, better board coverage, and more actions to accomplish goals.

The Learn to play guide highlights a core design philosophy between Troopers and Vehicles in Legion:

Quote

Troopers are the humans, aliens, and droids that form the heart of every fighting force in the galaxy. They are mobile and lightly armored, and are crucial to securing objectives. Vehicles are the walkers, airspeeders, repulsor tanks, and speeder bikes that augment each army. They are larger, more durable, and more cumbersome than troopers, and provide an army with critical fire support.

Troopers are intended to be the main element used for securing objectives, while vehicles are supposed to be support pieces.

Even in a theoretical second edition, I don't see vehicles suddenly becoming a better point investment than infantry, that would be like Armada being changed to make fighters more of a focus than the capital ships.

23 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Those are some good points, but if we are making it make sense we should also address the idea that an AT-RT is a fast moving target that shifts from side to side as it switches from one leg to another (just going by the animated version, the movie version was on for 10 seconds and didn’t show much), but the AT-ST by comparison is more like trying to hit a slow moving barn. In truth the RT should probably be more like the Tauntaun with Armour 1 perhaps as it does have some and gaining dodge for movement, but unfortunately (at least for the Republic version) there is now a legacy and the newer version can’t be too different than the original. Perhaps at the RT’s inception full armour made sense or perhaps the testing forced a need to change from Armour 1 or 2 as the unit was killed too quickly, or it may have just been that the Tauntaun method or approach had not occurred to them yet. So we have what we have. Without a complete rewrite it would be quite unfair to remove full armour from a unit that has proven to be fragile with it and FFG has a history of not liking to rewrite, minor corrections maybe, but rewrite no. I wouldn’t mind a version of the RT more like a Tauntaun hybrid with Armour 1. That would be more thematic and prevent the RT from being treated like a heavy without any benefits. I would further suggest that a petition could get FFG to change the RT as they have shown a willingness to sell card packs and that would be the best and maybe the only way to do a complete rewrite. I would sign such a petition. They say, “be the change you want to see”.

I kind of like the idea of RTs with Agile 1, Relentless, Reposition, Unhindered, Armour 1 and maybe Climbing Vehicle and Expert Climber (not sure where the last two came from originally and if it’s lore. I know the AT-TE can climb, but haven’t heard of the RT). The Rebel version could have white defence dice with surge and Republic could have red with surge, and continue with the surge to crit and hit as the originals, but price them the same. Weapons, load out, health and resilience could all be the same. Not sure on price as I’m not sure if this version would make it more or less powerful. It certainly would make them more mobile as their depiction, and they wouldn’t be quite as bothersome as Tauntauns as they don’t have Ram or Sharpshooter and have 2 less health and since RTs only have 1 model can’t play with cover as easily. Just a thought.

I hate the argument that agility is the reason for the Armor. Speeders are way faster and more agile and all they get is cover 1.

7 hours ago, costi said:

I hate the argument that agility is the reason for the Armor. Speeders are way faster and more agile and all they get is cover 1.

You won’t get any arguments from me that speeders need a boost.