21 hours ago, evo454 said:

Ultimately, it feels like FFG tried to cover one too many areas with the ARCs and so they're a bit thin in that regard. I may be wrong, I haven't gotten to play them, but that's my two cents. I'm excited to see what Fives and Echo can do, but the only real "power move" I can think of for the Arcs would be to use them in tandem with Rex's Scouting Party to get some tougher units into the fight faster so Corps units have an extra turn or two to get set and grab objectives.

If nothing else, they can harry opposing units on the fringes and grab objectives with jetpacks, so they could work well that way.

That's kinda what I think. I would have preferred the scout/sniper role given to ARFs, or even dedicated jetpack troopers, while ARCs were a straight DT/Mando/Inferno Squad analog of heavy hitters. Oh well.

But yeah, using them in conjunction with Scouting Party to push units up has proven useful, as long as the table allows for it. It's really good with Hostage Exchange, as you can push enough units up to dominate the center for Round 2, and jetpacks on the ARCs tend to mean they can bounce around the flanks. Not really how ARCs should act, if you ask me, but it's what we've got.

51 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

That's kinda what I think. I would have preferred the scout/sniper role given to ARFs, or even dedicated jetpack troopers, while ARCs were a straight DT/Mando/Inferno Squad analog of heavy hitters. Oh well.

But yeah, using them in conjunction with Scouting Party to push units up has proven useful, as long as the table allows for it. It's really good with Hostage Exchange, as you can push enough units up to dominate the center for Round 2, and jetpacks on the ARCs tend to mean they can bounce around the flanks. Not really how ARCs should act, if you ask me, but it's what we've got.

They needed to leave the design space open for Republic Commandos, who I think are going to more in line with DTs, especially with their modular blasters, so they'll be able to adjust and refit their weapons just like DTs can.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

That's kinda what I think. I would have preferred the scout/sniper role given to ARFs, or even dedicated jetpack troopers, while ARCs were a straight DT/Mando/Inferno Squad analog of heavy hitters. Oh well.

But yeah, using them in conjunction with Scouting Party to push units up has proven useful, as long as the table allows for it. It's really good with Hostage Exchange, as you can push enough units up to dominate the center for Round 2, and jetpacks on the ARCs tend to mean they can bounce around the flanks. Not really how ARCs should act, if you ask me, but it's what we've got.

Well, at range 2, the ARCs hit as hard as a full B2 unit (minus the heavy) along with an aim, which is to say they hit like a truck that has Sharpshooter 1. I'm not sure why they don't compare favorably to the DT (I guess since the ARCs don't surge to defend), but I'm also not sure how much more heavy hitter you can get than 8 dice with an aim (10-11 with a heavy).

You can even do it at range 3 on a Take That Clankers turn if they have an order. If a clone unit fire supports with them, that's some for sure dead enemy units you're looking at.

11 hours ago, Nithorian said:

They needed to leave the design space open for Republic Commandos, who I think are going to more in line with DTs, especially with their modular blasters, so they'll be able to adjust and refit their weapons just like DTs can.

I doubt theyll be in line with DTs. Because of token sharing and fire support. If GAR ever got a unit in line with DTs it would be the most broken unit in the game.

GAR Commandos will probably be more in line with Imperial Special Forces than DTs. Theyll get infiltrate, possibly reliable 1, maybe a reconfigurable weapon, and not much else. I dont think theres much to look forward to there.

GAR's broken macro mechanics really limit how good their future units can be. You definitely shouldnt expect anything on the same level as DTs. Not unless theres some serious changes to GAR. Standby token sharing is already broken and even fire support can potentially become a broken ability if GAR gets a unit that does damage on par with DTs. Because attack pools that strong combined with fire support would guarantee GAR could erase enemy units off the board before they even get a chance to activate for the turn. It would make GAR even more of a negative play experience than it already is.

I personally think GAR needs to move away from being the "elite" army because thats stupid and causing obvious balance problems when their corps units are straight up better than everyone elses. GAR should become more of an army that focuses on stacking powerful synergies between different units. All their units should synergistically mesh together in such a way that theres a clear advantage to taking different units and a clear disadvantage to spamming one type of unit. For example I mentioned before giving the BARC speeder a keyword like designate so it could designate targets and make them easier to hit for other units. They should make each unit in the army a synergistic piece of a much larger puzzle. Instead of the silliness we have now where some units are better than others to such an extent that people spam the good units to the exclusion of everything else.

10 hours ago, Khobai said:

I doubt theyll be in line with DTs. Because of token sharing and fire support. If GAR ever got a unit in line with DTs it would be the most broken unit in the game.

GAR Commandos will probably be more in line with Imperial Special Forces than DTs. Theyll get infiltrate, possibly reliable 1, maybe a reconfigurable weapon, and not much else. I dont think theres much to look forward to there.

GAR's broken macro mechanics really limit how good their future units can be. You definitely shouldnt expect anything on the same level as DTs. Not unless theres some serious changes to GAR. Standby token sharing is already broken and even fire support can potentially become a broken ability if GAR gets a unit that does damage on par with DTs. Because attack pools that strong combined with fire support would guarantee GAR could erase enemy units off the board before they even get a chance to activate for the turn. It would make GAR even more of a negative play experience than it already is.

I personally think GAR needs to move away from being the "elite" army because thats stupid and causing obvious balance problems when their corps units are straight up better than everyone elses. GAR should become more of an army that focuses on stacking powerful synergies between different units. All their units should synergistically mesh together in such a way that theres a clear advantage to taking different units and a clear disadvantage to spamming one type of unit. For example I mentioned before giving the BARC speeder a keyword like designate so it could designate targets and make them easier to hit for other units. They should make each unit in the army a synergistic piece of a much larger puzzle. Instead of the silliness we have now where some units are better than others to such an extent that people spam the good units to the exclusion of everything else.

This is just going off of what Commandos are in lore but I'd suspect that they are quite hardy, but their unit size will be 4, and that is with the heavy weapon, and like we've seen with strike teams, they have to take a heavy weapon, so the squad is always 4 you can't run them cheaper than that.

They'll probably have Surge to Defence on a Red Die, maybe with impervious, because their armour is probably the heaviest armour we've ever seen in Star Wars. They would have 1 wound each, unless they are special named Commandos like Delta Squad or Gregor, but they'd cost a lot more points.

They probably don't get many keywords, but have quite a lot of upgrade slots, including 2 armaments and it is on their weapons that that they get their big keywords, but at a price cost. Or instead of allowing the whole squad to retrofit their blasters, to snipers or anti-armour, they just have 2 heavy weapon options, and like Iden/Cassian, they can choose at deployment which load out they want to use but are stuck with that for the rest of the game. Then make their weapon Load Outs where their big keywords are, so if you can kill the Heavy the unit is hurt quite badly, just to give opponents counter play.

I know they do covert ops a lot, but they don't scout much, so I'm not sure if they'd even get the infiltrate or scout keywords at all. Their baseline blaster the DC-17m, in its rifle mode would probably still be quite strong though, maybe 1 black 1 white at range three.

Quote

Their baseline blaster the DC-17m, in its rifle mode would probably still be quite strong though, maybe 1 black 1 white at range three.

it definitely wont be a black and a white at range three. nobody gets that at range 3. even deathtroopers only get 1 black at range 3.

and GAR certainly wont because of fire support.

43 minutes ago, Khobai said:

it definitely wont be a black and a white at range three. nobody gets that at range 3. even deathtroopers only get 1 black at range 3.

and GAR certainly wont because of fire support.

Depends on how big the unit is, with only 4 guys in the unit, that is only 4 black 4 white, which is worse than a lot of core or special forces units. Of course that depends on their heavy weapon options. That makes their blasters worse than the Mandalorian Resistance, who are range 2, but they also aren't as mobile, and without surge to hit, those white dice aren't all that good.

@Nithorian The modeling challenge that FFG has for a Clone Commandos box is that there are two fairly different Clone Commando units that people will want to be able to recreate: the Bad Batch and Delta Squad.

It would be interesting to have both units in the same box (a sprue for each unit), use the squad's name as the card title, then (similarly to Inferno Squad and Clan Wren) use the unique upgrade cards that are required to enforce the uniqueness rule on the squad.

Alternately, Delta could just be represented by the generic version of the squad, with the Bad Batch as the character variant.

The blasters in your proposed design are also worse than Inferno Squad's basic blaster which has 2 black at range 1-3. The thing about weapons is that any design is theoretically possible, but the better they are the more points the unit will cost.

At this point we have wandered far from the topic, but I wouldn't mind continuing to talk about potential Commando squad ideas in a dedicated thread.

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

At this point we have wandered far from the topic, but I wouldn't mind continuing to talk about potential Commando squad ideas in a dedicated thread

Yo, I love me some Commandos, so I'll make that thread now if you're not already!

23 hours ago, Nithorian said:

They needed to leave the design space open for Republic Commandos, who I think are going to more in line with DTs, especially with their modular blasters, so they'll be able to adjust and refit their weapons just like DTs can.

I'd actually think you'd build them more like Clan Wren/Inferno Squad, personally. Weapon configurations could be a thing, as could load out. That said, it's a four man squad with no heavy weapon options. Comparing roles, DTs seem to be largely PSDs for high ranking officers and heavy infantry. Republic Commandos should be, well, commandos. Sneaky, strong, but not something you want to get bogged down in an infantry slug fest. ARCs better fit that role, at least in my opinion.

22 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

Well, at range 2, the ARCs hit as hard as a full B2 unit (minus the heavy) along with an aim, which is to say they hit like a truck that has Sharpshooter 1. I'm not sure why they don't compare favorably to the DT (I guess since the ARCs don't surge to defend), but I'm also not sure how much more heavy hitter you can get than 8 dice with an aim (10-11 with a heavy).

You can even do it at range 3 on a Take That Clankers turn if they have an order. If a clone unit fire supports with them, that's some for sure dead enemy units you're looking at.

You have to get within range 2, or play a card and hope you're opponent isn't mindful for the range 3 option. Personally, I find TTC to be overrated, and rarely the best card to play as a defensive player. It can be useful, but you usually have to build for it/work for it. And 8 dice with an aim sounds impressive, but half of those are white, and all are without surges. That usually means at least 4 blanks with my dice, probably 5 or 6. Compare that to DTs with their rifle grenades, which give 6 red, 1 white at range two (with the stapled on DLT), with blast, surge to hit, and Precise 2. I'll take the consistency of the DTs over the slightly higher ceiling of the ARCs.

2 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Nithorian The modeling challenge that FFG has for a Clone Commandos box is that there are two fairly different Clone Commando units that people will want to be able to recreate: the Bad Batch and Delta Squad.

It would be interesting to have both units in the same box (a sprue for each unit), use the squad's name as the card title, then (similarly to Inferno Squad and Clan Wren) use the unique upgrade cards that are required to enforce the uniqueness rule on the squad.

Alternately, Delta could just be represented by the generic version of the squad, with the Bad Batch as the character variant.

The blasters in your proposed design are also worse than Inferno Squad's basic blaster which has 2 black at range 1-3. The thing about weapons is that any design is theoretically possible, but the better they are the more points the unit will cost.

At this point we have wandered far from the topic, but I wouldn't mind continuing to talk about potential Commando squad ideas in a dedicated thread.

That's exactly how I'd personally expect them to be done, with a named Bad Batch, and generic squad that Delta/Omega squad lovers will actually play. Even if the stats on the Bad Batch are good enough to see play, my guys will never be painted up like them.

5 minutes ago, evo454 said:

Yo, I love me some Commandos, so I'll make that thread now if you're not already!

Go for it.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

You have to get within range 2, or play a card and hope you're opponent isn't mindful for the range 3 option. Personally, I find TTC to be overrated, and rarely the best card to play as a defensive player. It can be useful, but you usually have to build for it/work for it. And 8 dice with an aim sounds impressive, but half of those are white, and all are without surges. That usually means at least 4 blanks with my dice, probably 5 or 6. Compare that to DTs with their rifle grenades, which give 6 red, 1 white at range two (with the stapled on DLT), with blast, surge to hit, and Precise 2. I'll take the consistency of the DTs over the slightly higher ceiling of the ARCs.

I'd more compare it to the DT's 8W attack at range 1-2, since their grenades can only be used if they started their turn within the appropriate range, or they switched their config on a previous turn (and thus, lost their range 4 attacks) since they have to recover first. Or if they've got Steady from Iden. Other than that, ARC's have access to Jump, Tactical, and can share tokens, so it seems a bit more even to me, but that's just an opinion.

12 hours ago, Khobai said:

I doubt theyll be in line with DTs. Because of token sharing and fire support. If GAR ever got a unit in line with DTs it would be the most broken unit in the game.

GAR Commandos will probably be more in line with Imperial Special Forces than DTs. Theyll get infiltrate, possibly reliable 1, maybe a reconfigurable weapon, and not much else. I dont think theres much to look forward to there.

GAR's broken macro mechanics really limit how good their future units can be. You definitely shouldnt expect anything on the same level as DTs. Not unless theres some serious changes to GAR. Standby token sharing is already broken and even fire support can potentially become a broken ability if GAR gets a unit that does damage on par with DTs. Because attack pools that strong combined with fire support would guarantee GAR could erase enemy units off the board before they even get a chance to activate for the turn. It would make GAR even more of a negative play experience than it already is.

I personally think GAR needs to move away from being the "elite" army because thats stupid and causing obvious balance problems when their corps units are straight up better than everyone elses. GAR should become more of an army that focuses on stacking powerful synergies between different units. All their units should synergistically mesh together in such a way that theres a clear advantage to taking different units and a clear disadvantage to spamming one type of unit. For example I mentioned before giving the BARC speeder a keyword like designate so it could designate targets and make them easier to hit for other units. They should make each unit in the army a synergistic piece of a much larger puzzle. Instead of the silliness we have now where some units are better than others to such an extent that people spam the good units to the exclusion of everything else.

Their Corps units are better than everyone elses becasue they are more expensive, are you honesty trying to compare units without accounting for cost because that is stupid.

the best corps unit for each faction is as follows (IMO)

Rebels - Vetrans

48 points, 1 health each, 12 points each, 4 models in base unit, white defense with surge, defend 1, 1b range 1-3 with surge: hit,

good attack and ok defense with easy access to dodges, also coordinates to emplacement for good activation control.

Empire - Shores

52 points, 1 health each, 13 points each, 4 models in base unit, red defense, target 1, 1b range 1-3, 1 courage

Ok attack and good defense with easy access to aims, also coordinates to emplacement for good activation control. no surge

CIS - B2's

48 points, 2 health each, 16 points each but only 3 models in the base unit, white defense, armour 1, 1b1w range 1-2, AI: Attack, 2 courage

good attack but short range (can work well with AI: Attack) good defense due to armor1 and 2 health, benifits from Coordinate from the rest of the Army. no surge

GAR - Phase II's

60 points, 1 health each, 15 points each, 4 models in base unit, red defense, reliable 1, 1b range 1-3, fire support, 2 courage

OK attack and good defense, can only surge once per round, can share green tokens with friendly clones at rnage 1, fire support can make large dice pools but you lose out on activations for that turn and an action for that unit overall

Clones are a good unit, but they are not as broken as you seen to think, they cost way more than any of the other top teir corps units (8/12 points is a lot) but die just as easily as the others, their attack is worse than the rebel vets and B1's and on par with the Shores.

They are costed approriately compared to the shores i think, they lose Target 1, but gain reliable1, i personally think target 1 is slightly better overall personally, they dont have coordinate but have fire support, this means that the clones lose an activation that turn and the shores have better activation control, and it is telegraphed pretty easily and so can be countered, they can share green tokens, while powerful this assumes that the other squads have not spent them already, you lose out on one attack or defense to gain on another, this makes them spiky not consistantly better and they have courage 2 not 1, this is useful but as a faction they have very little in the way of suppression removal at the moment.

it just sounds like you havent actually played against them much if at all and are looking at their stats and crying about it. grow up and actually learn to play the game and maybe you wont walk into the very obvious traps that people can lay with the clones.

2 hours ago, 5particus said:

Their Corps units are better than everyone elses becasue they are more expensive, are you honesty trying to compare units without accounting for cost because that is stupid.

Theyre not expensive enough. Why do you think theres so much talk about nerfing them? The only reason you nerf something is if its too good for its cost.

Quote

They are costed approriately compared to the shores i think

Not really. shoretroopers dont have token sharing or fire support. Yet for some reason phase Is cost less than shores? That makes no sense.

Imperials are even struggling as the the worst faction competitively right now. Shoretroopers certainly arnt helping them win any games.

Quote

Clones are a good unit, but they are not as broken as you seen to think

if you say so. I suppose thats why clones are winning every major competitive event using mostly corps units (with some help from arc troopers to up the activation count).

https://www.invaderleague.com/league/season-5/season-5-single-elimination-lists

https://thefifthtrooper.com/gencon-online-top-8/

All evidence suggests youre wrong.

Its not a matter of "lern to play". The best players in the world struggle against clones. Because they are broken.

I guarantee you that a clonetrooper nerf is incoming before the end of year. At the very least standby token sharing is gone. Strike teams will also probably see a nerf.

22 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Why do you think theres so much talk about nerfing them?

You are actually the only person I have seen making a big deal about how they need to be nerfed. Most people seem to be of the opinion that standby sharing is probably overpowered, but that's not tied to GAR corps troops specifically.

22 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Yet for some reason phase Is cost less than shores?

They cost the same.

22 minutes ago, Khobai said:

if you say so. I suppose thats why clones are winning every major competitive event using mostly corps units and arc troopers.

They have won two tournaments (hardly a huge sample size). And corps troopers and ARCs represent a sizable chunk of everything that is available to GAR at the moment.

42 minutes ago, Khobai said:

I guarantee you that a clonetrooper nerf is incoming before the end of year

Clones arent op, I recently played against a friend's clone arc trooper list with my CIS list. I scored MAX objective points on intercept the transmissions and he scored 0. If clones are as op as u claim them to be then this shouldn't be possible even with the few mistakes he made the clones being op should have compinsated for them and the game should have at least been alot closer, which it clearly didnt turn out that way.

37 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

They have won two tournaments (hardly a huge sample size). And corps troopers and ARCs represent a sizable chunk of everything that is available to GAR at the moment.

To expand on this, it is not unusual even in "properly" balanced games for new factions to see a wider usage among competitive players, especially if their usual faction hasn't seen any new releases for awhile. With as often as they play, using the same army list/faction over and over and over can get stale.

1 hour ago, lunitic501 said:

Clones arent op, I recently played against a friend's clone arc trooper list with my CIS list. I scored MAX objective points on intercept the transmissions and he scored 0. If clones are as op as u claim them to be then this shouldn't be possible even with the few mistakes he made the clones being op should have compinsated for them and the game should have at least been alot closer, which it clearly didnt turn out that way.

so your one game that you played against clones with your friend is weighted more heavily than the hundreds of games played during invader league?

1 hour ago, Lochlan said:

You are actually the only person I have seen making a big deal about how they need to be nerfed. Most people seem to be of the opinion that standby sharing is probably overpowered, but that's not tied to GAR corps troops specifically.

They cost the same.

They have won two tournaments (hardly a huge sample size). And corps troopers and ARCs represent a sizable chunk of everything that is available to GAR at the moment.

They dont cost the same after they take their heavy weapons and the mortar for shoretroopers. For some reason the shoretrooper heavy weapon is obnoxiously expensive.

And you normally dont just take naked shoretroopers because imperials rely heavily on range 4 weapons in the current meta since outranging GAR is important right now. Thats even why youre seeing operatives like Bossk getting used again. Whereas clones can just take naked clonetroopers and use them as token factories.

shoretroopers on the whole represent a much bigger points investment for imperial players than a naked unit of clonetroopers. I definitely would not try to equate the two they are used completely differently in their respective armies.

Quote

They have won two tournaments (hardly a huge sample size).

Invader league was hundreds of games with players from all over the world. GAR dominated nearly every playgroup as well as the single elimination. It was not a small sample size.

Quote

You are actually the only person I have seen making a big deal about how they need to be nerfed. Most people seem to be of the opinion that standby sharing is probably overpowered, but that's not tied to GAR corps troops specifically.

Of course its tied to GAR and specifically corps units. Theyre the only army that can share standby tokens. And its all the naked corps units acting as token factories that make it so broken. Without all the naked corps units it wouldnt work.

So dont tell me the problem isnt corps units when it obviously is.

And what big deal am I making? I said standby token sharing needs to be removed. And I said strike teams need to be nerfed. Youre acting like I want the entire clone faction to die in a dumpster fire. When the two nerfs Im asking for are entirely within reason. The only other thing I wanted was the BARC speeder to get buffed and the AT-RT to make actual sense and not have better armor than an AT-ST, in exchange for giving it the better red saving throw that most clones have anyway; a fair tradeoff IMO.

Youre the ones making a big deal about it not me. I just want the faction fixed. Not obliterated.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

To expand on this, it is not unusual even in "properly" balanced games for new factions to see a wider usage among competitive players, especially if their usual faction hasn't seen any new releases for awhile. With as often as they play, using the same army list/faction over and over and over can get stale.

and if CIS and GAR had similar win rates I might agree with you. But GAR wins significantly more than CIS.

So I have to attribute that to something other than new factions being played more.

GAR just straight up wins more than other factions. And not because its played more. But because its better.

Which is why GAR will inevitably get nerfed. Im not really worried about it not happening. I just dont like that its taking this long for FFG to do it.

15 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Of course its tied to GAR and specifically corps units. Theyre the only army that can share standby tokens. And its all the naked corps units acting as token factories that make it so broken.

Yes obviously it's tied to GAR. My point was that their corps troops aren't the problem, and don't specifically need to be nerfed. Removing the ability to share standby tokens from all Clone Troopers would probably fix the biggest issues, and wouldn't require any changes to corps troopers specifically .

Also, you seem to be under the impression that GAR players are running mostly naked Phase Is to generate tokens. Looking at the top lists from Invader League, we see the following counts for naked Phase Is:

Luke Cook: 1
Dashz: 2
Finn: 0
JJs Juggernaut: 0
TowerNumberNine: 1
Darth Thomas: 1
Stevens: 1
JamesBrett: 2
Quinno75: 0
FrankGao: 2
DocVelo: 0
Copes: 1
Neferidian: 0
Barrur: 0
SammyP: 1
Zodiack: 0 (1 naked Phase II)
Acep47: 1
NiCeGuY: 0
Ticklord: 0
Matshorics: 0

And if you add in the two GAR in the top 8 from GenCon:

Josiah Burkhardsmeier: 2
John Griffin: 0

That's only 14 lists out of 22 with at least 1 naked Phase I (14 if you count the one naked Phase II). Only 4 lists had 2. Nobody had more than that. Clearly spamming naked corps units to generate tokens isn't an issue. Rebels run way more naked corps units than GAR ever does.

@Khobai

(This may have been mentioned somewhere else in this thread, so sorry if it has but:) Have you personally played the GAR for more than a game or two?

I'll add in a bit of anecdotal experience here as a GAR/Empire player.

The token sharing is nice and all, but in order to take full advantage of it, you have to keep units within Range 1 of each other. This works well during deployment when you can directly place everyone in a daisy chain but in my own experience this falls apart quick. Even with aggressive token sharing tactics I've tried, the only time I've found it to be 100% beneficial without a catch is when we decide not to play any objective besides "kill the enemy" (because we sometimes get lazy and just want to smash out toys together!) In just about any other situation I've found that they get broken up quickly and by turn 2 or 3 you've either broken the chain for the sake of objectives or you've not broken your lines and now have to face a more dug in enemy who has claimed objectives and now has the upper hand, forcing you to play catch-up.

I've lost my fair share of games because I had clone troopers get sheered off from the group and decimated by a flanking unit or I've balled them up and gotten through the game with more units alive, but no objectives.

I'll reiterate that I feel the problem with GAR is simply that there is only one real strategy you can use with them that plays to their strengths, which comes from a lack of unit variety. ARCs and Walkers will likely shake this up a little bit and more commanders and operatives will promote other strategies and play methods. For now, there are clones, and that's it.

I would like to see more units come out for them and see how upcoming Rebel and Empire units work out before seeking any kind of serious points rebalancing.

That's my last 2 cents. This thread is so far off track that the station has cut their losses and bought a new train. Sorry @BrotherCaptainRJ !

Maybe we could cut out the fighting? The thread is about BARC speeders, not GAR corps units being overpowered or not.

From my memory the only major times we see BARC's or their analogues is the time Rex gets sniped, the episode fighting the talz (I believe they're actually swoops then but same difference), and the end of ROTS. They aren't really used in combat much. AT-RT's are used against tanks and infantry multiple times. Maybe BARC's could have more of a focus on mobility than they currently do.

5 hours ago, Ilostmycactus said:

Maybe we could cut out the fighting? The thread is about BARC speeders, not GAR corps units being overpowered or not.

From my memory the only major times we see BARC's or their analogues is the time Rex gets sniped, the episode fighting the talz (I believe they're actually swoops then but same difference), and the end of ROTS. They aren't really used in combat much. AT-RT's are used against tanks and infantry multiple times. Maybe BARC's could have more of a focus on mobility than they currently do.

The episode "Trespass" has both swoop bike(s) and BARC speeders. BARC speeders show up in significantly more episodes of Clone Wars than you list (actually in more episodes than the AT-RT), as well as the couple of video games. Admittedly a few of the times the BARC show up they are in use by Coruscant police.

Out of curiosity, how would you focus more on mobility than giving the unit a free (admittedly compulsory) move?

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The episode "Trespass" has both swoop bike(s) and BARC speeders. BARC speeders show up in significantly more episodes of Clone Wars than you list (actually in more episodes than the AT-RT), as well as the couple of video games. Admittedly a few of the times the BARC show up they are in use by Coruscant police.

Out of curiosity, how would you focus more on mobility than giving the unit a free (admittedly compulsory) move?

maybe give them a free pivot at the end of every move, if you give it to them before or after then they are never going to crash but just after means that you might still see them crash and their mobility is much greater

imp speeder bikes could probably use this as well

20 hours ago, Lochlan said:

You are actually the only person I have seen making a big deal about how they need to be nerfed. Most people seem to be of the opinion that standby sharing is probably overpowered, but that's not tied to GAR corps troops specifically.

They cost the same.

They have won two tournaments (hardly a huge sample size). And corps troopers and ARCs represent a sizable chunk of everything that is available to GAR at the moment.

In every other thread Invader League is used to back an argument, as the biggest tournament in the world. Now it's "hardly a huge sample size"?

Just now, costi said:

In every other thread Invader League is used to back an argument, as the biggest tournament in the world. Now it's "hardly a huge sample size"?

It's not a huge sample size when counting tournament wins by faction. It's literally a sample size of 1. It's a great source of data for a lot of things, but no single tournament is a good source of data for tracking tournament wins. Which is the point I was refuting—that GAR had won "every major competitive event," which, while technically true, is a grand total of 2 tournaments.