40 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Khobai it doesn't make it easier, since now you have two different components to determine. Does the piece of felt representing area terrain woods provide Cover, Concealment, or both? There is no visual representation of the woods blocking line of sight, nor how dense the woods are.

Sharpshooter represents any number of things: plot abilities, improved optics, a guided missile, the Force, etc. Having to lead by slightly less still entails accurately judging how much you have to lead the target by with little feedback as to actual speed. An unskilled shooter with a high-power rifle is less likely to make the same shot on a moving target as a skilled shooter, or another shooter with better optics.

i didnt say it made it easier. besides easier isnt necessarily better either.

and theres still only one component to determine, not two. you only have to determine whether or not the terrain would reasonably provide protection. if it does it grants cover. if it doesnt it grants concealment instead. thats how you would determine if concealment gets upgraded to cover. its still easy but provides more depth than the current cover rules.

IMO the game being mechanically interesting is preferable to having it be easy and dumbed down. everything giving cover is not a mechanically interesting game mechanic. especially not when you keep adding ways to ignore cover which completely screws the units that depend on cover like speeders.

And I dont care what you think sharpshooter should represent. your interpretation is irrelevant. All that matters is the game mechanics and the fact speeders suck because of the abundance of sharpshooter and other keywords like blast that currently ignore cover. speeders should not have cover as their defensive mechanism because cover is way too easy to ignore right now. Why does the blast keyword even help a weapon hit speeders? It shouldnt... its all because cover is overused as a keyword and theyve given units cover that should have other defensive keywords instead.

all speeders in the game should replace their cover keyword with a different defensive mechanism that cant be as easily circumvented. giving them free dodge tokens with outmaneuver is one possible alternative. since every speeder in the game is more maneuverable than the clone tank. if the clone tank gets outmaneuver then every speeder should also get it. because you cant really argue that the clone tank is more maneuverable than a speeder bike. And its certainly not more maneuverable than an airspeeder either.

again cover as a catchall defensive keyword isnt working in legion. i dont know what else to tell you...

@Khobai It isn't working for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't working for most other people. That's the whole point of each of the keywords : a catchall for a given effect rather than break out each individual effect. Sharpshooter is similarly a catchall for various ways of shooting better, Impact for various ways of bypass armour, etc. Legion is trying to be a simple game, not a simulation. The RRG is 92 pages long, and contains in it the basic rules to the game as well as all the army specific rules. Any rules not in the book are on cards you "need" in order to have the rule apply (I'd put that at maybe 8 more pages of text total so far?). Meanwhile, games like 40k 9e have 172 pages of basic gameplay rules, which doesn't include all of the different rules for the different armies, and that STILL relies on a bunch of "catchall" keywords and effects. Simulation wargames have rulebooks that rival the size of encyclopedias to deal with all the different possible situations, tables telling you what table you need to reference.

So if cover and concealment are supposed to be two different effects, why does terrain that doesn't grant cover automatically grant concealment? So a pond which wouldn't grant cover grants concealment? Why does a terrain piece that grants cover not grant concealment? Is all terrain that provides cover translucent? What about terrain that is translucent but would provide cover (blaster resistant glass, crystalline walls, etc)?
Thinking about it, this seems very similar to Light Cover vs Heavy Cover just by another name...

So a tank that has a maximum speed of 200 MPH and is capable of further sudden bursts of speed, and is able to abruptly change the direction of travel from forward to side to side is less maneuverable than a speeder bike which has to telegraph turns to change directions. There's no shame in not knowing all aobut everything that is in canon, they like to change it around and add new things all the time.

Guess what? Your interpretation also is irrelevant. Sharpshooter is by far NOT the reason the T-47 Airspeeder is bad, but that is a topic that has been covered extensively in threads dedicated to the topic, so doesn't need to be rehashed here.

Quote

So if cover and concealment are supposed to be two different effects, why does terrain that doesn't grant cover automatically grant concealment?

it wouldnt automatically grant concealment unless it somehow conceals the model without providing protection.

there could be terrain that grants neither concealment nor cover.

Its really quite easy:

1) does the terrain obscure the model at all? if no then it gives neither concealment nor cover.

2) if the terrain obscures the model, does it offer any sort of hard protection? if no the terrain provides concealment.

3) does the terrain both obscure the model and provide hard protection? if so then the terrain provides cover.

Quote

So a tank that has a maximum speed of 200 MPH and is capable of further sudden bursts of speed, and is able to abruptly change the direction of travel from forward to side to side is less maneuverable than a speeder bike which has to telegraph turns to change directions. There's no shame in not knowing all aobut everything that is in canon, they like to change it around and add new things all the time.

I didnt say the tank should should lose outmaneuver. I said if the tank gets outmaneuver than speeders should get outmaneuver too. Speeders are certainly more maneuverable than the tank in some ways with their compulsory move. So I dont see how you could even argue that point. Speeder bikes can run circles around the tank in Legion. The speeder bike can make two movements a turn at speed 3 and still fire its weapon. can the tank do that? the tank can strafe though which makes it maneuverable in a different sort of way. Thats why BOTH should have outmaneuver because BOTH are good at outmaneuvering other units.

Similarly the T-47 can outmaneuver things on the ground for the simple reason that it has access to an entire third axis of movement. It can fly up or down. similar to how the clone tank can strafe left or right. And given that dodge is a rebel macro mechanic, the airspeeder getting a free dodge each turn and outmaneuver makes total sense to me.

It sounds like youre just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

Quote

Guess what? Your interpretation also is irrelevant. Sharpshooter is by far NOT the reason the T-47 Airspeeder is bad, but that is a topic that has been covered extensively in threads dedicated to the topic, so doesn't need to be rehashed here.

But its not my interpretation. Its the actual rules. Sharpshooter and blast and crits counter cover. That is a fact not an interpretation.

I didnt say sharpshooter was the reason the T-47 was bad. The T-47 is not the only speeder in the game. There are other speeders that rely on the cover rule to protect them way more than the T-47.

Sharpshooter, blast, critical X and other keywords that ignore cover are certainly reasons other speeders struggle though. Because they rely on getting cover and if theyre denied their cover they tend to die horribly. Because they have low health, white saves, and no other defensive mechanisms besides cover.

The T-47 is bad because its offensively inept on top of its survivability issues from having to kamikaze into the enemy with its bizarre firing arcs and compulsory move. Fortunately it has armor so the cover problem that plagues other speeders doesnt affect it as much as it does other speeders.

@Khobai So like I said earlier, there are two components to determine for each piece of terrain in place of Cover. Does it provide Cover, does it provide concealment. You claimed there was only one and it was an either/or prospect. Now you are changing your answer.

You have said repeatedly the tank should be less maneuverable and implied speeders should be more maneuverable. Maneuverability isn't necessarily related to speed. A rocket car is incredibly fast, but has horrible maneuverability. A zero point turn lawn mower is very maneuverable but not very fast. The Sabre tank is maneuverable, it can jink left and right from a stopped position, a speeder bike is not, it goes very fast in a straight line but cannot dramatically change direction very quickly.

Speeders of all kinds have been bad since the game began, well before most of the units with Sharpshooter or Blast were released. It has more to do with most vehicles being worse point for point than infantry than any specific special rule interactions. Sharpshooter didn't make them significantly worse or better, especially when that keyword is predominantly on characters who can't generate large dice pools. Large dice pools bypass Dodge or Cover equally well, no sharpshooter, blast or other keywords required.
Your interpretation of speeders being maneuverable doesn't matter in that discussion at all. Nor does your interpretation of how speeders "should work" in Star Wars.

im not changing my answer. there was only ever one component not two. whether or not it provides protection is the only component that determines whether its concealment or cover. And if theres no terrain at all you dont need to worry about it giving concealment or cover.

Quote

You have said repeatedly the tank should be less maneuverable and implied speeders should be more maneuverable. Maneuverability isn't necessarily related to speed

The tank is less maneuverable than speeders in some ways (its slower with no compulsory move). Its more maneuverable than speeders in others (it can strafe)

The point is Speeders should have rules that reflect them being more maneuverable than they currently are. Speeders should get a free dodge token and outmaneuver. Possibly even nimble in some cases.

Speeders arnt maneuverable just because theyre fast. Theyre maneuverable because they get an extra movement with their compulsory move which allows them to turn better than other vehicles.

Again... Speeders are more maneuverable than the clone tank in some ways. And the clone tank is more maneuverable in other ways like being able to strafe

But all speeders should have free dodge and outmaneuver instead of the awful cover rule that almost never does anything useful to protect them.

Anyways I feel like were going in circles here. So agree to disagree.

@Khobai Concealment and Cover have to be determined separately or else all you've really done is just changed the names (and possibly the effects) on Cover 1 and Cover 2. As you said, you have to determine if the terrain provides Cover, then there is a separate consideration as to if it provides Concealment. If both of those have different effects, then they should not be dependent upon the other (ie, just because a piece of terrain gives Cover shouldn't mean it can't give Concealment/shouldn't mean it for provides the benefits of concealment AND the benefits of cover I previously gave examples where that doesn't make sense). In any case all you've done is change out one eh representation for another more complicated eh representation of the same thing.

Again, your opinion on the relative maneuverability of speeders doesn't matter, nor do your suggestions actually "fix" anything to make speeders magically better. You've misidentified the "problem" which is a core problem of your suggestions.

But I do at least agree with you that this discussion isn't productive.

7 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Khobai Concealment and Cover have to be determined separately or else all you've really done is just changed the names (and possibly the effects) on Cover 1 and Cover 2. As you said, you have to determine if the terrain provides Cover, then there is a separate consideration as to if it provides Concealment. If both of those have different effects, then they should not be dependent upon the other (ie, just because a piece of terrain gives Cover shouldn't mean it can't give Concealment/shouldn't mean it for provides the benefits of concealment AND the benefits of cover I previously gave examples where that doesn't make sense). In any case all you've done is change out one eh representation for another more complicated eh representation of the same thing.

Again, your opinion on the relative maneuverability of speeders doesn't matter, nor do your suggestions actually "fix" anything to make speeders magically better. You've misidentified the "problem" which is a core problem of your suggestions.

But I do at least agree with you that this discussion isn't productive.

I havent misidentified the problem at all though.

how does giving the airspeeder free dodge and outmaneuver not make it better? the airspeeder has armor. its not dying to regular hits. its dying to crits. so how does giving it the ability to dodge crits not make it better? of course it makes it better.

furthermore extending that same free dodge and outmaneuver to all speeders would have the effect of making all speeders more survivable. all speeders would be better as a result. crits murder speeders. giving speeders the ability to dodge crits would absolutely help them survive better. that isnt an opinion, its a fact.

and I have said multiple times the airspeeder needs both defensive and offensive buffs. it doesnt just need a free dodge and outmaneuver it also needs surge to crit or critical X to help its weapons penetrate through cover better.

youre just being obstinate and ridiculous. youre arguing solely for the sake of arguing and your arguments make absolutely no sense. Just like how youre trying to argue in the other thread that airspeeder are airplanes when theyre clearly repulsorlift vehicles. they dont use wings to generate lift they use repulsorlift technology. And they dont take off or land on runways they can VTOL, which is why they dont have wheels on their landing gears. Its also why airspeeders shouldnt be forced to compulsory move because theyre perfectly capable of hovering in place; turning the compulsory move into an optional move would be an absolute buff for the airspeeder and other speeders as well. Without the compulsory move it wouldnt have to kamikaze itself at the enemy anymore.

My favorite argument of yours is how you said climbing rules were fine then you used an example of terrain where your own units used jump instead of actually climbing in order to defend the climb rules. The climb rules are not fine thats why you used jump instead lol. It seems like you deliberately want to keep climbing bad so your jump units continue to have a huge advantage over non-jump units. Your entire argument was biased in favor of your own army. Rather than doing whats best for the game. Climbing should absolutely only cost 1 action and not 2 actions because its rarely worth doing when it costs 2 actions.

17 minutes ago, Khobai said:

youre just arguing solely for the sake of arguing and your arguments make absolutely no sense.

No offense but over the past few weeks you seem to have been the one instigating and maintaining a lot of the arguments on this forum. In loads of threads you're always bringing up how Vader is unplayable due to speed 1, that the airspeeder is hot garbage and how token sharing makes clones completely broken even when it's not totally relevant. And whilst there is some weight to your frustrations, most people disagree with the extent you claim and it's a bit frustrating to see you post the same complaints in every single thread as soon as someone brings up Vader or Clones.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, I mean no ill will and I just want the best for this community. I just feel that this forum has gone downhill a little lately and you constantly starting the same arguments in every thread when most people don't fully agree is a little grating.

Maybe it's time to accept that what you want for this game is a little different from what most people enjoy and that's ok, just maybe don't keep bringing it up. We all have a shared interest in this game and want the best for it, but arguing over stuff isn't going to help anything.

19 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I'm sorry @Alpha17 , but you may know more about everything than me, but i distinctly remember Luke, Han, Leia and Chewie being trapped in a trash compactor, and the lasers bounced off the walls.

As noted, that was was specifically referred to as being "magnetically sealed." Note that in literally every other shot in the movie, ricochets are never seen. Instead, we generally see chunks taken out of the wall when a blaster bolt is shown hitting them. Even moments before the shot in question, we see Leia fire a shot that blows open the garbage shoot grate.

If we ignore the distinction of the door being magnetically sealed, Han's actions would have been incredibly stupid to shoot a door with a weapon that normally bounces, and Luke's explanation that he already tried makes no sense at all. Instead, the bouncing shot should be taken as the exception, not the rule, and the other films support this.

And I have never claimed to be more knowledgeable about everything than anyone. I just happen to have a few life experiences and expertise that occasionally apply. Not super useful normally, but if airborne operations/military parachuting comes into play, or we need to debate the military history of WWI or the Rhodesian Bush War, I'm your man.

17 hours ago, Khobai said:

science fiction doesnt always have to explain everything. blaster weapons defy the known laws of physics.

and blaster bolts can definitely bounce off numerous things. they bounce off lightsabers too. theoretically if two blaster bolts hit eachother they could bounce off eachother too lol.

of course it makes you less likely to get shot.

my argument was that it shouldnt have the same effect as hiding in a light forest.

suppression conjuring up cover 1 out of thin air, the same protection as a light forest or hiding behind a tank, is a bit of a stretch for me.

I think the rules for suppression couldve been done better.

Blaster bolts bounce off of exactly two things in canon, lighsabers and magnetically sealed doors. Everything else is speculation, and has no basis in canon. Using bullet logic has its flaws when dealing with this, so care must be taken when speculating. For instance, armor usually tries to deflect projectiles in our world, or possibly shatter it. In Star Wars, armored vehicles instead absorb the energy from blasters. Besides relying on other works, this effect is show multiple times within the films, so there's not much disputing it.

And going prone doesn't have the same effect as "hiding in a light forest." It has the same effect as a group of guys standing around in a light forest. Don't forget that cover stacks, and units that are intentionally trying to hide while moving usually will have the "low profile" keyword. Snipers for instance, will move quite a bit more stealthily than an infantry squad on patrol or on movement to contact. For the snipers, they get the benefit of moving "low and slow" as well as the natural concealment of light woods. For the infantry pukes, they don't get the same level until they get shot at and go to ground.

As for cover from vehicles, it's only the same cover as hiding behind the legs of a walking vehicle. Vehicles with lower centers of mass (such as the Occupier, or if I'm reading the rules right, the Saber tank) provide heavy cover. As such, it makes sense that a unit actively seeking whatever cover is available gets as much sense as a unit that is just standing around, or even moving behind a vehicle with relatively thin legs (or in a forest with very then trees/shrubs) between them and the enemy.

And if we're going to complain about the cover system, my biggest complaint is that there's isn't a Cover 3, which can only be gained by a suppressed unit behind heavy cover, but it probably wouldn't work mechanically in the game.

@Khobai I don't recall ever using jump to defend Climbing rules being fine. If you can quote the or link the post you are referencing I will address that further.
Also, if I'm the one that likes arguing so much, why are you continuing this discussion at all?
We had already both agreed to disagree. I am on the forums for the explicitly purposes of discussing various elements of the game and sharing points of view. Which is why I try to support my statements with evidence when possible rather than state my opinion as fact.

The Airspeeder isn't being destroyed by single crits it's being destroyed by massed fire, if it's being taken AT ALL. It fails to be relevant in the game since it doesn't contribute to most objectives, and fails to significantly impact the game for it's point cost. You are also citing your reasoning for Dodge and Outmaneuver as capabilities the craft is not shown to exhibit. Again, this is a conversation better continued in another forum, which is why I moved that conversation.

Lucas explicitly used element s of real world technologies as inspirations. The inspiration for the T-47 Airspeeder is ground attack aircraft of WW2, not helicopters. We do not see the T-47 Airspeeder exhibiting VOTL capabilities (in that it does not go from ground level straight up to combat altitude), nor do we see them hovering at combat altitude. As part of the "science fantasy" of Star Wars repulsors are another set of "magic" used to explain whatever a vehicle does when the wires/wheels are green screened out. We are dealing with an entirely made up technology (like lightsabers and blasters), so the only things we can say with any certainty is what we have seen and been told in canon. We do not see an Airspeeder hovering, nor taking off purely vertically. So, it is equally likely the the repulosers require power from the engines in order to maintain combat altitude as opposed to simply resting, and that the engines HAVE to provide thrust while running. This is a universe where the technology doesn't make sense outside of itself, and is sometimes contradictory. Energy can be stopped a set distance from the emitter, weapons can be created that target very specific metals, and a fibrous material can stop energy attacks, but isn't significantly used as part of armor.

I have presented canon evidence of the T-47 using a runway, I am waiting your evidence to the contrary. Which that is something I have distinctly noticed, you fail to provide canon Star Wars evidence when requested or in rebuttal of evidence you have been shown. "Real world" or "it should work that way" aren't evidence of anything more of your opinion.