5 minutes ago, 5particus said:

as they are at the moment, standbys are pretty much exclusively used by GAR, i have not really seen them being used by any other army.

My opinion is that they are not broken on clones so much as they are not currently used by other armies and so some people have never really seen them being used up to now.

they do work well with clones i will admit but the downsides is no attack with the unit that does a standby and clones usuallly have fewer units on the table so every attack is important.

Empire does use them. Specifically krennic lists. Now the other factions don’t build their entire strategy around them, but they are used.

The downside of no attack is no downside at all, since the standby is usually taken by a naked P1 squad that is out of range anyway.

This is the crux of the problem, as it allows a fully loaded frontline unit to make multiple attack at no cost.

9 minutes ago, 5particus said:

as they are at the moment, standbys are pretty much exclusively used by GAR, i have not really seen them being used by any other army.

My opinion is that they are not broken on clones so much as they are not currently used by other armies and so some people have never really seen them being used up to now.

they do work well with clones i will admit but the downsides is no attack with the unit that does a standby and clones usuallly have fewer units on the table so every attack is important.

Edit: it would also require the tokens to reprinted and given out to all the players again as the tokens are actually green in colour and it would otherwise be confusing to new players at the least

Instead of actively changing the actual colour of the token, they could just change the rules on Clone Trooper to achieve the same goal. Rather than "any green token" specifically listing the tokens that can be shared. Not as simple as "any green token" to be fair, but it also allows players to use alternate colors of acrylic tokens without causing confusion to new players with Clone Troopers anyway (in addition to being more colour blind friendly).

Part of the reason they are not commonly used in other armies is because they are VERY easy to remove in all other cases. You just attack the unit with the standby as your first action. So long as you roll at least one hit, the standby goes away. With Clones, the unit with the Standby is not targetable, so the only way to remove the token is to cause it to be spent.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Instead of actively changing the actual colour of the token, they could just change the rules on Clone Trooper to achieve the same goal. Rather than "any green token" specifically listing the tokens that can be shared. Not as simple as "any green token" to be fair, but it also allows players to use alternate colors of acrylic tokens without causing confusion to new players with Clone Troopers anyway (in addition to being more colour blind friendly).

Part of the reason they are not commonly used in other armies is because they are VERY easy to remove in all other cases. You just attack the unit with the standby as your first action. So long as you roll at least one hit, the standby goes away. With Clones, the unit with the Standby is not targetable, so the only way to remove the token is to cause it to be spent.

In theory yes but in practice no, in my experience the thing that usually protects the unit with the standby is not being behind a corner but being out of range of the unit that is trying to shoot them and having the unit that is going to shoot them between them so that if the want to come in range of the standby unit then they have to get in firing range of the unit that would actually take the shot.

Which is why Iden, Cassian and Stike teams are so important in countering the standby clones.

13 minutes ago, Memorare said:

I think the whole clone standby thing is objectively dumb, but honest at the moment I'd settle for Standby not being able to fire on any unit other than the one that triggers it. The use of standby to pound one target over and over just doesn't seem right gameplay or thematically wise.

I would agree with that at least

18 minutes ago, costi said:

The downside of no attack is no downside at all, since the standby is usually taken by a naked P1 squad that is out of range anyway.

This is the crux of the problem, as it allows a fully loaded frontline unit to make multiple attack at no cost.

if they take the standby but it is not spent at the end of the turn then it is a wasted action that could have been better used as a move, dodge or aim, also standbys are very easy to avoid, either by going around the activation range or by going behind LOS cover

2 minutes ago, 5particus said:

In theory yes but in practice no, in my experience the thing that usually protects the unit with the standby is not being behind a corner but being out of range of the unit that is trying to shoot them and having the unit that is going to shoot them between them so that if the want to come in range of the standby unit then they have to get in firing range of the unit that would actually take the shot.

Which is why Iden, Cassian and Stike teams are so important in countering the standby clones.

Out of line of sight and out of range are both ways a unit ends up not targetable, which is why I didn't differentiate between them. Having the token on the unit that would use it makes it significantly easier to remove, either because you already have a unit in Range 3, or those same tools for targeting the P1s.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

That's actually a bigger problem in my opinion than the GAR doing well, and is likely a result of two things. First, until Iden and ISF came out, the Empire hadn't had a solid release since Shoretroopers. Dewbacks and Operative Vader were duds at best. That left they very much behind the other factions.

Second, their last release's biggest advantage, coordinate, was nerfed in a pretty heavy handed way due to the complaints of threads just like this one.

The coordinate-relay chain was embarassing and almost disgusting. And, as the developers said, unintentional. That, and the free-disengaging tauntauns where borderline 'cheating' (as of 'breaking the rules'. i'm not saying those who used them where cheaters or anything, i did use them too).

I Totally agree with what you are trying to say, you just picked the wrong example.

btw iden was available in season 5 of invader, but i think the sub-par performance of the empire was due to the fact that GAR is just better at range 3 gunfight and empire players failed to adapt (understandable, it was the first time facing arcs for many of them).

2 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Out of line of sight and out of range are both ways a unit ends up not targetable, which is why I didn't differentiate between them. Having the token on the unit that would use it makes it significantly easier to remove, either because you already have a unit in Range 3, or those same tools for targeting the P1s.

which is why i specified Iden, Cassian and the sniper teams, currently when the clone units are at maximum distance apart from each other added to the range 3 of the longest overwatch it adds up to less than range 5, therefore the units that i mention can reach out and hit the theoretical naked Phase I's with the standby token without triggering the standby.

29 minutes ago, 5particus said:

if they take the standby but it is not spent at the end of the turn then it is a wasted action that could have been better used as a move, dodge or aim, also standbys are very easy to avoid, either by going around the activation range or by going behind LOS cover

If they make you go around to avoid triggering the standby then is not a wasted action. The standby foiled the plan of your enemy as they could not move as freely as they would have wanted.

5 minutes ago, 5particus said:

which is why i specified Iden, Cassian and the sniper teams, currently when the clone units are at maximum distance apart from each other added to the range 3 of the longest overwatch it adds up to less than range 5, therefore the units that i mention can reach out and hit the theoretical naked Phase I's with the standby token without triggering the standby.

Removing Standby sharing makes it so there is no additional protection to the Standby token, something your other fixes does not change.

Again, the reason most other factions do not use Standby has more to do with the token being significantly easier to remove. There is no need for a specific order chit to be pulled from the bag to remove the token, nearly any unit that starts their activation at Range 3 can remove the token. You don't need to have Iden, Cassian, or a sniper strike team lined up in the right way.

The distance between the front model of the Phase 2s and the closest Phase 1 model can be 10 inches, 18 + 10 = 28, meaning there is only a 2 inch band between the Range 5 of the sniper rifles and Range 3 (or roughly the diameter of two bases). A strike team that close the the Phase 2 unit is likely to be removed from the board next turn, which is not an equivalent trade for a single model in a P1 squad, or removing a single standby token.

As for the colours of the physical Standby token, green is in the minority, the token is mostly gray with bits of black and green.

17 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Removing Standby sharing makes it so there is no additional protection to the Standby token, something your other fixes does not change.

Again, the reason most other factions do not use Standby has more to do with the token being significantly easier to remove. There is no need for a specific order chit to be pulled from the bag to remove the token, nearly any unit that starts their activation at Range 3 can remove the token. You don't need to have Iden, Cassian, or a sniper strike team lined up in the right way.

The distance between the front model of the Phase 2s and the closest Phase 1 model can be 10 inches, 18 + 10 = 28, meaning there is only a 2 inch band between the Range 5 of the sniper rifles and Range 3 (or roughly the diameter of two bases). A strike team that close the the Phase 2 unit is likely to be removed from the board next turn, which is not an equivalent trade for a single model in a P1 squad, or removing a single standby token.

That theoretical maximum almost never works out, are you thinking that people never move their clones once they have them set up, they still need to go and secure the objectives, if people did that then they have area control of about a third to half of the table but allow the opponent free reign in the other half to 2 thirds allowing them to secure most of the objectives.

If they move up the phase I's at the back then they are even closer so can be attacked from even further outside the Phase II bubble, if they move the phase II's up then they are outsied the range of the standbys,

you entire argument is based on optimum postitioning that is almost impossible to acheieve and maintain.

If you dont want to risk your strike teams then hit the phase II's with some range 4 weapons to reduce their damage output and potentially make them flee if you have suppressive weapons, there are plenty of those scattered around the other armies.

@5particus And yours isn't based on similar optimal placement? Or the opposite, completely poor placement?

Your argument seems to be that is that it is easy to pick off the Standby from the Phase 1s due to similar optimal positioning. Since I can freely measure distances at any time, I can move the Phase 2s first, then move the Phase 1s up to provide the Standby. The movement speeds are the same, so keeping the spacing isn't that hard and can be checked while I am in the process of moving the Phase 1s.

Again, the discussion is why Standby isn't taken by other factions, which boils down to the fact that it is much easier to remove the Standby token. That same range 4 attack against any other faction would safely remove the Standby. Against GAR, it doesn't. The Phase 2s don't have to activate to use a standby token, nor to provide Fire Support. Placing Suppression can have less impact on Clones than other factions.

40 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@5particus And yours isn't based on similar optimal placement? Or the opposite, completely poor placement?

Your argument seems to be that is that it is easy to pick off the Standby from the Phase 1s due to similar optimal positioning. Since I can freely measure distances at any time, I can move the Phase 2s first, then move the Phase 1s up to provide the Standby. The movement speeds are the same, so keeping the spacing isn't that hard and can be checked while I am in the process of moving the Phase 1s.

Again, the discussion is why Standby isn't taken by other factions, which boils down to the fact that it is much easier to remove the Standby token. That same range 4 attack against any other faction would safely remove the Standby. Against GAR, it doesn't. The Phase 2s don't have to activate to use a standby token, nor to provide Fire Support. Placing Suppression can have less impact on Clones than other factions.

My point was that even with optimal spacing you can strip them because they are out ranged by those units.

also clones have to more than just activate to use their fire support, they have to have a face up order token to do it and then lose out on a second action. It is generally pretty hard for clones to get order tokens as they currently only have only 1 way of getting coordinate.

You look at one part of an ability and completely ignore the downsides and then claim that it is overpowered. Completely illogical.

30 minutes ago, 5particus said:

My point was that even with optimal spacing you can strip them because they are out ranged by those units.

also clones have to more than just activate to use their fire support, they have to have a face up order token to do it and then lose out on a second action. It is generally pretty hard for clones to get order tokens as they currently only have only 1 way of getting coordinate.

You look at one part of an ability and completely ignore the downsides and then claim that it is overpowered. Completely illogical.

I never said Fire Support was overpowered did I? I simply said that Suppression of a single unit doesn't matter as much. Nor did I say Clone Standby was overpowered, I just said why it is more common on Clones than every other faction.
I was just pointing out that the Clone player has ways of getting offensive capabilities out of the Phase 2s while avoiding the negative effects of Suppression, not trying to say all Clones need nerfing.

What I am saying is WHY the other factions don't typically use Standby. If Clones didn't have the Standby sharing which allows for a safer Standby token , they probably wouldn't be using Standby. Even forcing you to target the Phase 1s with the strike team or other sniper to remove the standby is still to the Clone player's advantage. You have targeted their cheaper unit whose primary roles are generate tokens and provide an activation, rather than the more expensive, more aggressive unit. Sure, it cost the Clone player an action, but not from the more expensive unit that would use it. Nor did it cost them an opportunity to attack from the expensive unit. All it (generally) cost them was either an Aim or a Dodge token. So it is not nearly as "expensive" an action for Clones as other factions, and it is harder to remove.

I am also underwhelmed by Standby on every other faction because of the ease of removing the Standby token. But your fixes aren't likely to change Standby's lack of use in every other faction since they still don't have the same benefits on Standby as the Clones, which include the resilience of the Standby token.

They should get rid of standby token sharing.

And then they should change the sentinel keyword so that instead of making standby range 3 it makes it so your standby tokens cant be shot off.

They should also change standby so that it triggers when a unit ends its movement within range 2. And you should have to fire at the unit that triggers the standby.

I dont think you can have standby be both good and range 3 without it breaking the game. But I think you can have it be good and range 2 and thats fine.

21 minutes ago, Khobai said:

They should get rid of standby token sharing.

And then they should change the sentinel keyword so that instead of making standby range 3 it makes it so your standby tokens cant be shot off.

They should also change standby so that it triggers when a unit ends its movement within range 2. And you should have to fire at the unit that triggers the standby.

I dont think you can have standby be both good and range 3 without it breaking the game. But I think you can have it be good and range 2 and thats fine.

I think raising the cost on Overwatch to prevent spamming on corps units would probably be enough. Maybe limit each unit to one standby token spent per round.

17 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

It isn't a matter of if people take them or not, it is a matter of comparing actual nearly equivalent units. The Z-6 shouldn't be included at all since the price on the weapon is consistently 12 points, regardless of the body holding the weapon. The cost of that extra body is included in every unit specific Heavy/Personnel upgrade.

And Reliable and an extra body are not "equivalent." An extra body changes the maximum damage that can be rolled in the attack pool; Reliable doesn't. An extra body makes the unit more resilient to Pierce; Reliable doesn't.

An extra body doesn't get shared with other Clones. The Surge token does.

If you are going to insist they are equivalent than the reason naked P2s are 9 points cheaper than P1s with Captain is because they have one less wound and one less attack die. Getting hit by 4 attack pools with 1 hit and Pierce 1 guarantees the naked Phase 2s will be removed, while the Captain in the Phase 1s will still be on the board.

I never said they are equivalent, I said they are comparable . I'll try to get my point across one last time. This time with numbers:

• In an average game, an extra body gives you: +1 to the wound threshold and +0,5 hits per shot. Simplified +3 hits per game in the ideal case you get to shoot each round (only once ...)
• We can reasonably assume that the surge token from reliable 1 gives you an extra save (77% chance on a surge for 4 bodies before wipeout), that leaves 5 surges to convert surges to hits resulting in 2,5 more hits over the game. The extra save keeps another mini alive and adding their die, rounding up the hits per game. So Phase 2s have on average an effective wound thershold +1 and about +3 hits throughout the game compared to Phase 1s. Basically the same as P1s with a captain. Numbers get better for P2s if you add the Z-6 (more bodies = more saves until they die = more chances to surge on save; Z-6 = many chances to surge on attack)

There are of course scenarios where one or the other is better: getting hit by only pierce weapons or rolling only surge on defense. That is without taking synergies into account and that is where reliable outmatches the extra body by far. Even if the unit gets hit solely by pierce, the surge can be used by other units, keeping them alive, raising the effective wound threshhold of the entire army.

My argument is that Phase 2s (without extra generic trooper) in the context of clones are in 95% of situations better than Phase 1s with Captain. Still they are 9 points cheaper (7 points if you take a Z-6, which both units want). The dominance of P2s in competitive lists (where every other faction spams the cheapest option) backs up my opponion that P2s are undercosted.

22 hours ago, Ringmaster80 said:

The coordinate-relay chain was embarassing and almost disgusting. And, as the developers said, unintentional. That, and the free-disengaging tauntauns where borderline 'cheating' (as of 'breaking the rules'. i'm not saying those who used them where cheaters or anything, i did use them too).

I Totally agree with what you are trying to say, you just picked the wrong example.

btw iden was available in season 5 of invader, but i think the sub-par performance of the empire was due to the fact that GAR is just better at range 3 gunfight and empire players failed to adapt (understandable, it was the first time facing arcs for many of them).

And I disagree, at least to scope of the problem of the chain. The Shore/emplacement coordinate chain was a valid tactic, but no where near as annoying as Tauntauns that ignored most of the existing rules, except the ones that were in their favor. The chaining ability was eliminated, but it also hurt E-Webs in the process, and now the Empire doesn't have much going for it. Tauns got a mild slap on the wrist that took 7 actions per activation down to 4 if they happened to be disengaging, but left the rest of their ridiculousness intact. Comparing the results of their respective nerfs locally (I really don't care about Invader league or any TTS tournaments), Tauns are still used more or less the same as before, but Shores/mortars have to justify their positions, and E-Webs are only run by a few diehards.

@SailorMeni I apologize for attributing words to you that you did not post.

One thing your numbers don't reflect is that with the Reliable token you do not know which round you will need the token to be the extra wound, and which round you can safely use it on attack. You just assume perfect knowledge of what turn you will be able to convert a surge on the defense die and when it can be used to attack. In order to truly have a 77% of using it as an extra wound in a game, it has to be available to convert a defence die against every incoming attack pool (I assume that is how you worked your math). Which means it can't be spent on attacks prior to your opponent having completed their activations (or at least all activations that could result in an attack on the Phase 2s), which will more likely result in the token being wasted. It also means the attacks cannot occur in the same round, since you only have a single surge token. If your math is based on the attacks in a single round to defeat the unit, then both the surge token and the unit aren't around for those extra five turns of surge token usage in that situation.

So, if you feel that the extra trooper is overcoated (a premise I believe you stated in a previous post), and that cost is included in the personnel and heavy upgrades for a given unit, the problem isn't that Phase 2s are undercosted, it's that the extra body for Phase 1s are overcosted.

The Z-6 is actually where the inclusion of the base model is most obvious, as it is in three different units: Phase 1s (25 points), Phase 2s (27 points), and Rebel Troopers (22 points). Subtracting the cost of an extra body for each of those units (13, 15, and 10 points respectfully) in each case leaves 12 points, showing that regardless of the body carrying the weapon, a Z-6 is a 12 point upgrade. The benefit of Surges or other unit keywords are built into the cost of the body in FFG's design.

So, accepting your premise that Reliable 1 and an extra wound/attack die are roughly comparable for the moment, that means by a strict comparison of the units the Captain should be around 8 points total. Instead, the Captain has 4 points cost for the Training slot, and a limited but potentially more powerful version of Courage 2, with the remaining 13 points spent roughly equating Reliable 1. I broke it down this way because the body/weapon is specifically what is being compared to Reliable 1, not the special rules provided by the model.

So the part of the Captain that is overcosted is the body itself, since I don't think Reliable 1 should have a greater points cost than Aggressive Tactics.

7 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

I never said they are equivalent, I said they are comparable . I'll try to get my point across one last time. This time with numbers:

• In an average game, an extra body gives you: +1 to the wound threshold and +0,5 hits per shot. Simplified +3 hits per game in the ideal case you get to shoot each round (only once ...)
• We can reasonably assume that the surge token from reliable 1 gives you an extra save (77% chance on a surge for 4 bodies before wipeout), that leaves 5 surges to convert surges to hits resulting in 2,5 more hits over the game. The extra save keeps another mini alive and adding their die, rounding up the hits per game. So Phase 2s have on average an effective wound thershold +1 and about +3 hits throughout the game compared to Phase 1s. Basically the same as P1s with a captain. Numbers get better for P2s if you add the Z-6 (more bodies = more saves until they die = more chances to surge on save; Z-6 = many chances to surge on attack)

There are of course scenarios where one or the other is better: getting hit by only pierce weapons or rolling only surge on defense. That is without taking synergies into account and that is where reliable outmatches the extra body by far. Even if the unit gets hit solely by pierce, the surge can be used by other units, keeping them alive, raising the effective wound threshhold of the entire army.

My argument is that Phase 2s (without extra generic trooper) in the context of clones are in 95% of situations better than Phase 1s with Captain. Still they are 9 points cheaper (7 points if you take a Z-6, which both units want). The dominance of P2s in competitive lists (where every other faction spams the cheapest option) backs up my opponion that P2s are undercosted.

your not arguing from comparable places, it is like comparing rebel veterans with the CM-093 and rebel troopers with Z6, even though it is close it is not the closest comparable point and adds in a lot of assumptions.

If you want to compare them then the closest that they can get is P1's with captain and P2's with extra guy, they then both have the same slots, the same health, the same damage, similar courage and then the only real difference is reliable, the cost diference is 6 points which seems like a reasonable cost for an ability to give yourself 1 surge every round.

I could understand if you think that 6 points for reliable 1 is too cheap but remember that all of the units cost are based around a cost per mini and with 4 minis in the unit you would have to increase the points by 4 to 10 and that would be too expensive.

4 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

One thing your numbers don't reflect is that with the Reliable token you do not know which round you will need the token to be the extra wound, and which round you can safely use it on attack. You just assume perfect knowledge of what turn you will be able to convert a surge on the defense die and when it can be used to attack. In order to truly have a 77% of using it as an extra wound in a game, it has to be available to convert a defence die against every incoming attack pool (I assume that is how you worked your math). Which means it can't be spent on attacks prior to your opponent having completed their activations (or at least all activations that could result in an attack on the Phase 2s), which will more likely result in the token being wasted. It also means the attacks cannot occur in the same round, since you only have a single surge token. If your math is based on the attacks in a single round to defeat the unit, then both the surge token and the unit aren't around for those extra five turns of surge token usage in that situation.

You are right, I took a lot of simplifying assumptions. But from experience - both hands on and watching a lot of invader league games - in actual games no surge token is ever wasted. It is very rare that a token is not used either as a save or a hit convert by a unit nearby. So in the context of clones, each surge token will usually result in either a save (effective extra wound) or a hit each round. That is why reliable is more valuable to clones than an extra body. Having multiple Phase 2s and aggressive tactics around gives you basically defense convert for the entire army for the first few activations every turn.

4 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So, if you feel that the extra trooper is overcoated (a premise I believe you stated in a previous post), and that cost is included in the personnel and heavy upgrades for a given unit, the problem isn't that Phase 2s are undercosted, it's that the extra body for Phase 1s are overcosted.

Yes. And the fact that nobody takes the extra trooper ever is proof for that. Only B1s take them occasionally (tendency falling since there are more options availlable now) because they only pay + 17% of the base cost for the extra wound as opposed to +25%.

On 9/13/2020 at 10:19 PM, Caimheul1313 said:

The P2 with the Z-6 and the additional trooper is most comparable to P1s with Captain and Z-6. Which puts the P2s at 102 points, 8 points more expensive than the P1s.

So in this case the P2s are more expensive because Courage two is active every round without a recovery action and they have Reliable 1.

I just realised you have proven my point already earlier: with the calculation above you say Reliable 1 is worth 8 points (the only difference between P1 with Captain and Z-6 VS P2s with Z-6 and extra body). 8 Points is also the difference between P1s and P2s. So you get Courage 2 and the training upgrade for free? You calculated about 4 points for those in your previous post.

4 hours ago, 5particus said:

If you want to compare them then the closest that they can get is P1's with captain and P2's with extra guy, they then both have the same slots, the same health, the same damage, similar courage and then the only real difference is reliable, the cost diference is 6 points which seems like a reasonable cost for an ability to give yourself 1 surge every round.

I could understand if you think that 6 points for reliable 1 is too cheap but remember that all of the units cost are based around a cost per mini and with 4 minis in the unit you would have to increase the points by 4 to 10 and that would be too expensive.

Same argument: I find 6 points for reliable 1 (in clones) reasonable. The unreasonable part then is the +1 courage and training upgrade for 2 points, making up the 8 points difference between P1s and P2s.

the biggest problem I have with Phase 2s is that theyre straight up better than Phase 1s.

whereas with other factions they at least tried to balance their corps units to be equal but different. For example, B1s and B2s are way better designed than clonetroopers.

The Phase 2s should not just be better Phase 1s that cost more. And the Phase 1s should not just be LOLnakedtokenfactories. The two units need more tangible differences besides points cost.

I dont think Phase 2s should get a training slot. Only the Phase 1s should be able to get a training slot with their captain. Then thered be a legitimate reason to use Phase 1s+captain over Phase 2s.

They should also try to make the Phase 1s and Phase 2s different in some other ways so they fill considerably different roles in the army. And no LOLNAKEDTOKENFACTORY is not a proper role. That is an embarrassing and awful game mechanic to have a bunch of naked units hiding behind terrain feeding their tokens to units of Phase 2s. Token sharing was a sloppy and lazy game mechanic that obviously wasnt very well thought out.

The clonetroopers corps units just arnt as internally balanced (or externally balanced) as well as the corps units of other factions. FFG really needs to fix that.

2 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

You are right, I took a lot of simplifying assumptions. But from experience - both hands on and watching a lot of invader league games - in actual games no surge token is ever wasted. It is very rare that a token is not used either as a save or a hit convert by a unit nearby. So in the context of clones, each surge token will usually result in either a save (effective extra wound) or a hit each round. That is why reliable is more valuable to clones than an extra body. Having multiple Phase 2s and aggressive tactics around gives you basically defense convert for the entire army for the first few activations every turn.

I'll get back to Aggressive Tactics in a minute, but right now I agree that the token is likely to be used by one of the nearby units, but that's not what I am comparing here. I am strictly comparing Reliable 1 with an extra body in a vacuum, no token sharing. I do agree that with Clone Trooper's rules the token is in many ways better since it improves the defenses and attack of all surrounding units, which is another reason that comparison breaks down a bit. It is hard to say how many points being a "Clone trooper" as opposed to just a standard Trooper costs. Also, what unit that Reliable token is used by changes the points efficiency of the rule. Saving a wound from ARC troopers is more points saved than from a unit of Phase 1s or 2s.

2 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

Yes. And the fact that nobody takes the extra trooper ever is proof for that. Only B1s take them occasionally (tendency falling since there are more options availlable now) because they only pay + 17% of the base cost for the extra wound as opposed to +25%.

In every case though the upgrades appear to be priced to the cost per model of the base unit (identical weapon upgrades only differ in price in the same amount as the extra trooper upgrade). I'm not saying that is an good way to price the extra miniature (since you have to pay a"tax"on the unit keywords without increasing their effect unlike weapon keywords), I'm just pointing out that's how it is computed.

2 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

I just realised you have proven my point already earlier: with the calculation above you say Reliable 1 is worth 8 points (the only difference between P1 with Captain and Z-6 VS P2s with Z-6 and extra body). 8 Points is also the difference between P1s and P2s. So you get Courage 2 and the training upgrade for free? You calculated about 4 points for those in your previous post.

I think I did a poor job of communicating my point. The 8 point difference wasn't just for Reliable, it is also for Courage 2 as opposed to a limited variant of Courage 2 . From my own personal experience I view Courage 2 as better than the Captain's ability, so I value it at least a few points more for being "always active."

I'm also not convinced that an upgrade slot actively has a points value attributed to it over the cost of the upgrade applied, otherwise I would think the Comms specialists models would be not be giving a "discount" on the mandatory comms upgrade. The effect of the comms upgrade should be accurately represented in the cost of adding the card, so why is the comms specialist uniformly cheaper than the extra model?
Also, the points for the Specialists gets.... interesting if we assume that upgrade slots have a points cost associated with them. Excepting the CIS versions, they all cost 4 points more than just an extra trooper, add an upgrade slot, and give a "better" version of Offensive Push. Judging by Offensive Push (which also has an exhaust effect, requires a move, and only gives an aim token) 4 points seems too cheap for the exhaust effect of those cards, which would make the upgrade slot free, or even negative points.

The 4 point calculation was intended to be simply a breakdown of the points cost on the Captain, 13 points to equal the effect of Reliable 1 (13 points here being the cost of an extra body, which by your math is comparable) which would leave 4 points of the Captain's cost for a limited Courage improvement and the upgrade slot.

The complication that is introduced when the comparison include the Z-6 upgrades is that the Phase 2 unit with Z-6 is 10 points more expensive than the Phase 1 unit with Z-6, provided they have no other upgrades. The only between those two units is still the same as before adding the Z-6: Reliable 1, Courage 2, and a Training Upgrade slot, but the points difference has changed solely because Phase 2s pay more for an extra model.

As for the cost of Reliable 1, we can (somewhat) compare that to Aggressive Tactics in idealized situations. Excepting usages of Coordinate/Entourage, if I recall correctly most commanders will be issuing a total of 12 order tokens in the course of 6 rounds, at a cost of 10 points. So, using that as a base, around 5 points should probably be the cost of Reliable 1, possibly plus 1-2 points for not having a prerequisite.

So if your premise is that in most cases the extra miniature cost for a unit is overpriced, then yes I would agree with you there.
If your premise is solely that Phase 2s are undercosted due to the comparison with Phase 1 with Captain, I disagree as to the reasoning for the discrepancy. I can agree though that it shouldn't be a 9 point difference between a naked Phase 2 and Phase 1s with Captain though, but I think that the probably is more likely that the Captain is overcosted. Hard for me to say by what degree though.

It will be interesting to see what the points value on the Clone Specialists end up being, since they can be taken with any of the Corps units. We can assume the cost of Inspire 1 and changing Courage 1 to Courage 2 is at most 9 points (consistent pricing difference between Imperial Officer upgrade and Rebel Officer upgrade and the extra trooper of the cheapest corps unit for those factions). But unless the text\costing of the Clone officer upgrade is different, it could provide Phase 2s with Courage 3 and Inspire 1 for 22 points.