7 minutes ago, 5particus said:

Echo has better dice (2 red instead of black and red) and reliable 1 as well, these make him quite a bit better than the regular DC-15X and he can go in Corps units as well so i dont think he will stop being used just yet.

I was referring specifically to the Strike Teams, he seems a bit costly to run as a pure sniper, in an ARC Squad or a Corp he has a good place, I'm not convinced the points are worth it in a Strike Team over a regular DC-15X Heavy.

12 minutes ago, Nithorian said:

I was referring specifically to the Strike Teams, he seems a bit costly to run as a pure sniper, in an ARC Squad or a Corp he has a good place, I'm not convinced the points are worth it in a Strike Team over a regular DC-15X Heavy.

i could see that happening, 3 health is not that much better than 2 even with a surge token so he doesnt live long enough to casue enough problems.

he is still good on the full ARC squad and the Corps units though.

1 hour ago, Captain Pachu said:

The DC-15x and Echo are booth range 5 or possibly range 6 with Rex's help for a turn. Iden is infinite range all the time. She has the potential to wipe out an enemy sniper team on the first activation of the first round. I understand what you're saying though. GAR can be an excellent ranged faction if the right units are chosen. They would be the burst range damage faction to the Empire's consistent range damage. Since GAR becomes the Empire it makes sense for the two factions to share a few things. Either way it limits the issue of activation padding with Strike Teams and gets people to find new ways to use the current units.

The loss of units with pierce is a good point though. Lack of pierce does make units with red defense dice a bit stronger. This just means that the dice have a bit more control on the outcome of battles which makes things interesting.

Rex's Command Card can only take you up to a Max of Range 4. The issue with the clones is without crits or High Velocity, they can dodge token away anything that gets past their heavy cover, and with surge tokens + Red defence dice even if they have to roll, it is a 4/6 chance of success. So yes Pierce is needed to fight these kinds of odds, especially when you look at the Rebels Corps and how easily they melt away.

And Range 5 isn't that big of a nerf. If Iden is herself outside of Range 5, she is really no good to her army, because as they advance on objectives she won't be able to issue orders, and they'll escape her courage bubble, so on the rare occasion you might see an Iden take a sniper, she will most likely be the army commander, and she can't afford to stay further back than range 5.

3 hours ago, Captain Pachu said:

The DC-15x and Echo are booth range 5 or possibly range 6 with Rex's help for a turn.

Are you talking about "Take that, Clankers?" It only increases range by one to a max of range 4. This game doesn't even have range 6.

3 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

This game doesn't even have range 6.

Iden's sniper rifle isnt bad because of strike teams. Idens sniper rifle is bad because it only has two black dice without baked-in sharpshooter X. And the marksman keyword is not as good as FFG thinks it is. Its the same reason the ISF special forces are bad. Too much weighting was put on the marksman keyword. Because you have to take another unit like Veers to feed her aim tokens for marksman and that becomes incredibly expensive.

To be honest her repeater isnt that much better. It also struggles against cover. Its really only deadly at range 1. But at that point you might as well just be in melee.

A lot of players run her without either of her weapons and send her into melee. Thats where shes most effective because she has a high health pool and a decent 3 white and 3 red attack pool in melee with tenacity, plus suppressive. The best part of melee is theres no cover for her attacks to bounce off of. She just has to avoid jedi.

But the point is nerfing sniper strike teams is not going to make other sniper options like Iden better. Iden's sniper is bad because its BAD not because it's role is being displaced by strike teams.

I couldn't remember what the max range was with Rex's card so I was going for an optimal situation of range 6 with the Clones. Might as well go for outlandish numbers when theorycrafting.

If the Strike Team snipers from each faction become unique that would lessen the activation padding people seem concerned about. There would still be snipers in each faction but it would take more points to field them all. Saboteurs have to get up close and usually are in range of enemy fire to be effective. They shouldn't be punished just because they are in strike teams too. Whenever I see someone saying that there is a problem with Strike Teams it tends to be about the snipers.

18 hours ago, Khobai said:

I dont like blue player being determined by number of activations because armies like CIS would be inherently disadvantaged by that. I think its fine being determined by points.

I also think blue player gets way too many advantages Its always seemed kindve unfair that they get so many advantages just because their army was 1-2 less points or whatever.

I would prefer a more balanced approach where both players construct the deck and alternate choosing what cards go into the deck instead of blue player getting to pick all the cards.

Blue player winning ties is enough of an advantage as is.

Ooooh, how about the red player chooses objective deployment or condition and then deals out three of the four cards of that type from their battle deck.

The blue player will deal out three of the four cards in each remaining category from their battle deck.

Yeah id be fine with that too. I just dont think the blue player should have 100% control of whats in the deck.

Because everyone always picks the same cards and it gets kindve boring. If you could deliberately throw some curveballs into the deck as red player just to screw up the blue player it would be more interesting.

12 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Yeah id be fine with that too. I just dont think the blue player should have 100% control of whats in the deck.

Because everyone always picks the same cards and it gets kindve boring. If you could deliberately throw some curveballs into the deck as red player just to screw up the blue player it would be more interesting.

Well now that we have more cards to choose from you should get a bit more variety. However, that does make the Blue player advantage even more powerful.

just because more cards are available doesnt mean people choose them though. they pick the cards that give their faction the biggest advantage.

thats the problem with the current system. theres no way to add anything unexpected to the deck because the blue player gets complete control.

so some of the more bizarre and interesting deployments never get used.

if the red player had the opportunity to spike the deck with some of their own cards to mess up the blue player it would make the game more interesting IMO. the blue player can still veto them but at least theyd have a chance of being used instead of no chance.

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Ooooh, how about the red player chooses objective deployment or condition and then deals out three of the four cards of that type from their battle deck.

The blue player will deal out three of the four cards in each remaining category from their battle deck.

So there would be six cards in each category instead of the four we have now? What happens if the deck ends up with duplicates in one or more categories because of this?

I like this idea, it just needs a little more refinement.

13 minutes ago, Khobai said:

just because more cards are available doesnt mean people choose them though. they pick the cards that give their faction the biggest advantage.

thats the problem with the current system. theres no way to add anything unexpected to the deck because the blue player gets complete control.

so some of the more bizarre and interesting deployments never get used.

if the red player had the opportunity to spike the deck with some of their own cards to mess up the blue player it would make the game more interesting IMO. the blue player can still veto them but at least theyd have a chance of being used instead of no chance.

This would remove any advantage to being blue player. If they implement this everyone’s list is going to be 800 points flat. You remove the competitiveness you get from having to choose whether you really need this upgrade or do you want a point bid. This would be detrimental in a game that’s not based on just killing more of your opponents unit to win, but is instead based on securing objectives.

22 minutes ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

So there would be six cards in each category instead of the four we have now? What happens if the deck ends up with duplicates in one or more categories because of this?

I like this idea, it just needs a little more refinement.

I think he means that red player would pick one of the three categories, and the cards from that category would come from the red player's deck instead of the blue player's deck.

So if red player picked objectives, the objectives would be dealt from their deck, and deployments and conditions would be dealt from the blue player's deck.

Which I think is an interesting idea, but I think red player would almost always pick objectives, though I can think of some situations where they might pick one of the other categories.

18 minutes ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

This would remove any advantage to being blue player. If they implement this everyone’s list is going to be 800 points flat. You remove the competitiveness you get from having to choose whether you really need this upgrade or do you want a point bid. This would be detrimental in a game that’s not based on just killing more of your opponents unit to win, but is instead based on securing objectives.

And that's a bad thing? As currently written being blue player is a huge advantage just because your list is one point less than your opponents.

I've been thinking a little more about this and what if we changed how the battle decks were built. Starting with blue player each player alternates picking one card for each category until there are 4 of each, then proceed as per the current rules. This way blue player dosen't have as much control over how the game is played, and maby we can move away from the high activation count meta that there is now.

Just make red player choose the table side so they have more control over the deployment zones. Together with the advantage of having the last battle card veto and a deployment advantage (due to placing second) might be enough. Or let red player win when tied as that puts the pressure on acting during the game to the blue player especially in missions with even objectives markers.

One player building the Battle Deck introduces depth to the game. You can build your army around certain objectives but have to pay for it with an (uncertain) bid or you build an army that doesn't really care which battle cards are being played. The systems is fine, but maybe remove one of the other advantages from blue player either choosing side or winning on ties.

What about something like the Armada system? The blue player chooses the side and gets first pick (or chooses), but from the red player cards.

20 minutes ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

And that's a bad thing? As currently written being blue player is a huge advantage just because your list is one point less than your opponents.

I've been thinking a little more about this and what if we changed how the battle decks were built. Starting with blue player each player alternates picking one card for each category until there are 4 of each, then proceed as per the current rules. This way blue player dosen't have as much control over how the game is played, and maby we can move away from the high activation count meta that there is now.

Not sure how that would in any way kill high ac lists.

10 minutes ago, costi said:

What about something like the Armada system? The blue player chooses the side and gets first pick (or chooses), but from the red player cards.

I think the difference here is there's a significant power imbalance between 1st and 2nd player in Armada. 1st player will (barring bail organa) always attack first, making first/last combos a thing and early round eliminations a thing.... In Legion the initiative in each round is determined by pip card. Armada's objectives also favorably reward the 2nd player to make up for this imbalance, in this case the red player does really benefit more than slightly more favorable objectives.

So this would likely create an equal but opposite bidding/building problem from what Legion currently has. Instead of bidding for Blue Player, you'd bid for Red Player to make them pick from your cards...

2 hours ago, Decarior said:

One player building the Battle Deck introduces depth to the game. You can build your army around certain objectives but have to pay for it with an (uncertain) bid or you build an army that doesn't really care which battle cards are being played. The systems is fine, but maybe remove one of the other advantages from blue player either choosing side or winning on ties.

There is no depth in one person picking all the cards that favor their army the most. Because they will always pick the same cards. Always.

It creates predictability and stagnation. The complete opposite of depth.

If both players construct the deck together it creates more depth because you have an element of counterplay being added.

22 minutes ago, Khobai said:

There is no depth in one person picking all the cards that favor their army the most. Because they will always pick the same cards. Always.

It creates predictability and stagnation. The complete opposite of depth.

If both players construct the deck together it creates more depth because you have an element of counterplay being added.

That stagnation only happens when you are playing the same opponents playing the same lists. Obviously if you don’t change your lists, you have no reason to change your objectives. If you don’t like what’s happening, run something different. Change your list for a point buy so your blue player, talk to your opponent about trying different objectives, run a different list altogether, play a different faction... There are ways to solve this without changing a core component of the game that we have only recently, with the release of vital assets, been able to explore.

18 minutes ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

That stagnation only happens when you are playing the same opponents playing the same lists. Obviously if you don’t change your lists, you have no reason to change your objectives. If you don’t like what’s happening, run something different. Change your list for a point buy so your blue player, talk to your opponent about trying different objectives, run a different list altogether, play a different faction... There are ways to solve this without changing a core component of the game that we have only recently, with the release of vital assets, been able to explore.

Yes obviously different lists will use different cards. But every time they use list X they always use cards Y.

They will always use the same cards with the same list. And the only way the cards will ever change is if they use a different list. But even if they use a different list they will always use the same cards theyve always used with that list.

That is where the stagnation comes in. There is no reason to ever change what cards you use with a particular list once you determine what the best cards are for that list.

Thats what I feel should be changed. There should be an element of counterplay in constructing the deck so things actually get changed up once in a while.The blue player should not get full control over the deck because there is no depth in that, its simply stagnant optimization, and nothing ever changes. Adding depth to the game would require the blue player to adapt to something they didnt anticipate appearing and red player capitalizing on blue player not being prepared for it.

The only way I ever even see some of the lesser used deployments or objectives is if I deliberately put them in my deck then make an aggressive bid for blue player then hope they dont get vetod. Thats ridiculous.

Im not convinced 40k doesnt have the right idea with making objectives and deployments entirely random. Because at least then every option comes up equally.

5 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Yes obviously different lists will use different cards. But every time they use list X they always use cards Y.

They will always use the same cards with the same list. And the only way the cards will ever change is if they use a different list. But if they use a different list they will always use the same cards theyve alway used with that list.

That is where the stagnation comes in.

Again your talking about stagnation on a game that has only been out for 2 years, only 2 releases have even added new objectives. When you have to choose 4 out of 8 possible there isn’t a lot of room for variety. Have some patience over this. More objective will come in time.

theres 24 different cards right now. not 8.

just being blue player lets you eliminate 12 of them and then veto 2 additional ones. so youre effectively eliminating 60% of the cards just by being blue player.

in addition to winning ties.

not only that but red player doesnt even get their bid refunded so theyre out those points for nothing. most bid systems at least refund the loser's bid.

I just think blue player gets way too much of an advantage now that theres 24 cards and they get to effectively eliminate 12 of them right off the bat. I think the blue's advantages are largely unnecessary and actually negatively impact the game in some ways (like stagnant playdeck construction).

how much of an advantage do you think blue player should get? I mean they usually only win the bid by like 1-2 points. It shouldnt be such a huge advantage to be blue player.

14 minutes ago, Khobai said:

theres 24 different cards right now. not 8.

just being blue player lets you eliminate 12 of them and then veto 2 additional ones. so youre effectively eliminating 60% of the cards just by being blue player.

in addition to winning ties.

not only that but red player doesnt even get their bid refunded so theyre out those points for nothing. most bid systems at least refund the loser's bid.

I just think blue player gets way too much of an advantage now that theres 24 cards and they get to effectively eliminate half of them right off the bat. and I think the blue's advantages are largely unnecessary and actually negatively impact the game in a lot of ways.

how much of an advantage do you think blue player should get? I mean they usually only win the bid by like 1-2 points. It shouldnt be such a huge advantage to be blue player.

Let’s break this down.

1) we where talking specifically about objective cards of which there is currently only 8. Blue player can only select 4 of those 8. Now if we are going to talk about the deployment and condition cards as well, blue player can still only select 4 of the 8 in each of those categories. So yes you are correct when you say blue player gets to eliminate over have of the possible choices of cards, and it will only get to be a bigger margin the longer the game goes on. It was how the game was designed from conception.

2) Refund the bid? What game does that, how does it work? Can you provide more info on that, I would be interested in looking into a game like that.

3) Yes there is an advantage to to being blue player. Now if red players lost 70% of the time or more, maybe it would be a broken mechanic of the game, but that’s not the case. It’s not like the red player has no input what so ever in determining the start of the game.

4) In casual play your right it typically comes down to 1-2 points. In competitive play, it’s not uncommon to see a 20 point bid.

@Khobai since you seem to feel legion is so unbalanced and broken in so many different ways, maybe it’s time to find a different game, or house rule it into the game you want it to be.