As more of a casual player that keeps track of the meta I find the AT-RT as the go to unit to throw in any casual list or a teaching tool for new players. They are pretty solid, easy to use, and will most likely do some work no matter the situation. Sure they can just melt, but Legion is a fickle mistress that can be lost at the start of turn one. If FFG could buff/nurf other units to their level in the upcoming patch I would be very happy.

Rebels I like them more in this faction since everything else in this army just melts. Really can't think of a better newb list then Luke and some RTs. Sure tauntuans are better in every way, but they require a lot more skill to use.

GAR has a lot stronger units and combos and it is hard to really to justify them as much. They can't really share tokens and can't grab objectives. I would push a tank first, but they are better then BARCs lol!!........... I guess just like Rebels if you want a casual/easy list just go with some RTs.

19 hours ago, jocke01 said:

Laser and flamer are such a risk weapon since you never sure what you will face. Honestly you should get to equip whatever hard point you want when deploying to make them less risky IMO.

Damnnnnnnnn I really like that idea. They are all the same points, two are never taken, and depending on the list are sometimes useless. I could also see that making them OP maybe???? Just take three and against CIS list or tank list you could just straight up counter them.

1 hour ago, RyantheFett said:

GAR has a lot stronger units and combos and it is hard to really to justify them as much. They can't really share tokens and can't grab objectives. I would push a tank first, but they are better then BARCs lol!!........... I guess just like Rebels if you want a casual/easy list just go with some RTs.

I wouldnt be surprised at all if GAR starts using their AT-RTs and loving them after the incoming trooper nerfs.

Adding surge to hit on a fire support attack pool with a Z6 is absolutely disgusting. An alphastrike that huge can easily wipe out an entire enemy unit.

A lot of GAR players dont even seem to understand how ridiculous fire support is and all the different ways it can be abused. Fire support basically lets GAR ignore the effects of suppression and panicking, it significantly reduces the effectiveness of cover, dodges, and armor X, and even lets them ignore cover completely in some cases (since whether or not you get cover is determined by the attacking unit and not the supporting unit which is one of the worst rules ever). And it allows them to frontload their activations to potentially wipe enemy units off the board before they get to activate.

The AT-RT is the ideal platform to be fire supported because its highly durable with native surge

11 minutes ago, Khobai said:

I wouldnt be surprised at all if GAR starts using their AT-RTs and loving them after the incoming trooper nerfs.

Adding surge to hit on a fire support attack pool with a Z6 is absolutely disgusting. An alphastrike that big can wipe out entire units before they even get to activate.

A lot of GAR players dont even seem to understand how good fire support is.

Firesupport comes at the cost of an activation and any extra suppression you would have gained from that activation had if you made a shot with that unit. It's very costly to firesupport and should only really be used in some rare opportunities like wiping a major unit off the board before it does something real scary. Like if you win a roll off vs a Grevious on his 1 pip and he's low enough on health to threaten killing him with a firesupport shot before he activates.

And genuine question, what do you want GAR to be? Their trooper units are supposed to be elite and better than the other faction's troopers, they are clones after all. It's part of their faction identity that their trooper units are strong and if something is going to be changed about them it is almost certainly overwatch, not the actual abilities or cost of the current clone corp units avaliable.

10 minutes ago, SnooSnarry said:

Firesupport comes at the cost of an activation and any extra suppression you would have gained from that activation had to made a shot with that unit. It's very costly to firesupport and should only really be used in some rare opportunities like wiping a major unit off the board before it does something real scary. Like if you win a roll off vs a Grevious on his 1 pip and he's low enough on health to threaten killing him with a firesupport shot before he activates.

And genuine question, what do you want GAR to be? Their trooper units are supposed to be elite and better than the other faction's troopers, they are clones after all. It's part of their faction identity that their trooper units are strong and if something is going to be changed about them it is almost certainly overwatch, not the actual abilities or cost of the current clone corp units avaliable.

100% disagree. Even if it costs you two activations to fire support, if you wipe out an enemy unit before it gets to activate you end up with the same number of net activations. Because the opponent is now down one whole activation.

Thats why the whole argument "OH ITS SO EXPENSIVE TO USE FIRE SUPPORT" simply doesnt work. Because the way fire support gets used is to deny the enemy their activations.

And if your unit is going to panic anyway, you can give it a faceup token, and have it fire support so it still gets to do something before it panics. That is pure advantage. Thats why trying to make GAR panic is almost entirely pointless because they can fire support around it.

Quote

And genuine question, what do you want GAR to be? Their trooper units are supposed to be elite and better than the other faction's troopers, they are clones after all. It's part of their faction identity that their trooper units are strong and if something is going to be changed about them it is almost certainly overwatch, not the actual abilities or cost of the current clone corp units avaliable.

I just dont want GAR to get both better units and still be able to get upto 10-11 activations.

Im fine with GAR being an elite faction. But at least make them have less activations than other factions.

The problem with GAR right now is that cheap activations like naked clonetroopers, arc trooper strike teams, and R2D2 are way too good. It gives them way more activations than they have any right having. That also contributes to making standby token sharing a huge problem because of all the standby tokens the cheap units can factorize.

Just now, Khobai said:

100% disagree. Even if it costs you two activations to fire support, if you wipe out an enemy unit before it gets to activate you still have the same number of net activations.

But this is all you do though, disagree with your opinions. Your opinion isn't a law that the forums must abide by and must be reiterated in every other forum thread. You're just facilitating a really toxic environment because of your opinion.

3 minutes ago, SnooSnarry said:

But this is all you do though, disagree with your opinions. Your opinion isn't a law that the forums must abide by and must be reiterated in every other forum thread. You're just facilitating a really toxic environment because of your opinion.

Just block him like Alpha17 did

12 minutes ago, SnooSnarry said:

But this is all you do though, disagree with your opinions. Your opinion isn't a law that the forums must abide by and must be reiterated in every other forum thread. You're just facilitating a really toxic environment because of your opinion.

Its not my opinion though. Its a fact.

If fire supporting costs you 2 activations but the enemy loses -1 activation from a unit being killed before it activates then you still end up with the same number of net activations. Thats a fact.

Its also not OPINION that GAR can use fire support to circumvent panic so the unit can still attack before panicking. That is also a fact.

You are confusing facts with opinions.

Facts are cold, hard, oppressive things that are immutable and cannot be changed.

5 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Its not my opinion though. Its a fact.

If it costs you 2 activations but the enemy loses -1 activation then you still end up with the same number of net activations.

That is not opinion AT ALL.

You are absolutely right, THAT statement is a fact. However gar needs to be nerfed, gar shouldn’t be able to get 10+ activations, gar isn’t fun to play against: those are OPINIONS not fact. Opinions you are determined to shove down everyone’s throats.

I dont think thats really opinion either though. Does anyone really think GAR wont get nerfed at this point?

Im 100% positive that were going to see nerfs to standby token sharing, the leader rules, and strike teams in general.

I dont think the nerfs will be much worse than that really. Maybe an R2D2 nerf too?

I think a lot of people like to overexaggerate how much I want GAR nerfed. Like I want them nerfed completely into the ground or something. And I have never said anything of the sort.

@JediPartisan had a chance to read but not time to reply to your original post before you edited it out and for what it's worth, I couldn't agree more. I have had very few chances to try the republic AT-RT as of yet but it seemed incredibly underwhelming and completely undeserving of a 10 point price hike. Adding a surge to defense does not make it much more survivable (yes statistically it does but when do white dice do anything ever am I right??) and losing the surge to crit is a real pain. I have no idea why they ever made it cost any more than the rebel version as the rebel version was never that spectacular anyway

@Khobai please don't reply to this post I don't want to have a senseless argument with you thanks

5 hours ago, Khobai said:

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?

When you make an argument, and someone else proves your argument wrong, thats NOT a strawman argument.

That is a normal argument.

A strawman argument is when someone uses a completely unrelated argument to try and disprove your original argument. Which nobody did.

No one with common sense is going to stick three aim tokens on an AT-ST just to shoot an AT-RT though.

Because stacking multiple aim tokens gives severely diminishing returns. Youre way better off spreading the aim tokens out among different units to maximize their effectiveness.

1 aim token is reasonable. 2 might happen sometimes. But 3 is starting to get silly. Youre getting into unicorn territory with mythical AT-STs with 3 aim tokens running around.

But I think the point has been thoroughly illustrated that AT-RTs do not get one shotted with any high level of incidence. Two shotted, sure, but not one shotted.

I dont think the Rebel AT-RT and GAR AT-RT will get played the same. Rebels tend to use AT-RTs more aggressively as distractions to advance their squisher units while GAR will hang back with their AT-RT and fire support it to erase units off the board.

the GAR AT-RT is very scary on offense because it adds surge to hit to fire support attack pools. That is huge.

An attack pool with 10 Black + 6 White and surge to hit thats pulling aim tokens off Padme shouldnt be underestimated. That has potential to instantly erase entire units off the board even if theyre in heavy cover.

I actually do see them working in a similar role to in the rebels with gar, because most of your firepower comes your corps, which degrades as they take wounds. The atrt on the other hand has armor to reduce damage and does not lose much effectiveness as it takes hits. While it can be used as a fire support platform, the large output of firesupport is achievable without it. Simply making firesupport a binary cost of two activation for a unit off the bord neglects the possibility of removing a unit for one activation. Firesupport is a situational ability because of order control, especially as GAR lists get more diverse and because of distribution of surge tokens from AT. Because it is a situational ability i would be reluctant to call this the ATRT's role.

On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 AM, JediPartisan said:

You don’t want, need or deserve analysis. This community is being ruled by those who will shutdown anyone who has free thought.

Enjoy.

As someone who also had their thread derailed: I feel ya brother.

Should have just kept a summary up of your original post though.

Don't give in to the haters!

4 hours ago, Khobai said:

I think a lot of people like to overexaggerate how much I want GAR nerfed. Like I want them nerfed completely into the ground or something. And I have never said anything of the sort.

It probably has something to do with the fact that you bring it up in literally every thread you post in. Have you seriously not noticed how every single thread you post in devolves into the exact same arguments? I mean, shame on us for engaging you, but are you really not seeing it?

No ones free thought is being shut down lmao

Your false statements about AT-RTs being one shotted were shut down.

That was not free thought or opinion. you presented it as a fact and it was wrong. and people corrected it.

apparently your idea of free thought is being able to spread your fake facts all over the place without them being challenged.

and now anyone who corrects you is trampling on your right to express yourself? lmao.

19 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

It probably has something to do with the fact that you bring it up in literally every thread you post in. Have you seriously not noticed how every single thread you post in devolves into the exact same arguments? I mean, shame on us for engaging you, but are you really not seeing it?

not every thread. just the ones that are about GAR.

and of course every thread about GAR is going to devolve into the same thing. Because the only logical conclusion you can reach about GAR is that theyre overpowered.

8 minutes ago, Khobai said:

No ones free thought is being shut down lmao

Your false statements about AT-RTs being one shotted were shut down.

That was not free thought or opinion. you presented it as a fact and it was wrong. and people corrected it.

apparently your idea of free thought is being able to spread your fake facts all over the place without them being challenged.

and now anyone who corrects you is trampling on your right to express yourself? lmao.

not every thread. just the ones that are about GAR.

and of course every thread about GAR is going to devolve into the same thing. Because the only logical conclusion you can reach about GAR is that theyre overpowered.

How to spot the forum troll....

so now telling the truth is trolling as well?

and correcting peoples false statements is trampling on their free thought?

This forum is far less interesting lately because of constant complaints by Khobai.

I think everyone has recognized that GAR is a little overtuned and will likely be brought back in line relatively soon. Can we just stop turning every thread into GAR complaints?

8 minutes ago, player5006253 said:

This forum is far less interesting lately because of constant complaints by Khobai.

I think everyone has recognized that GAR is a little overtuned and will likely be brought back in line relatively soon. Can we just stop turning every thread into GAR complaints?

I've seen it happen a few times before. Someone shows up to the forum with 1-3 VERY strongly held opinions and decides to bring them up in literally every ******* thread and argue without ceasing or actually listening to us. It makes the forum unenjoyable and just worse for everyone. Eventually, though, they either leave and things get better or they calm down and actually become a productive member of the forum. Don't worry, it will get better.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

No ones free thought is being shut down lmao

Your false statements about AT-RTs being one shotted were shut down.

That was not free thought or opinion. you presented it as a fact and it was wrong. and people corrected it.

apparently your idea of free thought is being able to spread your fake facts all over the place without them being challenged.

and now anyone who corrects you is trampling on your right to express yourself? lmao.

not every thread. just the ones that are about GAR.

and of course every thread about GAR is going to devolve into the same thing. Because the only logical conclusion you can reach about GAR is that theyre overpowered.

Or maybe its becuase you get into those threads and aggressively push your opinions about that faction's design and derail whatever other conversations were happening.

I respect your opinion and you have a right to express it, but dont expect others to be happy about you jumping into literally every GAR related thread and saying the same thing over and over. We are not trying to censor you, we are giving you social feedback that you need to tone it down a bit.

We get it, you think GAR will be nerfed and that they are OP, just say it and be willing to have others disagree.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

so now telling the truth is trolling as well?

and correcting peoples false statements is trampling on their free thought?

For both of these statements taken as absolutes the answer is no. However when how you do it is considered, that answer changes. When you are being obstinate and rude in how you answer, when you ignore the fact that very few truths are absolute and the reality is most truths are subjective. That is when you start being a troll. Furthermore when you are being belligerent and disparaging in how you respond to other opinions, they very well may feel like you are trampling on their free thought. And in these cases it is the opinion of the victim that matters, very few bullies think they are a bully.

13 hours ago, Khobai said:

and of course every thread about GAR is going to devolve into the same thing. Because the only logical conclusion you can reach about GAR is that theyre overpowered.

YOUR only logical conclusion that you can reach. Just about anyone and everyone else can find other, more interesting conclusions. Please keep your opinions to yourself when no one is agreeing with you and you're just spamming the threads with complaints. Your complaints aren't going to make FFG nerf anything sooner so there's no reason to spam the same comments everywhere. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we are absolutely fed up by your insistence on the same things over and over. You've made your points, we listened, now move on and find something else to talk about

I do agree with him, at least partially.

17 minutes ago, costi said:

I do agree with him, at least partially.

Edit: Well at least partially...

20 hours ago, Khobai said:

Its not my opinion though. Its a fact.

If fire supporting costs you 2 activations but the enemy loses -1 activation from a unit being killed before it activates then you still end up with the same number of net activations. Thats a fact.

Its also not OPINION that GAR can use fire support to circumvent panic so the unit can still attack before panicking. That is also a fact.

You are confusing facts with opinions.

Facts are cold, hard, oppressive things that are immutable and cannot be changed.

These facts are not as clear-cut as you present them.

Yes, if I use up two activations to make the opponent lose an activation, we do stay at the same relative number of activations. But if I could eliminate the opponent's unit without using Fire Support, I could have gained an activation advantage within the current. And if I use Fire Support but still fail to eliminate the activation, I end up with an activation disadvantage in this round. While your fact is true, it only applies to a narrow set of circumstances where attacking with a single unit will not eliminate the unit but adding in Fire Support will almost certainly eliminate the unit (rolling all blanks is always a possibility!).

Yes, Fire Support can help get around panic, if your potentially panicked unit is in the right position to Fire Support on a unit and you devote another unit to attacking that unit. Sometimes you beautifully bypass the suppression. Other times you end up focusing so much on bypassing the suppression you end up not focusing on winning the game. So again, your fact is true, but only in a limited set of circumstances.

It's perfectly reasonable for somebody to look at these same facts and derive a vastly different opinion from yours.