I didn’t want to do this, since I know there will be someone that just wants to argue, but I wanted to throw a few things out there, especially with everyone voicing the sentiment that the Republic faction is broken.

I don’t think the faction is broken, but I always play with Obi. TBH, I think the point values of Obi and Rex are a little skewed. Obi can be powerful, if you can get him into melee without being shot to pieces. I think all Jedi might be a little overpriced in that way, but that’s another argument for another time (though I know someone will latch on to this comment and only this comment. Let it go for now, bigger things to discus). Rex is quite powerful, more so than most of us thought. He’s cheap and brings at least one command card that allows a nasty alpha strike (his 2 pip). I do believe Rex should probably gain 10-20 points, but that’s not the main issue either. The main issue everyone is talking about is Stanby token sharing .

I’ll say this and someone will lose their mind, watch: Standby token sharing is not the problem.

The real problem is the OVERWATCH upgrade card. Before that card came out, clones only had the ability to use Standbys to range 2. We all know that most combat takes place at range 3 and when the clones had only Range 2 Standby, no one complained or thought they were OP. A range 2 Standby still allows a castle formation/defense to be used, but at least other units can move to a position where they can fire without being Standby’ed to death.

The simplest way to fix this is to make the Overwatch upgrade card tapable and have it automatically untap at the end of the round. This way only one Standby can be spent per unit out to range 3. The clones still have the ability to use Standby, but it’s significantly reduced. Clones need the Standby ability to help their lack of staying power or stamina (yes, even with Rex). I don’t feel like arguing further, so that’s about it on this issue. It’s a clean and elegant fix that’s not heavy handed and should right most of the Clone issues.

R2-D2 has also been called out as an issue, and again, I’ll say it and someone will lose their sh## : R2 is not over powered or overpriced.

The real issue here is Secret Mission. Padme now has the same capability and she moves significantly faster and is more capable of taking on a unit since she has a 3 black attack and Sharpshooter 2. There may be even more units in the future with this keyword, so it needs to be fixed sooner than later. As for R2, he’s not a combat unit. He doesn’t add anything else to an army (excluding Secret Mission or padding the activation count), unless you also pay for 3PO, but then you’re paying 50 points for a unit to give out 1 aim, 1 dodge and a suppression each round. R2 can be useful in repair, but if a vehicle is not included, it’s just keeping him alive. So how can Secret Mission be fixed? I don’t think it can, or at least I don’t see an easy fix for it.

The easiest way to fix this issue is to make Bounty easier to collect. As it stands the unit with the Bounty keyword needs to kill the unit that has the bounty on it, but why? It was the Empire that captured Solo, but Boba got the bounty. Why not make it so that if the unit with the Bounty keyword lives to the end, and the Bountied unit died (by any means), the Bounty is collected. This should make the two free victory point missions a little closer in scope and complete-ability. Also a points adjustment on Boba would not be out of line (reduce not increase).

Anyway just my 2 cents. I don’t care to argue, so I may not respond, but I do think these two fixes will go a long way to even things out and I just wanted it out there, so feel free to discus amongst yourselves. Peace. ☮️

I agree with the Standby/Overwatch thing. Making it tap after use limits how often and how far a single unit can spend a standby, while leaving the core mechanic and much of the actual tactic intact. It would prevent abusing the gimmick, but likely would let people continue to build and play standby sharing lists. Even in this limited form, however, people would likely complain about it, and would ultimately be a stepping stone to the full nerf because clones are different, and therefore bad for the game. 🙄

I will disagree about Artoo. Secret mission is part of the problem, but the other part is cost. Secret mission on Padme isn't as bad as it is on Artoo because she's far more expensive than he is, and thus not something you can squeeze into a list with a few small cuts. Artoo's price, plus his keywords makes him more than a bit unbalanced. He's great for firesupport, because of surge to hit and suppressive, even if his actual attack is whippy. His health isn't much, but if he survives a hit, he can repair and likely will be immune from other attacks. If he doesn't, he fullfilled his primary purpose as an activation filler, and soaked up an attack that likely would have been on more important units. Even with vehicles, he's basically a 35 point 4 health upgrade for your vehicles, and thus a shoe-in. He's simply too good for his points to drop, at least if you can tie several of these factors together. (and I say this as someone who laughed at the necessity of Artoo early on)

I like the solution to the overwatch/standby issue. It is simple and not unpresidented. As to secret mission and R2. Not sure that there really is a good solution. I do like your idea for Bounty, but it doesn't address the cheapness of R2 and hI'd abilities (given Republic is one of my tourney armies, I am probably shooting my foot.) Maybe a 10pt bump wouldn't be end of days.

While I don't have a problem with changing Overwatch to once per turn, I think the timing of the exhaust is a bit tricky. It has to exhaust before the opponent finishes the action with their unit by my reading, and could easily cause people to think it has to be exhausted before the action starts. I think having it exhaust after the unit spends a Standby token (at any range) is easier, and has a similar effect.

I don't think that making Bounty easier to collect does anything other than make Bounty OP. Now in addition to losing a Commander or Operative, you have also given a CP to your opponent, who can keep the unit with Bounty in an obscure location, preventing you from interacting with them. So if you have a Combat Commander/Operative in your list, it is tantamount to giving your opponent a free victory point.

4 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

The real problem is the OVERWATCH upgrade card. Before that card came out, clones only had the ability to use Standbys to range 2. We all know that most combat takes place at range 3 and when the clones had only Range 2 Standby, no one complained or thought they were OP.

Overwatch came out before clones did. It was Phase 2 clones that changed everything.

Completly wrong.

First: token sharing is wrong by itself.

No unit should be able to use the tokens of another unit. Infact we see unit of 4 clone p1 used only to farm token for their big brothers. This is obviously wrong

Second don t change overeatch which is perfectly good for other non broken, non clone units (ie any unit that actually follows the rules of the games unlike clones). Simply take the possibility to get it out of clone units. Unless they pay really dear for it.

Third: the real problem with r2d2 is that you cannot shoot him. But you can shoot padme.

R2d2 should not be unconspicous. Astromech are valuable loots, so it should be a primary target.

Padme is way undercosted just like leia is, but r2d2 is even more undercosted.

It is 1 victory point almost granted, maybe even 2 since more often than ever it will also claim an objective...r2d2 should cost 100 points..more or less like bounty hunters.

Or they may reduce the cost of bounty hunters, like 90 for boba and 70 for boskk.

Fourth: the way bounty is collected is indeed too difficult to achieve. It should be the bounty is defeated (by anyone) you get the point. No matter if the hunter survives. This on top of lowering the cost of the hunters.

Oh and bounty hunters should have hunter built in for their bounty.

Of course the above is just a joke (actually I think those things are good and just, but I understand no one else is enlightened like me 😁 ), but since clone players refuse to see the truth andcstill try to justify their army braking the rules of the game, if they can say b*llsh*ts, then I can do it too...

16 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

As it stands the unit with the Bounty keyword needs to kill the unit that has the bounty on it, but why?

This would create major problems for a couple reasons:

1) Bounty hunters can be deployed behind LOS blocking terrain that is difficult to get to and stay there the entire game

2) this is a thematic miss b/c the bounty hunter does not need to engage at all to claim their bounty. In ESB Boba was actually pursuing Han.

I could see a case for collecting a bounty on any or each commander or operative finished off by a unit with bounty. That would allow a single hunter to gain multiple VP without needing two hunters.

I think the biggest problem with bounty at the moment is that Boba Fett is simply outclassed by other units available to the Empire and Bane is tough to fit into CIS lists as efficiently as desired (especially compared to Padme/R2).

Just saw that Crisis Protocol is doing a banned/restricted list. Could this be a solution???

Banned :

Overwatch

Comms Relay

Restricted (no more than 2 of/list) :

Strike Teams

Tauntauns

E-stims

etc.

Clone "castle" is a myth. While it is a possible set of actions you could take, it is a waste of time. If someone is foolish enough to try to feed from lesser corps like naked p1s then simply start a blood bath, committing all your units to the attack in the same area, focusing on the unit used to return fire. If your opponent is good enough to beat you with a firepower disadvantage, due to degradation of their elite unit and failing to fill out the rest of their heavy weapons slots, you really never stood a chance to begin with. Furthermore if the person trying to castle wants to take objectives, in order to win, they can't take more than a few standbys, as doing so either keeps the unit in place or prevents taking an aim. On the only reason they could take lots of standbys would be because their units were unable to fight which means as long as you don't walk into the middle of the whole army, you have been spared from a round of clone firepower. Honestly aim/dodge sharing is far more powerful than standby sharing as it is a widely usable ability. Frankly in order to get a effective unit to use overwatch at all it costs 90+ points, the same price bracket as commanders and operatives so it should be really good.

I don't think it even needs to be banned/limited. There are a lot of good clone players in my area, but they only dominated the scene until everyone else made adjustments to their lists. This is what happens EVERYTIME something new comes out. Just adjust your list to counter it.

Sabine and Op Luke became popular with rebel lists, as did longer range, more FDs, more snipers etc.

Empire started playing more ATSTs and Veers to kills the big P2 units that have overwatch.

CIS started playing More AATs who don't care about your standbys

Some players started to have higher bids to have things clones don't like, such as Limited visibility, payload, bombing run etc.

10 hours ago, weebaer said:

I don't think it even needs to be banned/limited.

I wonder, though, if a banned/restricted list would be easier to manage than point changes. Printed cards make errata and points changes tough to track and makes entry into a game so painful. It’s why I never got into x-wing on an organized play level. I felt out of the loop when I found out my ships didn’t actually do what I thought they did b/c the cards were wrong.

55 minutes ago, smickletz said:

I wonder, though, if a banned/restricted list would be easier to manage than point changes. Printed cards make errata and points changes tough to track and makes entry into a game so painful. It’s why I never got into x-wing on an organized play level. I felt out of the loop when I found out my ships didn’t actually do what I thought they did b/c the cards were wrong.

I don't want a banned/limited list as that is another thing which would have to be considered on top of the points errata, which is not going away (Otherwise the units which need help would just be dead in the water). I think they should continue to fix things via the RRG as best as they can. The beauty of that system is that it will not invalidate the cards because something like "Charge" on a unit card is just a place holder that points to its entry in the RRG.

The biggest problem in legion is that I still can't field the Ewok glider. Come on FFG!

I feel like R2D2 could be changed in two big ways to make him a bit more interesting/balanced:

1. Change his inconspicuous keyword a bit: Unit cannot be targeted for attacks unless no other targets are available. If this unit makes an offensive action (primarily, attacking a unit) lose Inconspicuous. (may have the name wrong, i don't have my list in front of me at work).

OR

2. Make it so he has to be attached to another unit (such as attaching him directly to Luke or Anakin) and add some kind of rule making it so they cannot be outside of a certain range from them. The consequence for this could be an AI: Move to Heavy Cover, Dodge (the idea being that R2D2 being cut off is hunkering down and surviving the firefight.

Neither of those may be any good, but that's all I've got.

---------------------------------

1 minute ago, jocke01 said:

The biggest problem in legion is that I still can't field the Ewok glider. Come on FFG!

You say that, but I think that's exactly what Legion needs: wacky, off the wall units that keep things fun and interesting and shake up the meta a bit.

15 hours ago, smickletz said:

Just saw that Crisis Protocol is doing a banned/restricted list. Could this be a solution???

Banned :

Overwatch

Comms Relay

Restricted (no more than 2 of/list) :

Strike Teams

Tauntauns

E-stims

etc.

Where do you hang out for Crisis Protocol info? I've been looking for a forum for that game. It's super fun!

2 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Where do you hang out for Crisis Protocol info? I've been looking for a forum for that game. It's super fun!

I just came across the info on YouTube. I wish I could justify a second minis game!

I would say FFG needs to announce when that points change will happen now lol. It's pretty clear that GAR is the elephant in the room and we all have talked about this topic plenty. Now we just have to wait and see what is going to be done.

At least from what I see in these forums and listening to in the podcast that something has to be done with GAR. And I agree with one podcast that said Legion so far has been pretty balanced and this is the first major meta destroying comp in the game. Will be interesting to see what changes will be made.

Im just shocked that certain GAR hating poster hasnt shown up in this thread yet...

49 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Im just shocked that certain GAR hating poster hasnt shown up in this thread yet...

Why do tempt fate like this?

Honestly the amount of times that I see stuff on peoples 'ban / change' list that is just things they don't like to play against is daft. Part of a strategy game is facing units which you struggle against, and finding ways to adapt & overcome. As more things get released of course the list you swore by 1-2 years ago is going to be outdated. Just nerfing everything isn't the answer, and its how the game goes stale, and placing restrictions on lists (ie. limiting strike-teams qty) is just anti-fun, and changes the dynamic, but not necessarily in a good way. For all we know they may have already tested this idea and seen it fall flat

1 hour ago, Haslamm1 said:

Honestly the amount of times that I see stuff on peoples 'ban / change' list that is just things they don't like to play against is daft. Part of a strategy game is facing units which you struggle against, and finding ways to adapt & overcome. As more things get released of course the list you swore by 1-2 years ago is going to be outdated. Just nerfing everything isn't the answer, and its how the game goes stale, and placing restrictions on lists (ie. limiting strike-teams qty) is just anti-fun, and changes the dynamic, but not necessarily in a good way. For all we know they may have already tested this idea and seen it fall flat

This is exactly it. The constant need to nerf this and make sweeping changes between editions in 40K (talking to a person who started in 2nd ed) is what ultimately drove a lot of people away. Look, small adjustments if something that is slightly unbalanced when it comes out if one thing, while sale nerf a mechanic of an army because it challenges the status quo is quite another. Besides, unless you all are somehow violating quarentine in like 80% of the world, there have been exceptionally few actual tournaments in person to base this on. And as much as I am sure many of you will say online this, simulator that, my 30 plus years of gaming experience tells me that there is no substitute for in person gaming with a table top game. You loose too much of the human interaction and cues.

2 hours ago, Bigbboyd said:

And as much as I am sure many of you will say online this, simulator that, my 30 plus years of gaming experience tells me that there is no substitute for in person gaming with a table top game. You loose too much of the human interaction and cues.

This is ridiculous yogaspeak. Just because you're afraid of technology or prefer playing in person doesn't mean it doesn't count. "Human interaction and cues" might be what you need to have a fun experience, but it has ****-all to do with actual gameplay mechanics and balance.

When a specific list or unit is constantly in tournament lists and is 8 of the top 10, then there does need to be something examined (the example I am thinking of is actually related to Magic the Gathering's recent bank list additions, not specifically Legion). Nerfing isn't always needed, but when the top players struggle to find answers, then something is askew. Part of the "issue" is that the playtesters make up a very small percentage of the overall player base and may miss a specific overpowered combination because they don't play that specific way, or they don't think about the game in the right way to notice the interaction. It's kind of like how the rules are written with a certain interpretation in mind, so they don't necessarily see that the words on the page can be read with a different meaning, changing how the game is played.

I do agree people often call for nerfs very quickly, and sometimes unnecessarily though.

4 hours ago, Haslamm1 said:

Honestly the amount of times that I see stuff on peoples 'ban / change' list that is just things they don't like to play against is daft. Part of a strategy game is facing units which you struggle against, and finding ways to adapt & overcome. As more things get released of course the list you swore by 1-2 years ago is going to be outdated. Just nerfing everything isn't the answer, and its how the game goes stale, and placing restrictions on lists (ie. limiting strike-teams qty) is just anti-fun, and changes the dynamic, but not necessarily in a good way. For all we know they may have already tested this idea and seen it fall flat

I disagree some when it comes to FFG. They have a history of releasing stuff that is so broken it makes the game unfun. I played X-Wing and between the Triple Toilet Seats, Sabine K-Wing, Palpatine Aces all of which led them to revamp and release 2.0. I play Armada and lived through the Flotilla and Squad spam that was not fun. When the only way to win is to play a broken list it is not about facing a tough list, it is just not fun. There is a balance that FFG has not been the best of achieving for releases. I do not like seeing erratas, to me it always seems like they did not play test enough and/or power creep due to being shortsighted. I do not have issue with point adjustments and I really like their approach with X-Wing 2.0, the adjustable points and possible upgrades to a unit.

I hate the idea of banning things cause it just hurts the game in the long run.

There will always be a meta and there will always be power-gamers who exploit and break it. An issue that's been voiced here is that in a balanced game you can still outplay the meta with other lists, but it feels at times like the only way to beat the meta is to play into it and that's just not fun. Nerfs may not be the answer: maybe other units or mechanics could be introduced to bring other factions into balance with each other but I just hope whatever FFG does is decisive.