I have never understood some peoples aversion to change.

Whenever i hear someone complaining about clones on here all i hear is whining, (why are clones the meta, i want my faction to be the meta (again), wah!)

I'm happy with how the Clones are at the moment, there are solid counters to them that are also good against other lists (namely Armour.) People always seem to forget that the "Clone Castle" usually takes a few activations to get going and so gives the opponent time to counter, yes you can get it started with just 1 activation but you have to either be lucky on the pull from the bag or sacrifice one of the fire supports that some people always seem to think get pulled off every shot.

I will agree that some units need a buff. (looking at you Airspeeder and wookiees) but that doesnt mean that other units/factions should be brought down to the lowest level, it means that the others should be made better, Outmanuver was a good start and helps with a lot of the rebel issues IMO and could possibly be made free/builtin on some units.

3 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

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.

It's not that I don't like technology or am I scared of it. Facts are human factors have a major effect on any game in person versus remote. This is true for many activities. People simply react differently in person as opposed to tech. Additionally, in a remote scenerio the computer compensates for the grey areas such as LOS, movement, and gnerally provides additional cues and information to respective players that don't nessicarily exsist in person. Also in person, you don't have a computer resolving rules conflicts, and while in theory this should not be a factor, human bias and error come into it.

44 minutes ago, Bigbboyd said:

It's not that I don't like technology or am I scared of it. Facts are human factors have a major effect on any game in person versus remote. This is true for many activities. People simply react differently in person as opposed to tech. Additionally, in a remote scenerio the computer compensates for the grey areas such as LOS, movement, and gnerally provides additional cues and information to respective players that don't nessicarily exsist in person. Also in person, you don't have a computer resolving rules conflicts, and while in theory this should not be a factor, human bias and error come into it.

TTS does not "resolve rules conflicts." I'm guessing you're not aware of how it works. It's effectively exactly the same in terms of line of sight, movement, information provided to the players, etc. Rules are mediated by the players, not the TTS module. How people "react" has nothing to do with rules mechanics or balance and this is just more yogaspeak. All that statement does is cement the fact that you don't really know how TTS works, but think your opinion on how valid it is when making discussion of rules mechanics or balance still has merit.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

TTS does not "resolve rules conflicts." I'm guessing you're not aware of how it works. It's effectively exactly the same in terms of line of sight, movement, information provided to the players, etc. Rules are mediated by the players, not the TTS module. How people "react" has nothing to do with rules mechanics or balance and this is just more yogaspeak. All that statement does is cement the fact that you don't really know how TTS works, but think your opinion on how valid it is when making discussion of rules mechanics or balance still has merit.

You are correct, I haven't used TTS because it crash my old POS laptop. I am basing it off every other remote application I have seen prior to TTS. And would also add that everyone that I have talked to locally about the difference between TTS and in person has all.said it is indeed different experience and does lack human factors. Now, that all being said, given I am a safety and environmental regulatory compliance investigator, to say that discounting human factors and interactions is a folly. Now, to your point, yes there are some minor game mechanics challenges, but they aren't game breaking per se. Now, I add another point to this discussion, which is most people can't physically get their hands on many of the Clone Expansions, in an environment where you can play whatever you want why wouldn't you. And if you are playing in tournaments, which are still limited, why wouldn't you run the optimized list. Now with in person play and the afore mentioned limits on product, it may not be thE same results.

My only real problem with Legion is FFG’s ability to manage the supply chain. Content is always OOS and reprints are few. It’s been an issue since before the C virus, so I don’t want to hear that excuse either.

The problem with legion is there isn't enough variety.

4 Factions is pathetic.

And they insist on continuing with the OT factions.

Flesh out the ******* clones and droids already!

Or better yet, release Scum or the sequel trilogy factions.

I'm sick of versing the same **** over and over.

Release some new ****!

Scum and Villainy

Ewoks

Now we're up to six factions. 🙂

On 10/11/2020 at 10:44 AM, KommanderKeldoth said:

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

Well, ok, you could latch on to one comment and not the message. Regardless, using a P1 instead of a P2 is very similar to removing the Overwatch card from P2s. Without Overwatch, the P2s really only afford a better Courage and a free Surge in a faction that has almost no way to remove Suppression. But yep I guess you’re right, Overwatch came out with Shore Troopers, who because of the Mortar connection the Comms Relay card needed to be nerfed. Now should the Mortars have been nerfed instead? So yeah I’m sure we could blame the P2s or we could blame the card causing the problem. P2s wouldn’t be as much of a threat without it, no matter how much anyone claims otherwise. My opinion.

Standby sharing is absolutely a problem. It’s not a problem if you like power gaming your way to easy wins I guess, but it’ll kill the game, and it has to go. If you don’t think it’s a problem you’re probably a clone player, or haven’t played against someone who knows how to fully abuse it.

On 10/11/2020 at 10:12 PM, 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.

No...

1 hour ago, JediPartisan said:

Well, ok, you could latch on to one comment and not the message. Regardless, using a P1 instead of a P2 is very similar to removing the Overwatch card from P2s. Without Overwatch, the P2s really only afford a better Courage and a free Surge in a faction that has almost no way to remove Suppression. But yep I guess you’re right, Overwatch came out with Shore Troopers, who because of the Mortar connection the Comms Relay card needed to be nerfed. Now should the Mortars have been nerfed instead? So yeah I’m sure we could blame the P2s or we could blame the card causing the problem. P2s wouldn’t be as much of a threat without it, no matter how much anyone claims otherwise. My opinion.

So 2 things with this, the comms relay change wasn’t just because of shoretroopers, rebel veterans could also use the same exploit. It wasn’t a common tactic for rebels but the potential was there. The second thing it changing overwatch could hurt death troopers which do take the standby action, especially if they are being ran with krennic.

Personally I don’t think the clone castle is really a big deal, as it’s already been said, it takes a decent amount of setup work to make it happen, and it is highly dependent on terrain. If your having so much trouble with clones, use competitive terrain rules and/or put a point bid in.

6 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Well, ok, you could latch on to one comment and not the message. Regardless, using a P1 instead of a P2 is very similar to removing the Overwatch card from P2s. Without Overwatch, the P2s really only afford a better Courage and a free Surge in a faction that has almost no way to remove Suppression. But yep I guess you’re right, Overwatch came out with Shore Troopers, who because of the Mortar connection the Comms Relay card needed to be nerfed. Now should the Mortars have been nerfed instead? So yeah I’m sure we could blame the P2s or we could blame the card causing the problem. P2s wouldn’t be as much of a threat without it, no matter how much anyone claims otherwise. My opinion.

The Comms Relay nerf affected mortars, not Shores.

55 minutes ago, costi said:

The Comms Relay nerf affected mortars, not Shores.

You may want to reread what I wrote.

12 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

Scum and Villainy

Ewoks

Now we're up to six factions. 🙂

Gungans

There, we're at seven!

2 hours ago, evo454 said:

Gungans

There, we're at seven!

Mandalorians

We've already doubled it now up to eight!

No, standby token sharing is definitely one of the problems. because clones can hide the units with standby tokens behind terrain so you cant shoot off the standby tokens.

the overwatch upgrade isnt the problem because you can still shoot standby tokens off a unit with overwatch. the problem is with clones you cant shoot off the standby tokens because the units with the standby tokens get hidden behind terrain to protect the standby tokens. Then they share the tokens with the units that arnt hidden behind terrain.

standby token sharing allows clones to ignore one of the fundamental balancing mechanics of standby which is being able to shoot off standby tokens.

Overwatch is balanced when you can shoot off standby tokens. Its not balanced when you cant shoot them off. That is why its broken with clones.

Fire support is also a broken ability IMO. Because I dont think it was intended for fire support to allow units that are going to panic to be able to attack as part of a fire support pool before panicking. Thats really unfair and makes suppression/panic largely useless against GAR. The rules should be changed so units with twice the suppression as their courage CANT fire support. Fire support allows GAR to mostly ignore another fundamental game mechanic which is suppression.

GAR has too many rules that let them ignore core aspects of the game that bog down everyone elses armies. Thats the problem.

double post

On 10/13/2020 at 11:05 AM, 5particus said:

I have never understood some peoples aversion to change.

Whenever i hear someone complaining about clones on here all i hear is whining, (why are clones the meta, i want my faction to be the meta (again), wah!)

I'm happy with how the Clones are at the moment, there are solid counters to them that are also good against other lists (namely Armour.) People always seem to forget that the "Clone Castle" usually takes a few activations to get going and so gives the opponent time to counter, yes you can get it started with just 1 activation but you have to either be lucky on the pull from the bag or sacrifice one of the fire supports that some people always seem to think get pulled off every shot.

I will agree that some units need a buff. (looking at you Airspeeder and wookiees) but that doesnt mean that other units/factions should be brought down to the lowest level, it means that the others should be made better, Outmanuver was a good start and helps with a lot of the rebel issues IMO and could possibly be made free/builtin on some units.

Clones can counter armor by taking their Saber Tank. An AT-ST has absolutely no chance against a Saber Tank. The problem is older vehicles like the AT-ST and Airspeeder just arnt on the same level as newer vehicles like the Saber Tank. And theres a lack of anti-armor options for both Imperials and Rebels and virtually nothing that can kill a Saber Tank... even impact grenades barely even scratch the thing. Clones can ram the Saber tank down your throat and you have no choice but to ignore it.

Thats the other big problem with clones. Their stuff is just better than yours with no real downside. Their downside is supposed to be a lower activation count but when GAR lists have better units and can still match other armies with 10+ activations theres very clearly a problem.

Some of that can be fixed by buffing the Imperial and Rebel stuff though. Not necessarily by nerfing GAR. Unfortunately I cant see FFG actually fixing the Imperial and Rebel units properly, they need more than just point cost reductions.

12 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Clones can counter armor by taking their Saber Tank. An AT-ST has absolutely no chance against a Saber Tank. The problem is older vehicles like the AT-ST and Airspeeder just arnt on the same level as newer vehicles like the Saber Tank. And theres a lack of options in general in both Imperials and Rebels for killing something like a Saber Tank... even impact grenades barely even scratch the thing.

Thats the other big problem with clones. Their stuff is just better than yours with no real downside. Their downside is supposed to be a lower activation count but when GAR lists have better units and can still match other armies with 10+ activations theres very clearly a problem.

To say that the atst has no chance against a saber tank is just wrong. The saber has impact 5 on cycle, while the atst has impact 4 every round. While the saber has red defense dice, the atst has more health. Its a pretty even fight. You can make a 10-11 activation clone list in the same way you can 13-14 activation rebel list. You have the activations but with the exception of 1-2 units they aren't very good activations.

16 hours ago, JediPartisan said:

Well, ok, you could latch on to one comment and not the message. Regardless, using a P1 instead of a P2 is very similar to removing the Overwatch card from P2s. Without Overwatch, the P2s really only afford a better Courage and a free Surge in a faction that has almost no way to remove Suppression. But yep I guess you’re right, Overwatch came out with Shore Troopers, who because of the Mortar connection the Comms Relay card needed to be nerfed. Now should the Mortars have been nerfed instead? So yeah I’m sure we could blame the P2s or we could blame the card causing the problem. P2s wouldn’t be as much of a threat without it, no matter how much anyone claims otherwise. My opinion.

Hey Im not disagreeing with your thesis. I just wanted to correct a factual error.

I think they should either not allow standby tokens to be shared (the token is hardly green anyway) or there should be restrictions on it that allow more counterplay. Like maybe units with a suppression token cannot recieve tokens from other units.

51 minutes ago, HeavyLoader2 said:

To say that the atst has no chance against a saber tank is just wrong. The saber has impact 5 on cycle, while the atst has impact 4 every round. While the saber has red defense dice, the atst has more health. Its a pretty even fight. You can make a 10-11 activation clone list in the same way you can 13-14 activation rebel list. You have the activations but with the exception of 1-2 units they aren't very good activations.

Agreed. I ran my seperatist AAT against my friend's ATST list and I was kind of shocked at how much better the ATST was at doing damage to vehicles.

I shot my anti armor missiles and main gun and did like 3 danage to the ATST. Now I have to recover or wait for it to cycle while he's doing Impact four every round with multiple aim tokens. My tank died before his ATST did.

3 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Hey Im not disagreeing with your thesis. I just wanted to correct a factual error.

I think they should either not allow standby tokens to be shared (the token is hardly green anyway) or there should be restrictions on it that allow more counterplay. Like maybe units with a suppression token cannot recieve tokens from other units.

Alternately, they could make it so a unit that received a Suppression token this round (after the unit has activated this round or something) can't spend Standby tokens from another unit, which is similar to when the unit with the Standby token takes Suppression.

37 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Alternately, they could make it so a unit that received a Suppression token this round (after the unit has activated this round or something) can't spend Standby tokens from another unit, which is similar to when the unit with the Standby token takes Suppression.

I think this is a difficult solution, as it forces the players to remember whether a unit received a suppression that round or not (in theory, this should be easy, but in practice, the possibility for arguments to ensue exists). I think the solution should just be as simple as possible (i.e. no sharing standby tokens).

Just now, Mokoshkana said:

I think this is a difficult solution, as it forces the players to remember whether a unit received a suppression that round or not (in theory, this should be easy, but in practice, the possibility for arguments to ensue exists). I think the solution should just be as simple as possible (i.e. no sharing standby tokens).

No argument about forcing players to remember something. But we do already have to keep track of what models have been lost in a given turn for Treat/Repair, and tracking this is as simple as using say a Shield token on a unit that can't get Shields, modifying a Suppression token with a dot, using a wound token on single wound models, etc. We have plenty of tokens that don't see frequent use and/or can't be given to units with courage values (weapon disabled for instance) that we do have ways built into stuff most of us should already have to mark such a thing.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

No argument about forcing players to remember something. But we do already have to keep track of what models have been lost in a given turn for Treat/Repair, and tracking this is as simple as using say a Shield token on a unit that can't get Shields, modifying a Suppression token with a dot, using a wound token on single wound models, etc. We have plenty of tokens that don't see frequent use and/or can't be given to units with courage values (weapon disabled for instance) that we do have ways built into stuff most of us should already have to mark such a thing.

Or how about changing it to any unit with suppression can't use standby tokens. Very easy to track if your unit is suppressed or not.