6 hours ago, Khobai said:

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.

I have the smallest violin playing right now.

1 hour ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

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.

Except that completely eliminates standby for every unit with any suppression tokens, as opposed to just the "problem children" of the P2s. My suggestion was based on simulating the effect of taking a suppression while having a standby token, to bring the sharing in line with other Standby without making it worse. But yes, you could make a unit with suppression unable to use another unit's standby tokens for it to be easier to track without nerfing standby for everybody.

6 hours 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.

thats an inaccurate statement a Sabre tank has more health than an AT-ST with the addition of 35 points of R2-D2

24 minutes ago, Darth evil said:

thats an inaccurate statement a Sabre tank has more health than an AT-ST with the addition of 35 points of R2-D2

Empire can also field repair Droids. The card stat for atst is higher, because it rolls white dice. I think they are similar in durability.

11 minutes ago, HeavyLoader2 said:

Empire can also field repair Droids. The card stat for atst is higher, because it rolls white dice. I think they are similar in durability.

A stormtrooper unit with R4 costs 53 points and heals 2 dmg, R2-D2 costs 35 and heals 4 dmg, not even a close comparison.

In case anybody missed it the Legion Academy did an interview and they mention some of the changes they want to do and GAR is on their list. Already a decent recap detailing everything in the thread itself by lunitic501.

Will listen to it at work tomorrow for anymore hints, but it looks like GAR will be getting the nurf we all knew was coming. Can't wait to see what they end up doing! And yaaaa pathfinder buff!!! AND Rebel heavies!!!!

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

I have the smallest violin playing right now.

Don’t feed the wildlife...

12 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

In case anybody missed it the Legion Academy did an interview and they mention some of the changes they want to do and GAR is on their list. Already a decent recap detailing everything in the thread itself by lunitic501.

Will listen to it at work tomorrow for anymore hints, but it looks like GAR will be getting the nurf we all knew was coming. Can't wait to see what they end up doing! And yaaaa pathfinder buff!!! AND Rebel heavies!!!!

Im only about halfway through it but from what i heard it sounds like they are buffing a lot of the other underperforming units by a lot and only giving the clones a slight nerf. Sounds reasonable, unlike a lot of the suggestions that some people have made. i have always said that the main issue is that the other armies have underperforming units .

5 hours ago, 5particus said:

Im only about halfway through it but from what i heard it sounds like they are buffing a lot of the other underperforming units by a lot and only giving the clones a slight nerf. Sounds reasonable, unlike a lot of the suggestions that some people have made. i have always said that the main issue is that the other armies have underperforming units .

I heard it as GAR being hit a bit on the medium to hard side since they bring it up a few times. The clone fortress build was brought up as an issue, and he did say they wanted to bring GAR down a level with the hope they did not cut the feet out from under the faction. Both BARCs and the Saber sound like they will be getting a buff tho.

Of course he was decently vague about GAR, but the buffing of underperforming units was loud and clear for the older factions.

18 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

Don’t feed the wildlife...

But my life sucks and I need entertainment.

On 10/14/2020 at 6:55 PM, lologrelol said:

I have the smallest violin playing right now.

Good. Then no one will hear it. Theyll only hear the violin crying out to nerf GAR. And GAR will get nerfed

5 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

I heard it as GAR being hit a bit on the medium to hard side since they bring it up a few times. The clone fortress build was brought up as an issue, and he did say they wanted to bring GAR down a level with the hope they did not cut the feet out from under the faction. Both BARCs and the Saber sound like they will be getting a buff tho.

Of course he was decently vague about GAR, but the buffing of underperforming units was loud and clear for the older factions.

He wasnt vague at all. he flat out said GAR was coming in too hot.

You dont need to read between the lines to realize GAR nerfs are incoming.

At the very least, standby token sharing is probably on its way out.

On 10/14/2020 at 8:22 PM, HeavyLoader2 said:

Empire can also field repair Droids. The card stat for atst is higher, because it rolls white dice. I think they are similar in durability.

Theyre not similar durability.

Saber Tank = 9/(1/2) = 18 effective health

AT-ST = 11/(2/3) = 16.5 effective health

Furthermore the Saber Tank benefits from dodge tokens while the AT-ST does not. And it has ways to give itself dodges: Plo Koon for example and abilities like exemplar allow the Saber Tank to pull dodges off units like Padme. With outmaneuver giving the Saber Tank a damage shield, the Saber Tank becomes significantly more durable than than the AT-ST.

Its also not fair to compare R2D2 to the astromech. Because R2D2 is automatically in every GAR list anyway. Whereas Imperials have to pay extra points for an astromech. And taking the astromech means giving up other things like a medical droid or an extra combatant. Del Meeko is also really expensive and his weapon is worse than most other heavy weapon choices. Imperials have to give up more in order to repair.

The Saber Tank also has significantly better anti-armor firepower than the AT-ST. The AT-ST has basically no chance of beating a Saber Tank ever. Most GAR units are just outright better than their Imperial equivalents. Whats next? Will GAR get their own version of Deathtroopers that are better than Imperial Deathtroopers in every way? lol.

In order for Imperials to catch upto GAR, FFG needs to take a three fold approach of nerfing GAR, buffing Imperials, and giving Imperials new game mechanics to make them feel different from GAR instead of just feeling like a weaker more generic version of GAR. Much the same can be said about Rebels as well.

Going back to the Saber Tank vs AT-ST example. What do I think is wrong with the Saber Tank? I dont think it should have range 4 on its weapons. By giving the Saber Tank range 4 it encroaches on the range advantage that Empire typically has over other factions. I think all of the Saber Tank's weapons should be range 3; the Saber Tank is durable enough that it can move into range 3, it doesnt need range 4. That would give the AT-ST a slight range advantage over the Saber Tank, which it should have, since its an Imperial unit. The AT-STs twin laser cannon also needs to be better against armor because right now it doesnt have enough impact X or critical X to significantly damage a Saber Tank past its dodge shield.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

Good. Then no one will hear it. Theyll only hear the violin crying out to nerf GAR. And GAR will get nerfed

He wasnt vague at all. he flat out said GAR was coming in too hot.

You dont need to read between the lines to realize GAR nerfs are incoming.

At the very least, standby token sharing is probably on its way out.

Anything beyond getting rid of standby sharing would be too much IMO. Standby sharing probably makes the game worse. But over-all the clone faction is pretty cool with its other mechanics.

10 hours ago, Khobai said:

Good. Then no one will hear it. Theyll only hear the violin crying out to nerf GAR. And GAR will get nerfed

He wasnt vague at all. he flat out said GAR was coming in too hot.

You dont need to read between the lines to realize GAR nerfs are incoming.

At the very least, standby token sharing is probably on its way out.

Theyre not similar durability.

Saber Tank = 9/(1/2) = 18 effective health

AT-ST = 11/(2/3) = 16.5 effective health

Furthermore the Saber Tank benefits from dodge tokens while the AT-ST does not. And it has ways to give itself dodges: Plo Koon for example and abilities like exemplar allow the Saber Tank to pull dodges off units like Padme. With outmaneuver giving the Saber Tank a damage shield, the Saber Tank becomes significantly more durable than than the AT-ST.

Its also not fair to compare R2D2 to the astromech. Because R2D2 is automatically in every GAR list anyway. Whereas Imperials have to pay extra points for an astromech. And taking the astromech means giving up other things like a medical droid or an extra combatant. Del Meeko is also really expensive and his weapon is worse than most other heavy weapon choices. Imperials have to give up more in order to repair.

The Saber Tank also has significantly better anti-armor firepower than the AT-ST. The AT-ST has basically no chance of beating a Saber Tank ever. Most GAR units are just outright better than their Imperial equivalents. Whats next? Will GAR get their own version of Deathtroopers that are better than Imperial Deathtroopers in every way? lol.

In order for Imperials to catch upto GAR, FFG needs to take a three fold approach of nerfing GAR, buffing Imperials, and giving Imperials new game mechanics to make them feel different from GAR instead of just feeling like a weaker more generic version of GAR. Much the same can be said about Rebels as well.

Going back to the Saber Tank vs AT-ST example. What do I think is wrong with the Saber Tank? I dont think it should have range 4 on its weapons. By giving the Saber Tank range 4 it encroaches on the range advantage that Empire typically has over other factions. I think all of the Saber Tank's weapons should be range 3; the Saber Tank is durable enough that it can move into range 3, it doesnt need range 4. That would give the AT-ST a slight range advantage over the Saber Tank, which it should have, since its an Imperial unit. The AT-STs twin laser cannon also needs to be better against armor because right now it doesnt have enough impact X or critical X to significantly damage a Saber Tank past its dodge shield.

i will agree that the saber is slightly more durable than the ATST but Imps thing has always been suppressive weapons and aims not range 4, every faction has range 4 weapons.

Imps are supposed to feel like a weak GAR, that is literally what they are, they are conscripted troops that are pressed into service with sub standard equipment instead of trained professionals that have been fighting their entire lives.

I dont know what you are on about though when you talk about the ATST not doing enough damage, it throws similar dice ( one die changes from white to black when comparing them) and it has surge to hit instead of critical 1, way better when you are shooting vehicles and have lots of impact, it has 1 less impact but the Saber also has weakpoints on its sides as well as the rear.

you were complaining about the range 4 on the saber, well it is main guns are virtually the same as the ATST, same dice but 1 less impact and +1 critical when comparing them and the ATST has surge to hit so is better in this instance as well.

The anti armour seconadry weapons are the AP Shells and the 88 twin light blaster, they both throw 3 dice, the ap shells has one black instead of a white and impact 3 instead of impact 1 so is better per shot but also has cycle so can only be used 3 times per game without a recover. they are fairly even on power.

I will agree that the ATST could come down a bit (as could its weapons but so could the sabers weapons) but they are pretty even on the rest.

2 hours ago, 5particus said:

i will agree that the saber is slightly more durable than the ATST but Imps thing has always been suppressive weapons and aims not range 4, every faction has range 4 weapons.

Imps are supposed to feel like a weak GAR, that is literally what they are, they are conscripted troops that are pressed into service with sub standard equipment instead of trained professionals that have been fighting their entire lives.

I dont know what you are on about though when you talk about the ATST not doing enough damage, it throws similar dice ( one die changes from white to black when comparing them) and it has surge to hit instead of critical 1, way better when you are shooting vehicles and have lots of impact, it has 1 less impact but the Saber also has weakpoints on its sides as well as the rear.

you were complaining about the range 4 on the saber, well it is main guns are virtually the same as the ATST, same dice but 1 less impact and +1 critical when comparing them and the ATST has surge to hit so is better in this instance as well.

The anti armour seconadry weapons are the AP Shells and the 88 twin light blaster, they both throw 3 dice, the ap shells has one black instead of a white and impact 3 instead of impact 1 so is better per shot but also has cycle so can only be used 3 times per game without a recover. they are fairly even on power.

I will agree that the ATST could come down a bit (as could its weapons but so could the sabers weapons) but they are pretty even on the rest.

the AT-ST doesn't have surge to hit naturally, it requires a pilot just like the Saber can have a pilot to share surge tokens nearby, so on it's own critical 1 is better than impact 1

4 hours ago, 5particus said:

i will agree that the saber is slightly more durable than the ATST but Imps thing has always been suppressive weapons and aims not range 4, every faction has range 4 weapons.

Imps are supposed to feel like a weak GAR, that is literally what they are, they are conscripted troops that are pressed into service with sub standard equipment instead of trained professionals that have been fighting their entire lives.

I dont know what you are on about though when you talk about the ATST not doing enough damage, it throws similar dice ( one die changes from white to black when comparing them) and it has surge to hit instead of critical 1, way better when you are shooting vehicles and have lots of impact, it has 1 less impact but the Saber also has weakpoints on its sides as well as the rear.

you were complaining about the range 4 on the saber, well it is main guns are virtually the same as the ATST, same dice but 1 less impact and +1 critical when comparing them and the ATST has surge to hit so is better in this instance as well.

The anti armour seconadry weapons are the AP Shells and the 88 twin light blaster, they both throw 3 dice, the ap shells has one black instead of a white and impact 3 instead of impact 1 so is better per shot but also has cycle so can only be used 3 times per game without a recover. they are fairly even on power.

I will agree that the ATST could come down a bit (as could its weapons but so could the sabers weapons) but they are pretty even on the rest.

I'll agree that the clones are supposed to feel better than the empire, but adversely the empire needs more bodies if we're going down that route. I think the changes coming up should fix the matter though. A light trim to the republic and letting some of the weaker units of the OG factions get some more light should fix the matter. if the AT-ST gets some price buffs like the T-47 air speeder i think it'll be fine.

6 hours ago, 5particus said:

I dont know what you are on about though when you talk about the ATST not doing enough damage, it throws similar dice ( one die changes from white to black when comparing them) and it has surge to hit instead of critical 1, way better when you are shooting vehicles and have lots of impact, it has 1 less impact but the Saber also has weakpoints on its sides as well as the rear.

The AT-ST does not get Impact 5, Critical 1 like the Saber Tank does when it uses anti-armor rockets.

So yes the Saber Tank is way better at anti-armor than the AT-ST is. Its also more durable than the AT-ST.

The AT-ST has almost no chance of winning against a Saber Tank 1v1. And that would be fine if the AT-ST did other things better but it doesnt really.

Quote

The anti armour seconadry weapons are the AP Shells and the 88 twin light blaster, they both throw 3 dice, the ap shells has one black instead of a white and impact 3 instead of impact 1 so is better per shot but also has cycle so can only be used 3 times per game without a recover. they are fairly even on power.

Saber Tank + Anti Armor Rockets = 3 red, 4 black, 2 white with Impact 5, Critical 1 vs the at-sts armor + white surge = 3.5 hits on average

AT-ST + Twin Laer = 3 red, 3 black, 3 white with impact 4 and surge to hit vs the saber tanks armor + red surge = 2.5 hits on average (reduced to 1.5 hits if theres a dodge token on the saber tank). If the Saber tank dodges the AT-ST is doing less than half the damage as the Saber Tank. That is pathetic.

Guess which is better against armor? Ill give you a hint: its not the AT-ST.

Guess which vehicle is going to win that fight? Ill give you another hint: its not the AT-ST.

6 hours ago, 5particus said:

i will agree that the saber is slightly more durable than the ATST but Imps thing has always been suppressive weapons and aims not range 4, every faction has range 4 weapons.

the saber tank is not slightly more durable. it is substantially more durable. it can get dodge tokens from plo koon and units like padme and those dodges can negate hits against it EVERY TURN. Taking down a Saber Tank is so absurdly difficult that in most games youre forced to ignore it completely and focus instead on the units you can actually kill.

Not only does the Saber Tank mitigate damage better thanks to its access to bountiful dodge tokens, but the Saber Tank also has more effective health than than the AT-ST. It has 18 effective health vs the AT-ST's 16.5.

suppression is also fairly useless against GAR. they can largely ignore the adverse effects of suppression with token sharing and fire support.

if suppression is supposed to be the imperial's advantage it isnt a very good one. Its too easily circumvented especially by GAR.

2 hours ago, Lightning Dust said:

I'll agree that the clones are supposed to feel better than the empire, but adversely the empire needs more bodies if we're going down that route. I think the changes coming up should fix the matter though. A light trim to the republic and letting some of the weaker units of the OG factions get some more light should fix the matter. if the AT-ST gets some price buffs like the T-47 air speeder i think it'll be fine.

Then why play Empire at that point if its just a worse version of GAR that costs less? That is so one dimensional and boring.

Clones should not just be better Empire. Clones and Empire should be equal but different. The Empire needs advantages that Clones dont get.

If you want to make Clones better at brute force then Empire needs other advantages like being better at standoff firefights which means range 4 advantage. Suppression also has to count for something and right now it doesnt when GAR can just shrug it off with rules like token sharing/fire support.

Quote

if the AT-ST gets some price buffs like the T-47 air speeder i think it'll be fine.

point cost reductions arnt going to fix whats wrong with imperials or rebels. A cheaper airspeeder is still a flying dumpster fire, its just not burning as hot as before. The airspeeder needs a **** of a lot more than a lower points cost. So does the AT-ST.

why would anyone play a weaker version of GAR with worse cheaper units when they can just play GAR with better units?

40K has the same problem. Everyone plays space marines, not worse space marines that cost less. space marine syndrome ruined 8th edition.

Legion needs to be fixed by making all four factions equal but different. Every faction should have different but equally powerful game mechanics. Clones can be the brute force faction thats fine but Rebels and Imperials should not be strictly inferior. Rebels should be a stealth/infiltration faction (no rule like stealth even exists in the game, why?). Empire should be a gunline/psychological warfare faction (suppression needs to do more. imperial units should get keywords that scale up in power based on how much suppression is on enemy units. where are those keywords?)

Imperials being cheaper and worse version of GAR does not make the game interesting. That is boring. That is exactly what the game needs to avoid. The game needs more unique keywords. More unique keywords for each faction means more faction differentiation which means more interesting games.

These are examples of thematic keywords that can be added to make rebels and imperials more unique:

Rebels get stealth keyword: stealth could reduce the max range of enemy weapons by 1 for each level of cover the rebel unit has. So a range 4 weapon targeting a rebel unit with stealth in light cover would only have range 3. And targeting a rebel unit with stealth in heavy cover would only have range 2. A keyword like stealth directly fixes the rebel's biggest issue which is lack of survivability.

Imperials get subjugate X keyword: imperial units get upto X free attack pool rerolls for each suppression token on the enemy unit (X cannot exceed 3). Now putting suppression out there actually matters because it helps your units do more damage. Everything gets tied into the suppression mechanic then.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

Then why play Empire at that point if its just a worse version of GAR that costs less? That is so one dimensional and boring.

Clones should not just be better Empire. Clones and Empire should be equal but different. The Empire needs advantages that Clones dont get.

If you want to make Clones better at brute force then Empire needs other advantages like being better at standoff firefights which means range 4 advantage. Suppression also has to count for something and right now it doesnt when GAR can just shrug it off with rules like token sharing/fire support.

point cost reductions arnt going to fix whats wrong with imperials or rebels. A cheaper airspeeder is still a flying dumpster fire, its just not burning as hot as before. The airspeeder needs a **** of a lot more than a lower points cost. So does the AT-ST.

why would anyone play a weaker version of GAR with worse cheaper units when they can just play GAR with better units?

40K has the same problem. Everyone plays space marines, not worse space marines that cost less. space marine syndrome ruined 8th edition.

Legion needs to be fixed by making all four factions equal but different. Every faction should have different but equally powerful game mechanics. Clones can be the brute force faction thats fine but Rebels and Imperials should not be strictly inferior. Rebels should be a stealth/infiltration faction (no rule like stealth even exists in the game, why?). Empire should be a gunline/psychological warfare faction (suppression needs to do more. imperial units should get keywords that scale up in power based on how much suppression is on enemy units. where are those keywords?)

Imperials being cheaper and worse version of GAR does not make the game interesting. That is boring. That is exactly what the game needs to avoid. The game needs more unique keywords. More unique keywords for each faction means more faction differentiation which means more interesting games.

These are examples of thematic keywords that can be added to make rebels and imperials more unique:

Rebels get stealth keyword: stealth could reduce the max range of enemy weapons by 1 for each level of cover the rebel unit has. So a range 4 weapon targeting a rebel unit with stealth in light cover would only have range 3. And targeting a rebel unit with stealth in heavy cover would only have range 2. A keyword like stealth directly fixes the rebel's biggest issue which is lack of survivability.

Imperials get subjugate X keyword: imperial units get upto X free attack pool rerolls for each suppression token on the enemy unit (X cannot exceed 3). Now putting suppression out there actually matters because it helps your units do more damage. Everything gets tied into the suppression mechanic then.

I think the Empire has plenty of unique options and choices that GAR to date doesn't offer and probably won't for another year or 2 if ever. I do agree that some units with the empire need love to be more playable (Dewbacks please). As to GAR being better clones (pardon the pun) of Empire, i don't entirely agree. Clones have 2 cores that generally differ in 1 heavy option and their vourage and keywords, but generally same flavor. Storms are very different from Shores are very different from Snows. While ARCS feel more like upgraded Clones with Jump packs, IRG are very different from Scouts that are very different from Death Troops that are very from ISFs. Both armies have speeders and tanks. And GAR has nothing like a Dewback(yet). So by nature if things, Empire more diverse, but even comparing apples to apples (or Cores to cores) Empire really has more diversified selection. I do like your point that each army needs it's own unique special rules to differ themselves. Empire being Surpression Specialist and Rebels having ability to overcome heavy losses or something to represent their strength in face of overwhelming odds would be a nice pairing with current CIS and GAR faction abilities. I will say this, it appears the FFG does try very hard not to be like GW in that they do make adjustments and tweeks without redoing new versions or nerfing whole codexs. Course they are a lot newer to the scene and legion is very young.

2 hours ago, Khobai said:

The AT-ST does not get Impact 5, Critical 1 like the Saber Tank does when it uses anti-armor rockets.

So yes the Saber Tank is way better at anti-armor than the AT-ST is. Its also more durable than the AT-ST.

The AT-ST has almost no chance of winning against a Saber Tank 1v1. And that would be fine if the AT-ST did other things better but it doesnt really.

Saber Tank + Anti Armor Rockets = 3 red, 4 black, 2 white with Impact 5, Critical 1 vs the at-sts armor + white surge = 3.5 hits on average

AT-ST + Twin Laer = 3 red, 3 black, 3 white with impact 4 and surge to hit vs the saber tanks armor + red surge = 2.5 hits on average (reduced to 1.5 hits if theres a dodge token on the saber tank). If the Saber tank dodges the AT-ST is doing less than half the damage as the Saber Tank. That is pathetic.

Guess which is better against armor? Ill give you a hint: its not the AT-ST.

Guess which vehicle is going to win that fight? Ill give you another hint: its not the AT-ST.

the saber tank is not slightly more durable. it is substantially more durable. it can get dodge tokens from plo koon and units like padme and those dodges can negate hits against it EVERY TURN. Taking down a Saber Tank is so absurdly difficult that in most games youre forced to ignore it completely and focus instead on the units you can actually kill.

Not only does the Saber Tank mitigate damage better thanks to its access to bountiful dodge tokens, but the Saber Tank also has more effective health than than the AT-ST. It has 18 effective health vs the AT-ST's 16.5.

suppression is also fairly useless against GAR. they can largely ignore the adverse effects of suppression with token sharing and fire support.

if suppression is supposed to be the imperial's advantage it isnt a very good one. Its too easily circumvented especially by GAR.

Then why play Empire at that point if its just a worse version of GAR that costs less? That is so one dimensional and boring.

Clones should not just be better Empire. Clones and Empire should be equal but different. The Empire needs advantages that Clones dont get.

If you want to make Clones better at brute force then Empire needs other advantages like being better at standoff firefights which means range 4 advantage. Suppression also has to count for something and right now it doesnt when GAR can just shrug it off with rules like token sharing/fire support.

point cost reductions arnt going to fix whats wrong with imperials or rebels. A cheaper airspeeder is still a flying dumpster fire, its just not burning as hot as before. The airspeeder needs a **** of a lot more than a lower points cost. So does the AT-ST.

why would anyone play a weaker version of GAR with worse cheaper units when they can just play GAR with better units?

40K has the same problem. Everyone plays space marines, not worse space marines that cost less. space marine syndrome ruined 8th edition.

Legion needs to be fixed by making all four factions equal but different. Every faction should have different but equally powerful game mechanics. Clones can be the brute force faction thats fine but Rebels and Imperials should not be strictly inferior. Rebels should be a stealth/infiltration faction (no rule like stealth even exists in the game, why?). Empire should be a gunline/psychological warfare faction (suppression needs to do more. imperial units should get keywords that scale up in power based on how much suppression is on enemy units. where are those keywords?)

Imperials being cheaper and worse version of GAR does not make the game interesting. That is boring. That is exactly what the game needs to avoid. The game needs more unique keywords. More unique keywords for each faction means more faction differentiation which means more interesting games.

These are examples of thematic keywords that can be added to make rebels and imperials more unique:

Rebels get stealth keyword: stealth could reduce the max range of enemy weapons by 1 for each level of cover the rebel unit has. So a range 4 weapon targeting a rebel unit with stealth in light cover would only have range 3. And targeting a rebel unit with stealth in heavy cover would only have range 2. A keyword like stealth directly fixes the rebel's biggest issue which is lack of survivability.

Imperials get subjugate X keyword: imperial units get upto X free attack pool rerolls for each suppression token on the enemy unit (X cannot exceed 3). Now putting suppression out there actually matters because it helps your units do more damage. Everything gets tied into the suppression mechanic then.

I do agree that the original factions should get some identity regarding unique keywords but I don't think that will happen until late 2021 or 2022 when the clone wars releases are more caught up and we cant get away with this method of balancing any longer. For empire i would enjoy something that gives them bonuses to attacking suppressed units, but for rebels i did enjoy the boost to a unit's performance via lost models that was thrown around here.

For now though I think this game's unit variety can keep the balance fun and engaging assuming the clone "trimming" does enough to liven up the higher level meta, and the price reductions of units forgotten like the T-47, AT-ST, upgraded rebel troopers, fleets, vets, storms, etc. can bring them back up to par with the new heavier hitters like my beloved Mandalorians

Quote

but for rebels i did enjoy the boost to a unit's performance via lost models that was thrown around here.

rebels getting buffs when other rebels die is well and fine.

but rebels still need something to help them stay alive in the first place or there will be no rebels left alive to benefit from buffs from other rebels dying lol.

currently rebel units die way too fast and unlike CIS they lack the numbers to sustain that level of attrition. rebels need more ways of preventing and mitigating damage.

its a matter of rebels not being fun because of how quickly they die.

The biggest issue in Legion is the very narrow board game-esque rules set. I may be enticed back in someday but for now it feels like it's neither Imperial Assault (a boardgame) nor Star Wars Miniatures Battles (a wargame), and does a poor job compared to either of those games.

It has all the fiddlieness of a meeplish Eurogame, and all the cost and storage issues of a wargame.