My prediction is that few people will be satisfied with it. This errata/points adjustment has been built up so much that it is meaning everything to many people. Some are hoping their faction will suddenly get massive points cuts, others are hoping their hated faction will be nerfed into the ground. I've seen plenty of speculation on massive erratas to older units to make them on par with brand new units. Chances are, the changes will be relatively minor. Couple points here, couple points there. Maybe the big characters or tanks will get a 10pt drop or something, and maybe a few units per faction will get an errata, but that's probably about it.

My hope is that people reign in their expectations, and allow themselves to be pleasantly surprised when they do get a nice change.

19 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

My prediction is that few people will be satisfied with it. This errata/points adjustment has been built up so much that it is meaning everything to many people. Some are hoping their faction will suddenly get massive points cuts, others are hoping their hated faction will be nerfed into the ground. I've seen plenty of speculation on massive erratas to older units to make them on par with brand new units. Chances are, the changes will be relatively minor. Couple points here, couple points there. Maybe the big characters or tanks will get a 10pt drop or something, and maybe a few units per faction will get an errata, but that's probably about it.

My hope is that people reign in their expectations, and allow themselves to be pleasantly surprised when they do get a nice change.

I’m also fairly conservative on how much the points are likely to adjust (when we didn’t even have a real tournament scene this year, there’s basically nothing to go off of!)

I’d predict the HH-12 drops to 24 points, purely as an experiment to see who takes it when there’s no points opportunity cost vs the DLT-19. Similar changes for all the other anti-vehicle weapons.

To be honest, the T-47 is already absurdly underpriced for its game role, dropping it more is a ridiculous gift, but I’ll gladly get yet another free unit if you want to drop it to 100 points, lol. Pathfinders and T-47s, drool. that’ll make for a deck that’s an absolute gimme

30 minutes ago, Derrault said:

To be honest, the T-47 is already absurdly underpriced for its game role, dropping it more is a ridiculous gift, but I’ll gladly get yet another free unit if you want to drop it to 100 points, lol. Pathfinders and T-47s, drool. that’ll make for a deck that’s an absolute gimme

if doing nothing is a game role then its about 140 points overcosted.

even at 100 points the T-47 still wouldnt consistently earn its points back. Its THAT bad.

The T-47 needs more than just a cost reduction to fix whats wrong with it.

30 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I’d predict the HH-12 drops to 24 points, purely as an experiment to see who takes it when there’s no points opportunity cost vs the DLT-19. Similar changes for all the other anti-vehicle weapons.

Even at 24 points, theres still an opportunity cost over the DLT19, because it has exhaust and cumbersome.

You give up the opportunity to use it every turn AND the opportunity to move.

At the very least they need to remove the exhaust requirement on the HH12. Just doing that makes it 20% better since you can take an aim action.

I expect them to remove the exhaust requirement and reduce its cost by 2-4 points.

15 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

My prediction is that few people will be satisfied with it. This errata/points adjustment has been built up so much that it is meaning everything to many people. Some are hoping their faction will suddenly get massive points cuts, others are hoping their hated faction will be nerfed into the ground. I've seen plenty of speculation on massive erratas to older units to make them on par with brand new units. Chances are, the changes will be relatively minor. Couple points here, couple points there. Maybe the big characters or tanks will get a 10pt drop or something, and maybe a few units per faction will get an errata, but that's probably about it.

My hope is that people reign in their expectations, and allow themselves to be pleasantly surprised when they do get a nice change.

This is what most likely is going to happen, but rebellions are built on hope!

I was also in this camp before I heard the interview, and while I still believe most will be minor I now think the OT will see some moderate to major changes. The tone was completely opposite from their old interviews about points and balance. Pathfinders going down "dramatically", fans of wookies will be "very happy", all heavies will try to match the AAT in power, rockets being must haves, and saying how OT stuff was not on the same power level as the newer stuff. It sounds too good to be true.............. and I am still happy that we are getting any changes at all.

BUUUUUT , my cynical self think that they will super buff 1 or 2units for each OT factions and at the same time a slight nurf to Clones. This would allow them to fulfill their promise to make all factions competitive and that point changes would be for pro play without having to really change anything. Super buffed wookies/pathfinders will help with the Cassian list while at the same time allowing them to avoid fixing the Rebel heavies! BAM!!!! One Rebel meta list to shut us all up about token sharing! Now go buy Ani and Maul!

2 hours ago, Khobai said:

if doing nothing is a game role then its about 140 points overcosted.

even at 100 points the T-47 still wouldnt consistently earn its points back. Its THAT bad.

The T-47 needs more than just a cost reduction to fix whats wrong with it.

Even at 24 points, theres still an opportunity cost over the DLT19, because it has exhaust and cumbersome.

You give up the opportunity to use it every turn AND the opportunity to move.

At the very least they need to remove the exhaust requirement on the HH12. Just doing that makes it 20% better since you can take an aim action.

I expect them to remove the exhaust requirement and reduce its cost by 2-4 points.

I get it, you don’t understand what the unit is for, so you think it’s bad. That’s fine, nobody is forcing you to be good at strategy games.

The only opportunity cost would be points, and that is literally paid for because the HH-12, when it fires, is more effective than the DLT-19 on a per point basis. The heavy weapons are just tools with specific purposes, and the HH-12 is the better anti-armor choice.

19 hours ago, Vector Strike said:

All droid troopers : Integrated Comms Antenna is really bad for 3p in a world where the better Long-Range Comlink for 5p isn't taken. 1-2p would be enough.

This^^

I was so confused when that card came out. Why would anyone ever take that at 3 points?!

It should be 1 point, since there is a 5 point upgrade that does the same thing globally. Even at 1 point it wont be taken that often due to people wanting a bid for blue player.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

I get it, you don’t understand what the unit is for, so you think it’s bad. That’s fine, nobody is forcing you to be good at strategy games.

The only opportunity cost would be points, and that is literally paid for because the HH-12, when it fires, is more effective than the DLT-19 on a per point basis. The heavy weapons are just tools with specific purposes, and the HH-12 is the better anti-armor choice.

Please share with us the magical understanding that makes airspeeders good.

What great knowledge have you uncovered about airspeeders that the best players in the game havent been able to figure out.

I really want to hear this.

And weve already been over this. It doesnt matter if the HH12 is better at anti-armor than the DLT19. Because the HH12 is still bad at anti-armor. Neither weapon is used against heavy vehicles because both weapons are bad against heavy vehicles. Saying the HH12 is good at anti-armor because its slightly better than a weapon thats terrible at anti-armor is a flawed argument. All that means is the HH12 is bad at anti armor while the DLT19 is absolutely terrible at anti armor. Neither is good at that role.

If your two choices are doing 1.1 avg wounds (or 1.36 if you can move and shoot the DLT into the weakside) to a saber tank or doing 1.68 avg wounds to a saber tank with an HH12. NEITHER OF THOSE IS GOOD AGAINST A SABER TANK. It doesnt matter if the HH12 is slightly better than the DLT19 at anti-armor if the HH12 is still bad at anti-armor. So youre always going to take the DLT19 instead and focus on killing troopers because the DLT19 is much better in its intended role at killing troopers than the HH12 is at its intended role of killing vehicles. The DLT19 also doesnt come with debilitating downsides stapled to it.

Youve continually ignore the massive downsides of exhaust and cumbersome. It doesnt matter if the HH12 is 24 points nobody will use it. It wouldnt get used if it was 22 points. Or 20 points. Because exhaust and cumbersome are BAD. Its not a matter of points cost. Its a matter of the HH12 having massively debilitating keywords. Theres also the fact the HH12 has an awkward minimum range that renders it completely useless if a tank just drives upto the unit with the HH12 and says hi. The worst part is you cant even move to range 2 and shoot the HH12 because of cumbersome. In any range 1 situation youre going to wish you did take the DLT19 instead.

Getting rid of exhaust is the only way the HH12 would even start to be considered. Just lowering its points cost ultimately wouldnt change a thing. I do think we'll definitely see FFG get rid of exhaust on certain weapons just because exhaust makes those weapons so undesirable and miserable to use.

During latest interview Alex davy mentioned the clone trooper rules specifically. I think some change will likely happen there. The rest are likely points changes only. With shores and tuan tuan, ffg hit on what was being complained about.since token sharing is the talk of the town, It is probable that token sharing will be removed. I personally hope not, due to it being the only thing that sperates the more expensive clones from stormtroopers (fire support does not really change how they are played) however I have little faith that ffg will not use a broadsword. The result will be that competitive players will play Cis or rebels.

14 minutes ago, HeavyLoader2 said:

It is probable that token sharing will be removed.

I seriously doubt it, and you're probably the only person here who thinks that's "probable." It's probably going to be modified, but no way they are going to remove it entirely.

31 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I seriously doubt it, and you're probably the only person here who thinks that's "probable." It's probably going to be modified, but no way they are going to remove it entirely.

Honestly I think a limit on standby token sharing would be good, like maybe X standby tokens shareable per turn. I don't want to see sentinel nerfed because it's perfectly fair on any other unit.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

I seriously doubt it, and you're probably the only person here who thinks that's "probable." It's probably going to be modified, but no way they are going to remove it entirely.

they probably will remove it entirely because its a negative play experience

letting GAR hide their units with standby tokens behind terrain so you cant shoot them off while still being able to share them is a major red flag.

the only way you could possibly make standby token sharing fair is if you changed the token sharing rules so GAR units can only give other units tokens during their own activations. that would give the other player an opportunity to shoot off the standby token before its used.

But I cant see FFG completely rewriting the token sharing rules so I think theyll just say standby tokens dont count as green tokens and be done with it. easy fix.

1 hour ago, HeavyLoader2 said:

It is probable that token sharing will be removed. I personally hope not, due to it being the only thing that sperates the more expensive clones from stormtroopers (fire support does not really change how they are played) however I have little faith that ffg will not use a broadsword. The result will be that competitive players will play Cis or rebels.

even if standby token sharing is removed you can still share aim and dodge tokens.

also standby token sharing is not the only thing that separates stormtroopers and clonetroopers. stormtroopers have white dice. clonetroopers have black dice.

and fire support is hugely underappreciated. i wish stormtroopers had fire support and could abuse it to circumvent suppression and panicking.

4 hours ago, Khobai said:

they probably will remove it entirely because its a negative play experience

letting GAR hide their units with standby tokens behind terrain so you cant shoot them off while still being able to share them is a major red flag.

the only way you could possibly make standby token sharing fair is if you changed the token sharing rules so GAR units can only give other units tokens during their own activations. that would give the other player an opportunity to shoot off the standby token before its used.

But I cant see FFG completely rewriting the token sharing rules so I think theyll just say standby tokens dont count as green tokens and be done with it. easy fix.

It's like every paragraph in the above is written by a different person. All token sharing is not a negative play experience. Some people think standby token sharing is. That's probably what they will change, which is eventually exactly what you said, after stating they will entirely remove the functionality of the Clone Trooper keyword. I seriously don't really know how to interpret what you wrote given how your opinion seems to change mid-stream. "they probably will remove it entirely because its a negative play experience" ("it" being all token sharing) followed by "But I cant see FFG completely rewriting the token sharing rules so I think theyll just say standby tokens dont count as green tokens and be done with it. easy fix." left me totally gobsmacked.

7 hours ago, Khobai said:

Please share with us the magical understanding that makes airspeeders good.

What great knowledge have you uncovered about airspeeders that the best players in the game havent been able to figure out.

I really want to hear this.

I think he's just saying it does have a purpose in some circumstances.

I think it would probably be really good in a big game setting on a big board. It's just hard to justify such a large target, that moves pretty far on the relatively 'small' tournament sized boards.

For the tournament game, it's optimal points cost is probably around 125.

1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

It's like every paragraph in the above is written by a different person. All token sharing is not a negative play experience. Some people think standby token sharing is. That's probably what they will change, which is eventually exactly what you said, after stating they will entirely remove the functionality of the Clone Trooper keyword. I seriously don't really know how to interpret what you wrote given how your opinion seems to change mid-stream. "they probably will remove it entirely because its a negative play experience" ("it" being all token sharing) followed by "But I cant see FFG completely rewriting the token sharing rules so I think theyll just say standby tokens dont count as green tokens and be done with it. easy fix." left me totally gobsmacked.

I didnt say all token sharing was a negative play experience. I said standby token sharing in its current context is a negative play experience.

And I said standby token sharing is difficult to fix without completely rewriting the token sharing rules.

Since FFG is unlikely to do that, the most likely outcome is that standby token sharing will be purged from the game.

39 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

I think he's just saying it does have a purpose in some circumstances.

I think it would probably be really good in a big game setting on a big board. It's just hard to justify such a large target, that moves pretty far on the relatively 'small' tournament sized boards.

For the tournament game, it's optimal points cost is probably around 125.

And my point was that the Airspeeder needs to cost more and be made better. Not stay bad and cost less.

They could lower it to 125 points but it still wouldnt get used. Id rather see it cost 150-200 points and actually be on par with other heavies.

Boba Fett needs a significant points reduction.

Both Rebel and Imperials need a faction identity.

Bounty is overcoated. Secret mission is easier to achieve and costs less.

Snow trooper Ion heavy shouldn't be exhaust.

Generators for the eweb/FD turret are overcosted and shouldn't be exhaust.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

And my point was that the Airspeeder needs to cost more and be made better. Not stay bad and cost less.

They could lower it to 125 points but it still wouldnt get used. Id rather see it cost 150-200 points and actually be on par with other heavies.

It's just easier to adjust points down, rather than add things that aren't on the unit cards. So I suspect they will stick with lowering cost.

5 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

Bounty is overcoated. Secret mission is easier to achieve and costs less.

Good point! They should ditch the requirement that the bounty hunter himself must kill the enemy to get the VP. That alone would make things much easier.

9 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

Generators for the eweb/FD turret are overcosted and shouldn't be exhaust.

I'd settle for them getting cycle. Still likely would recover shoot with E-Webs, but it's a step in the right direction.

Quote

Good point! They should ditch the requirement that the bounty hunter himself must kill the enemy to get the VP. That alone would make things much easier.

That also kinda defeats the entire point of having a Bounty Hunter in the first place. It's not like Boba Fett gets paid if Joe Blow Stormtrooper kills Luke. That is one restriction that shouldn't change.

On 10/23/2020 at 6:00 PM, Scientia06 said:

Personally I just want them to do something to make the HH-12 viable. I think either the exhaust or cumbersome has to go. And also a points drop.

This! It’s a shoulder fired weapon. Remove Cumbersome. We see Baze run, jump into a crater, aim and fire it. Cumbersome makes no sense.

23 hours ago, Khobai said:

At the very least they need to remove the exhaust requirement on the HH12. Just doing that makes it 20% better since you can take an aim action.

I’d rather them remove cumbersome. It’s not thematic or realistic for a shoulder fired weapon. Exhaust IS realistic as you have to take time to reload a shoulder fired weapon.

Movement is key in the game and cumbersome kills that. We can handle Exhaust with Recover and if we needed the aim, we can pay the price for the Stormtrooper Specialist which would give us the Aim.

Snowtroopers!!

I’ve not seen them mentioned but they need a little help but not much.

I’d like to see Snowtroopers get help in the RRG by removing Exhaust from the Ion gun.

Then, I’d like to see Snowtroopers get a Snowtrooper Upgrade Expansion with a Snowtrooper Specialist. Basically the same wording as the Stormtrooper Specialist but with a Speed 1 Move as the free action.

9 hours ago, lologrelol said:

It's just easier to adjust points down, rather than add things that aren't on the unit cards. So I suspect they will stick with lowering cost.

Exactly this, heck giving it immunity to Jedi and grenades (Melee and Range 1) was a tremendous buff to begin with.

39 minutes ago, drail14me said:

This! It’s a shoulder fired weapon. Remove Cumbersome. We see Baze run, jump into a crater, aim and fire it. Cumbersome makes no sense.

Isn’t that supposed to show how incredibly strong Baze is, rather than say that the weapon itself is light enough for just anyone to use it?

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

That also kinda defeats the entire point of having a Bounty Hunter in the first place. It's not like Boba Fett gets paid if Joe Blow Stormtrooper kills Luke. That is one restriction that shouldn't change.

By that definition he shouldn't have gotten to keep Han, since he only helped track him and helped lure Luke into a trap, not kill either of them

I think a more reasonable change to Bounty would be "Has attacked the target on the same turn" that way you can at least not hide the Bounty Hunter all game, but need to use them to contribute to the kill in some manner.

Sticking with just the original topic and Empire, all of the units mentioned are unworthy of tourney play and need something to make them desirable. I think most agree on that. Losing actions (due to Cumbersome or tapping cards) and moving speed 1 should have much higher consideration on a unit's effectiveness. Typically, a unit gets no more than 12 actions per game, often time less. Each is precious and using actions just to do things others can do for free makes for weak units. Speed 1 is horrible in this game, so when Vader get into melee, if he does, he should wreck. His damage output isn't that great for how long it takes him to get into combat. He often can't because he's not very durable and speed 1 lessons his impactful turns to maybe 1 or 2. Same for Palpatine, but at least he has Pull The Strings. I like these units having speed 1 but they need to wreck house when they attack, like Palpatine's 1pip. Not sure why Vader doesn't have surge to crit and 8 red dice.

I really like the idea of Barrage on the E-Web. Would make for a good low cost generator upgrade card? Makes up for the loss of attack actions due to Cumbersome and seems very thematic. Spend time getting the turret in a good position and deployed, and boom, something like we saw in Mando!

ATST (and AirSpeeder) just doesn't do enough damage for their points, even with a moderate point reduction. Their dice pool are less than the stronger and cheaper trooper options and they can't interact with many objectives, and their high cost consumes activations. Why would you take an ATST over a Deathtrooper or ISF? You shouldn't! These big vehicles should be scary on the battlefield, and they simply aren't right now. They just don't do have the offensive oooomph that the AAT and Saber have.