6 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I also wanna add this cause I've seen some oddball stuff. That R2 unit can be punchy in GAR lists. R2's native ability to surge means it's one solid firesupport shot away from [Ctrl+ Alt+ Del>Task Manager> End Task]ing a mook who wasn't ready. Which when scooting between terrain to move to a deploy zone can be outright hilarious and brutal.

I know it's fringe but things with native surge values cannot be considered "non-combat oriented" in GAR lists lol.

By "non-combat oriented" I mostly mean that is not the character's primary role. R2 certainly can contribute attacks (and the surge is helpful for Fire support), but that isn't a for sure way for the character to contribute to the battle. R2 is still fairly fragile, very short ranged, only throwing white dice, and tying him up in melee is a good way to stay immune to ranged attacks from the rest of the army.

After looking at this thread I sort of think the easier question is which units from Empire/Rebels don't need a buff?

• At least for Rebels Cassian, Tauntauns, Leia, Sabine, and maybe Luke(s). Edit: forgot RTs
• Empire has Iden and shores for sure, but what else would be stand out units? Death Troopers? Veers?

Makes me wonder if whatever FFG do buff will be the meta for these factions since they have such a difference in top tier play. Still find that a lot of units are good in casual games tho.

5 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

• At least for Rebels Cassian, Tauntauns, Leia, Sabine, and maybe Luke(s).
• Empire has Iden and shores for sure, but what else would be stand out units? Death Troopers? Veers?

Basically these, but I'd add the RTs to that for the rebels. Both Lukes are just fine.

Empire also has Bossk, Krennic, and I personally think that the IRG are fine but need more consistent saber threats that aren't CIS ones. Palps is good but can be difficult to use so the safer cheap commanders see more use.

Veers could definitely use a buff. Hes essentially a worse Padme.

On 10/25/2020 at 1:02 PM, Khobai said:

The HH12 is much larger. I dont even think a person could lift and fire something as big as the HH12 in real life. But because its starwars you can argue its made out of a superlight alloy that doesnt exist in real life.

Where are you getting the idea it’s so big? We actually see Baze shoot an HH-12 in Rogue One. It’s really not any bigger that our Army’s AT-4 which I have fired many of.

Baze has no trouble moving then firing the HH-12 and I’ve had no trouble moving and firing at AT-4.

Cumbersom is unrealistic. Exhaust is.

7 minutes ago, drail14me said:

Where are you getting the idea it’s so big? We actually see Baze shoot an HH-12 in Rogue One. It’s really not any bigger that our Army’s AT-4 which I have fired many of.

Baze has no trouble moving then firing the HH-12 and I’ve had no trouble moving and firing at AT-4.

I'd say it's substantially bigger than an AT-4, closer in size to a Javelin without the CLU.

Now, while the CLU is the awkward and annoying part of the Javelin to carry, it's not exactly going to be easy to run and gun with one unless you're a beast of a dude. Baze clearly was, but I'm not sure if Joe Snuffy Stormtrooper would have the same skill. Not saying I agree with it having cumbersome/exhaust, but I do get where they were coming from.

18 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I'd say it's substantially bigger than an AT-4, closer in size to a Javelin without the CLU.

Now, while the CLU is the awkward and annoying part of the Javelin to carry, it's not exactly going to be easy to run and gun with one unless you're a beast of a dude. Baze clearly was, but I'm not sure if Joe Snuffy Stormtrooper would have the same skill. Not saying I agree with it having cumbersome/exhaust, but I do get where they were coming from.

Yes, I would agree that the HH-12 is close the size of the Javelin tube alone. But, because of the detachable CLU, I didn’t use it for comparison. If the Javelin was in the game and had cumbersome, I wouldn’t argue. Before watching Rogue One, I wouldn’t have argued for the HH-12. But, after seeing that scene, I don’t feel that Cumbersome is needed on the HH-12.

I'm not sure how the m-1 rocket launcher ("bazooka") compares in size and weight to the modern day shoulder fired systems, but many historical systems I am familiar with (which admittedly are more game than simulation), don't have an equivalent to "cumbersome" on the Bazooka, PIAT, Panzerschreck, or Panzerfaust, whereas weapons that require redeployment (like a tripod mounted MMG, mortar, scoped sniper rifle) do. Now, they might inflict a movement penalty on the attack, but it is still allowed.

personally i think that the cumbersome keyword should be changed to something along the lines of, "if the weapon is used this activation then the units speed is reduced by 1, if they made a full speed move then they cannot fire it"

15 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

After looking at this thread I sort of think the easier question is which units from Empire/Rebels don't need a buff?

• At least for Rebels Cassian, Tauntauns, Leia, Sabine, and maybe Luke(s). Edit: forgot RTs
• Empire has Iden and shores for sure, but what else would be stand out units? Death Troopers? Veers?

Makes me wonder if whatever FFG do buff will be the meta for these factions since they have such a difference in top tier play. Still find that a lot of units are good in casual games tho.

15 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Basically these, but I'd add the RTs to that for the rebels. Both Lukes are just fine.

Empire also has Bossk, Krennic, and I personally think that the IRG are fine but need more consistent saber threats that aren't CIS ones. Palps is good but can be difficult to use so the safer cheap commanders see more use.

Is the goal to have everything equal in the hyper-competitive realm though? I don't think that's ever been a priority for FFG for any of their games. They do want people to keep buying their boxed plastic. I've hear designers say in interviews that they specifically design different units for different types of play. I know the tournament players are some of the more "vocal" of the players, but are not necesarily the target audience or even the majority of the audience.

Han could use help, Jyn is very niche

All the operatives are fine (R2 is maybe too cheap)

Rebel Troops are fine with DLT20

Vets need help as do their side gun add-on

Commandos have no purpose with Strike team as is

Wookiees & Pathfinders are getting a boost according to Alex Davy

Mandos just came out

FDLaser cannon team needs some survivability

Heavies need help in general across the board, except the new ones (AAT, Clone tank)

***************************

Vaders need help

Palp is still slow and relies on ImpGuard to stay alive

Boba needs to be 15pts cheaper

Bossk is a Boss

All the trooper heavies will get cheaper, we'll see if that's enough

Scouts serve no purpose with Strike teams as is

All the supports need help (From a lot Dewback, e-Web, speeder bikes to minimal)

Heavies could use a little boost, if all the anti-tank weapons are getting cheaper.

14 hours ago, Khobai said:

Veers could definitely use a buff. Hes essentially a worse Padme.

Veers is fine, I think Padme is under-costed and does too much.

Unless they are going to address the Rebel and Imperial Officers and make them 35pts instead of 50. I can't ever justify taking one of them over Leia and Veers unless I just don't have the points. Their command cards (Leia more than Veers) is where the point difference is I guess.

@buckero0 Tournament players also make up the entirety of the playtesters if I recall correctly. So the initial playtests are entirely done with a tournament player audience, with at least some focusing solely on tournament play, regardless of the designer's intended final audience (tournament players vs casual players).

6 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@buckero0 Tournament players also make up the entirety of the playtesters if I recall correctly. So the initial playtests are entirely done with a tournament player audience, with at least some focusing solely on tournament play, regardless of the designer's intended final audience (tournament players vs casual players).

really, I didn't know that.

I really wonder if the FFG designers listen to or ignore certain feedback then. I find the whole process interesting yet, at times, baffling.

Just now, buckero0 said:

really, I didn't know that.

I really wonder if the FFG designers listen to or ignore certain feedback then. I find the whole process interesting yet, at times, baffling.

Yeah, the playtesters list consists of people who qualified for the first Worlds if I recall correctly.

Playtesting is always an interesting part of game design, very difficult to get exactly right, while also very important to keep everything balanced. Trying to balance the playtest size with cost of playtesting (even if they are volunteers, there is a "cost" of time/organization) has got to be tricky.

Looking at the Maul reveal, bith Vaders are in desperate need of a total overhaul.

3 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Is the goal to have everything equal in the hyper-competitive realm though? I don't think that's ever been a priority for FFG for any of their games. They do want people to keep buying their boxed plastic. I've hear designers say in interviews that they specifically design different units for different types of play. I know the tournament players are some of the more "vocal" of the players, but are not necesarily the target audience or even the majority of the audience.

The recent interview confirmed that points changes would be geared towards tournament play. My understanding was that was the only real way to allow them to have any changes.

Seems like FFG motto was once the game was out that was it no more changes. He points out in the interview how X-wing 2.0 was their first real change to that formula. Legion looks like they can get away with having a point change every year by saying its just for pro play and casual players will not have to worry about it. Which would explain stuff like the GAR AT-RT weapons prices on the card and why we are forced to use just a cheap PDF. Which is a trade I am willing to accept.

50 minutes ago, costi said:

Looking at the Maul reveal, bith Vaders are in desperate need of a total overhaul.

Can't wait to see what they do. Since several units need a rework or massive points change. Can/will they do it?!?!?! Tune in next time!!

4 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Veers is fine, I think Padme is under-costed and does too much.

Unless they are going to address the Rebel and Imperial Officers and make them 35pts instead of 50. I can't ever justify taking one of them over Leia and Veers unless I just don't have the points. Their command cards (Leia more than Veers) is where the point difference is I guess.

if you made padme cost more, Veers would still be a worse padme that costs less.

Id rather see Veers get buffed to padme level. then no one feels bad about their models getting nerfed.

2 hours ago, costi said:

Looking at the Maul reveal, bith Vaders are in desperate need of a total overhaul.

absolutely. both vaders are jokes.

Anakin is erratic, flamboyent, wasteful, and controlled by his emotions; but Vader is meticulous, ruthless, efficient, and in complete control of his emotions

And they failed to capture those distinctions with both Vaders. It just doesnt feel like Vader at all.

Just now, Khobai said:

if you made padme cost more, Veers would still be a worse padme that costs less.

Id rather see Veers get buffed to padme level. then no one feels bad about their models getting nerfed.

I guess that's my point. There is nothing wrong with Veers. He was the first non-core set commander released and essentially came out at nearly the same time (month or two later) and he has been effective and useful for the entire existence of the game. He has been cost-effiecient since the beginning. Just because Padme came out does not make him bad (they aren't even in the same faction) Padme is more of a Leia type figure in usage. Padme is better than Leia in every way and costs the same. That doesn't mean that Leia needs a buff, it means that the designers gave Padme too many abilities, all the good abilities or did not cost her appropriately for all of those abilities.

Leia does need a buff though. Because Padme is better.

Padme is the power level Leia would be at if Leia was a new model.

So Leia should be brought upto par. So should Veers. And all the older characters really.

You cant power creep newer factions like GAR and then not retroactively buff older models and expect the game to be balanced.

Buffing the older factions to GAR's level is preferable to nerfing GAR.

23 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Leia does need a buff though. Because Padme is better.

Padme is the power level Leia would be at if Leia was a new model.

So Leia should be brought upto par. So should Veers. And all the older characters really.

You cant power creep newer factions like GAR and then not retroactively buff older models and expect the game to be balanced.

Buffing the older factions to GAR's level is preferable to nerfing GAR.

I will say one thing about Padme: she's an operative and not a commander. Operatives tends to be slightly more aggressively costed for 4 reasons:

1. They have no courage bubble

2. They mess up your order pool

3. You can't issue generic orders from them

4. You don't have to take them, but you need to take a commander, so operatives sort of cost more since they NEED to be paired with something, even if you didn't want to (like if you just wanted Op Vader or Op Luke).

One other point is that Operatives mess up any Aggressive Tactics shenanigans you want to do, and make it much less efficient. In light of these downsides, I'm fine with where Padme is. She may be a tad strong for her cost, but she is an operative rather than a commander, so I think it's fair. Also, Leia has Inspire 2, which might be the best support ability in the game, so I think it's fair.

to be fair padme doesnt need a courage bubble since fire support basically lets clones ignore the effects of suppression and panic

ill take that over inspire 2 any day.

2 hours ago, Khobai said:

to be fair padme doesnt need a courage bubble since fire support basically lets clones ignore the effects of suppression and panic

ill take that over inspire 2 any day.

Yeah... They should probably stipulate that a unit cannot Fire Support if it has enough suppression to trigger panic >_>

On 10/25/2020 at 11:02 AM, Thraug said:

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.

Well, the Heavies are infinitely more durable than the infantry, and they can literally hand out suppression by stepping on the enemy. So, maybe you’d take an AT-ST because it can force the enemy to flee an objective just by walking into them without actually inflicting casualties and without being in any immediate danger of dying.
Plus any shots fired at the heavy don’t attrit your damage output, whereas shots fired at your infantry most definitely do.

On 10/26/2020 at 10:46 AM, Khobai said:

in practice that hasnt been the case though. SM is easier to pull off. and less costly if you dont pull it off because r2d2 is a minimal investment (35 points). whereas bounty requires three times the points investment (115 points for bossk).

R2D2s primary job is adding an activation to the lists hes in while completing secret mission. Secret mission doesnt make his primary job more difficult because secret mission IS his primary job.

Whereas bounty is more likely to complicate the primary job of bounty hunters because going after the bounty often means ignoring more optimal targets and it also means you need to keep your bounty hunters alive so you cant take risks with them. it fundamentally alters how you play those characters. secret mission does not because secret mission is the reason r2d2 is taken in the first place (that and the extra activation he gives). whereas bounty is usually only a secondary reason for taking characters like bossk or boba fett and not the main reason you take them.

R2D2 absolutely needs to cost more. You should be forced to take C3PO with him.

The bounty hunters provide threat flexibility; if your opponent risks their commander/operative in combat, they’re putting a victory point at risk, if they don’t then they may be giving you a force superiority advantage. Either way, it’s to the benefit of the BH’s army. Chasing the mark is almost certainly a waste of time, instead use the hunter somewhere you really don’t want the mark to be and reap the advantage on the shared objectives.

23 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

Basically these, but I'd add the RTs to that for the rebels. Both Lukes are just fine.

Empire also has Bossk, Krennic, and I personally think that the IRG are fine but need more consistent saber threats that aren't CIS ones. Palps is good but can be difficult to use so the safer cheap commanders see more use.

This brings to mind an interesting game challenge: Players put together lists based around with those unit(s) you perceive as most in need of work, then figure out how to win. (Swapping armies for best 2 out of 3)

double post

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

The bounty hunters provide threat flexibility; if your opponent risks their commander/operative in combat, they’re putting a victory point at risk, if they don’t then they may be giving you a force superiority advantage. Either way, it’s to the benefit of the BH’s army. Chasing the mark is almost certainly a waste of time, instead use the hunter somewhere you really don’t want the mark to be and reap the advantage on the shared objectives.

The problem is youre paying points for bounty. If you dont get the bounty those points are wasted.

Which is why Bossk and Boba Fett are both noticeably overcosted.

If bounty is going to cost that many points than it needs to be easier to achieve. Or if bounty is going to remain the same then the points premium for bounty needs to be reduced.

Quote

Well, the Heavies are infinitely more durable than the infantry, and they can literally hand out suppression by stepping on the enemy. So, maybe you’d take an AT-ST because it can force the enemy to flee an objective just by walking into them without actually inflicting casualties and without being in any immediate danger of dying.
Plus any shots fired at the heavy don’t attrit your damage output, whereas shots fired at your infantry most definitely do.

Its fine for casual games. But theres no reason to take an AT-ST into a competitive game at the moment. Its a huge liability.

As for the AT-ST being more durable than an equivalent cost in infantry I dont believe that true for a second. Ill take three units of red save stormtroopers in heavy cover over a white save AT-ST with armor any day. Vehicles like the Saber Tank with high impact can absolutely trash an AT-ST but will still struggle killing Stormtroopers in heavy cover.