One more time folks, this forum has an ignore feature. For your own sanity, don't feed the troll.

9 hours ago, Khobai said:

Actually its not possible because the tank can dodge. The tank being able to dodge to mitigate damage is what makes it so difficult to destroy. Every turn you shoot at it you have to deal with 1-2 dodge tokens. And thats being conservative. They can stack even more dodge tokens thanks to Padme.

The Saber Tank with tank busters has a much higher chance of hurting the AT-ST badly than the AT-ST has of hurting the Saber Tank badly. For two reasons: first, because it has a higher impact/crit value which flat out makes it more effective at anti-armor and 2) because it can mitigate incoming damage with dodges.

Saber Tank = 3 red, 4 black, 2 white with impact 5, critical 1 vs a white save with surge.

AT-ST = 3 red, 3 black, 3 white with impact 4 and surge to hit vs a red save with its damaged being further reduced by the tank's dodges.

I have played my AT-ST into Saber Tanks enough times to know how badly the AT-ST fares. Suffice to say I no longer take the AT-ST against GAR. ever. The AT-ST actually works best against rebels because what are they gonna do, bring an airspeeder? LOL. AT-STs get free reign vs Rebels because they cant do anything about it.

But yeah, the AT-ST is NOT a competitively viable heavy. Nobody uses it in competitive play. What Imperial players actually use are shoretroopers and lots of them. The AT-ST is way too much of a liability to ever take into a competitive game. Because Saber Tanks and AATs are actually competitively viable and do see use in competitive play and the AT-ST vs Saber Tank/AAT matchup does not bode well for the Imperials. So they avoid it altogether by not taking the AT-ST.

I would love for the AT-ST to get buffed but that remains to be seen. I think a lot of things arnt going to get buffed that need it. And I think people will be disappointed by that.

So...you’re saying that not only are you using the token sharing vehicle driver, you’re also committing your very valuable operator to sit next to the tank...and you’re always going first in order for her to generate those tokens?

Did you need any more parts for your Rube Goldberg machine? I’d also note that, if your strategy depends entirely on a second activation of a (minimum) 90 cost unit, we’re not exactly doing a comparable value assessment here, I could just as well be like: “Two AT-STs instagib the Sabre, muaahahahaha!” But that would just be silly.

8 minutes ago, Derrault said:

So...you’re saying that not only are you using the token sharing vehicle driver, you’re also committing your very valuable operator to sit next to the tank...and you’re always going first in order for her to generate those tokens?

Did you need any more parts for your Rube Goldberg machine? I’d also note that, if your strategy depends entirely on a second activation of a (minimum) 90 cost unit, we’re not exactly doing a comparable value assessment here, I could just as well be like: “Two AT-STs instagib the Sabre, muaahahahaha!” But that would just be silly.

exactly, he never considers the whole, only parts. apparently the sabre is also carrying Plo koon as well as the clone pilot, bit of a tight fit in that tank.

the sabre is better than the AT-ST but only on defense, offense is comparable. the main issue with the AT-ST is the cost, its base cost is too high and its upgrades are also too expensive, it doesnt need any changes to it cards except points cost

On 10/27/2020 at 8:01 PM, Khobai said:

Vehicles like the Saber Tank with high impact can absolutely trash an AT-ST

What I'm finding in my games is it's less "impact" weapons causing havoc for the AT-ST (Though I agree Tank vs Tank AAT and Saber have a leg up, those white defenses just sting in tank fights), it's standard mooks with the critical keyword on their weapons. 2-3 crits at a time, the AT-ST can get chipped down SO fast. White defense dice just don't seem right for full-size Armor units, even with surge to block they die faster than it seems they should from regular small arms fire.

(As a side note though I do distinctly remember getting stuck in the snow mission of Shadows of the Empire on the N64 where you had to kill an AT-ST at the end, and I usually ended up killing it by chipping it down to dead very slowly with the standard blaster pistol lol)

3 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

What I'm finding in my games is it's less "impact" weapons causing havoc for the AT-ST (Though I agree Tank vs Tank AAT and Saber have a leg up, those white defenses just sting), it's standard mooks with the critical keyword on their weapons. 2-3 crits at a time, the AT-ST can get chipped down SO fast. White defense dice just don't seem right for full-size Armor units, even with surge to block they die faster than it seems they should from regular small arms fire.

This is my experience as well, i played a game a few weeks ago where my B1's did most of the dmg and the AAT came in for the last 3 wounds

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

One more time folks, this forum has an ignore feature. For your own sanity, don't feed the troll.

wow i did not know you could do that thank you very much I will now be saved a world of hurt

@Darth Sanguis I am of the opinion that the white defence die are a result of the AT-ST being in the first wave of releases. I don't know if it will ever change short of a major revamp of the game, but red defence die might make it more appropriately costed.

In an more complicated version of Legion, it would be interesting to have white die used against weapons with Impact, but red against other weapons for some of the vehicles.

5 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Darth Sanguis I am of the opinion that the white defence die are a result of the AT-ST being in the first wave of releases. I don't know if it will ever change short of a major revamp of the game, but red defence die might make it more appropriately costed.

In an more complicated version of Legion, it would be interesting to have white die used against weapons with Impact, but red against other weapons for some of the vehicles.

Maybe they should just use a classification system. Anything using small arms or light weapons would have to face the red saves, anything classified as a heavy weapon would face white saves?

Who knows. It's all theory crafting at this point. All I can say for certain is the AT-ST feels rather weak to standard blaster fire.

@Darth Sanguis That could work too, I was mostly using Impact vs critical as a way of determining 'heavy' vs 'light' weapons by the keywords that already exist.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I am of the opinion that the white defence die are a result of the AT-ST being in the first wave of releases. I don't know if it will ever change short of a major revamp of the game, but red defence die might make it more appropriately costed.

Every full-Armor Heavy released since the AT-ST/T-47 has red saves, so you're probably right. (Granted it's only a sample size of 3...)

Personally I think the AT-ST's defense isn't massively out of line with the new tanks. It definitely needs to cost less, though.

5 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Every full-Armor Heavy released since the AT-ST/T-47 has red saves, so you're probably right. (Granted it's only a sample size of 3...)

Personally I think the AT-ST's defense isn't massively out of line with the new tanks. It definitely needs to cost less, though.

It's probably my hard bias against white defenses but it feels really slanted to me. Chip shots on my AAT usually require some form of pierce to be effective. In the cases where it isn't up against a saber it has tanked just an insane amount of chip damage. The AT-ST on the other hand? Well, it just kind of melts under any sustained fire. Even common units just rolling natural crits buries it fast.

I think it needs to cost less and have the weapons improved/tweaked to make any investment over 150 points really worth it if they decide to keep white defenses. If they choose to give the AT-ST red defenses (and lose the surge) I honestly think it could stay right about where it is in cost. (Maybe still update one of the weapons with some critical instead of straight impact too).

29 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Every full-Armor Heavy released since the AT-ST/T-47 has red saves, so you're probably right. (Granted it's only a sample size of 3...)

Personally I think the AT-ST's defense isn't massively out of line with the new tanks. It definitely needs to cost less, though.

The AT-ST has so many things going against it but it's 11 wounds and resilience 8 is acually not that bad. However i find it moves so slow for how much distance those legs could cover, it gets affected by terrain which slows it down, it's upgrades are overcosted, it should have had surge to hit natively and it needs a slight cost reduction like 10 points

5 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I think it needs to cost less and have the weapons improved/tweaked to make any investment over 150 points really worth it if they decide to keep white defenses. If they choose to give the AT-ST red defenses (and lose the surge) I honestly think it could stay right about where it is in cost. (Maybe still update one of the weapons with some critical instead of straight impact too).

11 HP and red defense seems like overkill to me. Durability wise right now it's not that bad. What I find it lacks is offense. The easiest way I see to buff the ST is to drop the cost on it's extra weapons. Gaining some amount of critical, probably no more than 1, like you suggested would also help. Without surge, and I doubt they'll give it offensive surge, the guns just feel kinda meh on it.

17 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

11 HP and red defense seems like overkill to me. Durability wise right now it's not that bad. What I find it lacks is offense. The easiest way I see to buff the ST is to drop the cost on it's extra weapons. Gaining some amount of critical, probably no more than 1, like you suggested would also help. Without surge, and I doubt they'll give it offensive surge, the guns just feel kinda meh on it.

Yeah, you're not wrong, that would be chunky. They could bring it down to 8-9 like every other tank. The way I see it @Caimheul1313 and @Lochlan are probably right that the white saves are the results of early game design missteps since every piece or armor since has had red.

It's tough, I don't know if better firepower is gonna be worth it though, like even at 150 points or lower, because I just don't think white with surge is strong enough for armor with as much crit gen there is in this game.

I'll be curious what they do. I'm sure it'll be better than nothing lol

If you're not rolling crits naturally, there are time the atst won't die. I'd adjust the points and think it should be fine. Like everything else released early, the weapon upgrades are too expensive or the cost of the platform is too expensive. The driver who converts surges to hits helps but costs 10pts on a chasis that is probably too expensive compared to other tanks, especially if they drop the cost of all the impact and ion weapons

Could be we're all wrong about the AT-ST. Maybe it's not supposed to be tough or powerful and they're just waiting to release the AT DP to show what a durable turret walker is supposed to feel like? lol

disincentivizing

23 hours ago, Khobai said:

I think the best way to fix Vader is to give him defensive surge and deflect turned on all the time.

Giving Vader Agile would work without having to change existing text on other abilities. That would give him 2 dodge tokens when he activates and moves into position, giving him surge to defense and disencentivitzing attacking him due to Deflect, which seems thematic! Vader being Agile doesn't seem too thematic though, does it?

23 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Could be we're all wrong about the AT-ST. Maybe it's not supposed to be tough or powerful and they're just waiting to release the AT DP to show what a durable turret walker is supposed to feel like? lol

I thought the at-st was supposed to be more durable then then the at-dp unless of course u meant this as a joke

7 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

I thought the at-st was supposed to be more durable then then the at-dp unless of course u meant this as a joke

Yeah I did too, but they really don't come out and say either way. The AT-DP looks like the pod itself is better armored, but that doesn't mean much in terms of lore.

The statement was supposed to be humorous in nature. lol

The AT-ST needs Arsenal 3 and 12 health.

That puts its firepower and health more on par with the Saber Tank. Arsenal 3 is necessary because the AT-ST can have upto 4 weapons but can only use 2 of them. Arsenal 3 makes a lot of sense on the AT-ST so it can make better use of the weapons it can carry. And it gives it a much needed offensive bump.

Increasing it from 11 to 12 health would give it the same effective health as the Saber Tank. 1 health isnt a lot but it does help make up a little for the white armor save.

Even with those changes the Saber Tank would still edge out as being slightly better. But it would lessen the disparity greatly.

51 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

I thought the at-st was supposed to be more durable then then the at-dp unless of course u meant this as a joke

Youd think the AT-ST would be better armored than the AT-RT too. But nope. AT-RT somehow gets a red save, armor, and no weakpoints despite the driver being fully exposed on three sides and partially exposed from the front.

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

So...you’re saying that not only are you using the token sharing vehicle driver, you’re also committing your very valuable operator to sit next to the tank...and you’re always going first in order for her to generate those tokens?

Did you need any more parts for your Rube Goldberg machine? I’d also note that, if your strategy depends entirely on a second activation of a (minimum) 90 cost unit, we’re not exactly doing a comparable value assessment here, I could just as well be like: “Two AT-STs instagib the Sabre, muaahahahaha!” But that would just be silly.

um what? you dont need the token sharing driver at all. you do realize padme (as well as anakin) can share tokens with the tank right?

exemplar.

there is no rube goldberg machine. Simply units GAR takes anyway.

you also dont seem to understand how padme works. if she doesnt give the dodge tokens to the saber tank she can always give the dodge tokens to another unit instead. her points cost is not commited solely to the defense of the saber tank and her tokens can be handed out to whatever units happen to need dodges at the time. which is what you dont seem to get; that token sharing is extremely flexible.

Sharing tokens is how GAR is designed to play. So your insinuation of it being a rube goldberg machine for GAR doing what its designed to do is ridiculous. Youre not taking any units you wouldnt take anyway as GAR.

1 hour ago, buckero0 said:

If you're not rolling crits naturally, there are time the atst won't die. I'd adjust the points and think it should be fine. Like everything else released early, the weapon upgrades are too expensive or the cost of the platform is too expensive. The driver who converts surges to hits helps but costs 10pts on a chasis that is probably too expensive compared to other tanks, especially if they drop the cost of all the impact and ion weapons

Imperials dont need a cheaper AT-ST. We already have the Occupier Tank for a cheaper heavy.

Imperials need a stronger AT-ST. Something that can reasonably go toe to toe with a Saber Tank.

Similarly the rebels dont need a cheaper T-47 they need a stronger T-47. One that can actually fulfill the anti-heavy role.

12 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Yeah I did too, but they really don't come out and say either way. The AT-DP looks like the pod itself is better armored, but that doesn't mean much in terms of lore.

The statement was supposed to be humorous in nature. lol

True. I personally always thought the at-dp was more for urban policing where as the at-st was the actual combat vehicle meant for the heat of battle. But dont really have much to base it on just personal head cannon

For Vader, thematically it might be fun to add a native demoralize 1-2, with the force upgrade fear just adding to it.

48 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

True. I personally always thought the at-dp was more for urban policing where as the at-st was the actual combat vehicle meant for the heat of battle. But dont really have much to base it on just personal head cannon

Well if we compare names:

All-Terrain Scout Transport
Vs.
All-Terrain Defense Pod

I think we could infer the AT-ST may have been designed to scout combat areas, provide light support, and possibly transport important personnel from point to point in combat. The AT-DP was likely designed with a powerful single cannon weapon and heavy armor as a means of supplying facilities and forces with mobile heavy weapons platforms. (We see the AT-DP causing havoc quite often in rebels. Seemingly more effectively than the AT-STs did in Return lol).

3 hours ago, Lochlan said:

Every full-Armor Heavy released since the AT-ST/T-47 has red saves, so you're probably right. (Granted it's only a sample size of 3...)

Personally I think the AT-ST's defense isn't massively out of line with the new tanks. It definitely needs to cost less, though.

So the thing is the 3 heavies that you are referring to are all tanks. That’s why they got a red defense save, represent the heavier armor. All in all the atst isn’t a bad heavy it just doesn’t have as much potential army support as the saber tank does. If you take a saber tank fully decked out to be an anti heavy, give it padme/Anakin and r2, of course it’s going to have a high probability of taking out an atst. The only thing empire can do to boost the survivability of the atst is troopers with r4, and/or del meeko and one of veers command cards.

Now that’s the situation of your opponent has invested 400+ points into making their saber tank the best anti heavy unit possible. But that’s not a competitive build. Now if you take a competitive list with the saber tank in it and put that against a competitive empire list with the atst in it and now that win/loose isn’t as clear cut.

55 minutes ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

So the thing is the 3 heavies that you are referring to are all tanks. That’s why they got a red defense save, represent the heavier armor. All in all the atst isn’t a bad heavy it just doesn’t have as much potential army support as the saber tank does. If you take a saber tank fully decked out to be an anti heavy, give it padme/Anakin and r2, of course it’s going to have a high probability of taking out an atst. The only thing empire can do to boost the survivability of the atst is troopers with r4, and/or del meeko and one of veers command cards.

Now that’s the situation of your opponent has invested 400+ points into making their saber tank the best anti heavy unit possible. But that’s not a competitive build. Now if you take a competitive list with the saber tank in it and put that against a competitive empire list with the atst in it and now that win/loose isn’t as clear cut.

To be fair Padme can support any unit in the army. So I dont think you can really count her against the tank's cost.

Padme gives out tokens wherever theyre needed. If the tank doesnt need them she'll give the tokens to a different unit instead. Padme isnt dependent on the tank to earn her points back so linking her points cost to the cost of the tank isnt exactly genuine.

Conversely, the Saber Tank is perfectly capable of taking an aim or dodge action on its own. Padme can just provide it with extra aim or dodge tokens if it needs them. And if it doesnt need them she gives them to another unit instead. There could be entire games where she doesnt even give the tank a single token.

Also the tank doesnt even need Padme to have a high probability of destroying the AT-ST. All it needs are tank buster rockets. Padme does of course increase that probability by providing extra aim tokens. But shes not necessarily required.

Lastly the main issue I have with the AT-ST is the same issue I have with the T-47. It lacks a clearly defined role that its good at that no other unit in the army can do better. The AAT and Saber Tank both have very clearly defined roles in their respective armies. That is the clear difference between the newer heavies and the older heavies: the lack of a focused purpose. The AT-ST is all-over-the-place and isnt sure what it wants to do and ends up not being good at any one thing. And the T-47 is just plain bad at everything.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Seemingly more effectively than the AT-STs did in Return lol).