7 hours ago, Rumar said:

Vehicles still are generally a bad option. They can't take objectives.

Fully half of the objectives in the game can be interacted with by vehicles. Breakthrough, Key Positions, Bombing Run, and Payload all (at least partially) check for just unit leader, and all vehicles have a unit leader, even if the unit size is 1.

11 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Fully half of the objectives in the game can be interacted with by vehicles. Breakthrough, Key Positions, Bombing Run, and Payload all (at least partially) check for just unit leader, and all vehicles have a unit leader, even if the unit size is 1.

Still an argument not to take vehicles. And you can influence the choice of objectives.

22 hours ago, Rumar said:

Vehicles still are generally a bad option. They can't take objectives. They don't have enough firepower to justify shooting at them. If you just shoot the infantry, the enemy firepower goes down with every trooper. So bringing antitank equipment is a bad option, too. There is so much of fake choice. Lots of options, but only a small fraction are viable. The problem with the AT-ST is not, that the sabre tank is better. Being a vehicle is the problem.

Check out the results of GenCon. Half the top 8 lists had vehicles. The top list had a Sabertank, and 2 CIS lists had the AAT. Vehicles seem to finally be legit.

48 minutes ago, SirCormac said:

Check out the results of GenCon. Half the top 8 lists had vehicles. The top list had a Sabertank, and 2 CIS lists had the AAT. Vehicles seem to finally be legit.

the new vehicles are very efficient for their points but tend to hurt on activations if you cant get the squad kill shots on most of your shots with the tanks from what ive seen personally

52 minutes ago, SirCormac said:

Check out the results of GenCon. Half the top 8 lists had vehicles. The top list had a Sabertank, and 2 CIS lists had the AAT. Vehicles seem to finally be legit.

Doesn't fit the narrative, so it doesn't count.

4 hours ago, Rumar said:

Still an argument not to take vehicles. And you can influence the choice of objectives.

If you can influence the choice of objectives, then you can influence the selection of an objective allowing for your vehicles to interact. For the other objectives, vehicles may not be able to score the objective, but they can make it harder for your opponent to score, or harder for them to prevent you from scoring.

Hostage Exchange they can be used to either provide mobile cover to your hostage escort, or to eliminate your opponent's hostage escort, directly denying them a point. Similar interaction can be done with Secure the Supplies.

You can also build a Battle Deck that has no objectives that only care about Trooper Unit Leaders then include a decent bid. If you win the bid for blue player, then you are guarenteed an objective that cares about vehicles. Part of the strategy of the Battle Card selection phase is each player is trying to select the most advantageous combination of cards for their army composition. Have an army of very slow units? Long March isn't a good option for you, Advanced Positions isn't necessarily the best option for your opponent.

So yes, the vehicle not being unit directly providing a VP for every objective is a consideration, but you should have a plan of how to use the vehicle in every objective type when you include it in your list. At the very least they provide mobile cover and are a difficult to remove source of damage/suppression that can block your opponent's movement.

11 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

If you can influence the choice of objectives, then you can influence the selection of an objective allowing for your vehicles to interact. For the other objectives, vehicles may not be able to score the objective, but they can make it harder for your opponent to score, or harder for them to prevent you from scoring.

Hostage Exchange they can be used to either provide mobile cover to your hostage escort, or to eliminate your opponent's hostage escort, directly denying them a point. Similar interaction can be done with Secure the Supplies.

You can also build a Battle Deck that has no objectives that only care about Trooper Unit Leaders then include a decent bid. If you win the bid for blue player, then you are guarenteed an objective that cares about vehicles. Part of the strategy of the Battle Card selection phase is each player is trying to select the most advantageous combination of cards for their army composition. Have an army of very slow units? Long March isn't a good option for you, Advanced Positions isn't necessarily the best option for your opponent.

So yes, the vehicle not being unit directly providing a VP for every objective is a consideration, but you should have a plan of how to use the vehicle in every objective type when you include it in your list. At the very least they provide mobile cover and are a difficult to remove source of damage/suppression that can block your opponent's movement.

But Caimheul, That's too much work !!!

I will admit that I usually ignore this step as well, but I don't really have a choice as I only play casually with family and don't have a local play group.

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.

ok you are splitting hairs hear i agree that you should have to take c3p0 but the primary job of bounty hunter on field is to get a bounty and not damage other unit he can careless about the rebels or he probably want them to live make name for them self future bounty's the are not imperials the are hired to take out high value targets so let them do there job stop using them as elite troopers.

On 10/28/2020 at 2:19 PM, Khobai said:

Bounty does not force the opponent to change how they play because a good opponent will always play conservatively and try keep their commanders alive regardless of whether you have bounty or not. Again id rather not pay extra for the crappy bounty ability in its current form; its a waste of points. If bounty is going to cost a points premium it needs to be way better than it currently is. Both Boosk and Boba Fett are underperformers and need buffs. Conversely R2D2 overperforms and needs a nerf. bounty is bad. secret mission good (arguably too good on R2D2).

then don't take bounty hunters who job is to go after high value targets that what empire is quite literately paying for. the are bounty hunters not troops not part of the imperial army.

On 10/29/2020 at 7:09 AM, arnoldrew said:

You're an unrepentantly narcissistic ******. Please go away and make this this forum a better place with your absence.

I don't always agree with every thing said by ppl on here but they have there right t share on the forum even if it no a popular opinion and don't think we should lash out at ppl just because there opinion is flawed or different from ours. now that being said we can all play nice.

2 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I will admit that I usually ignore this step as well, but I don't really have a choice as I only play casually with family and don't have a local play group.

That's fair, but in my personal opinion unit effectiveness isn't necessarily as important in casual games, especially ones in a small(ish) playgroup. Rules are sometimes easily changed in such groups to make units "feel" right for that group. When I'm playing casually, I also frequently more concerned with taking units I find cool or interesting rather than the most competitive.

@Fistofriles I strongly disagree that C3-P0 should be an Equip upgrade for R2-D2. I dare say there are more instances in canon of R2 going into dangerous situations without C3-P0 than with him. I could get behind upping R2's points and lower C3-P0's though.

1 hour ago, Fistofriles said:

I don't always agree with every thing said by ppl on here but they have there right t share on the forum even if it no a popular opinion and don't think we should lash out at ppl just because there opinion is flawed or different from ours. now that being said we can all play nice.

This isn't a question of differing opinion.

This is an issue where someone is a prolific poster with "opinion X" that they are not interested in discussing, just hammering home that they're right.

So every thread "But I have opinion X"

Then every other post in that thread "But I have opinion X"

And every quote and reply "But you're wrong about opinion X. I am right."

The. Same. Thing.

Every. Thread.

This coupled with what is extremely clearly a very tenuous grasp of the rules and tactics of the game in general.

It roadblocks discussion by spamming the threads with endless, repetitive and nonsensical posts.

For me it was an easy decision to just use the ignore function (and even that's flawed), but I can't say I disagree with the statement you were referring to...

The real issue with vehicles interacting with objectives is not that few missions allow vehicles to score it's that they have the same value as a 6 point B1 leader hiding in a small nook. If an ATST counted as 2 or even 3 units for determining who controls objectives then we could actually rely on said vehicle, but when you could lose a key position at the end of the game because 2 stupid corps unit leaders survived the death of their squad and are now hiding where the vehicle can't see them it really hammers home how badly large vehicles are treated.

21 minutes ago, Darth evil said:

The real issue with vehicles interacting with objectives is not that few missions allow vehicles to score it's that they have the same value as a 6 point B1 leader hiding in a small nook. If an ATST counted as 2 or even 3 units for determining who controls objectives then we could actually rely on said vehicle, but when you could lose a key position at the end of the game because 2 stupid corps unit leaders survived the death of their squad and are now hiding where the vehicle can't see them it really hammers home how badly large vehicles are treated.

Agreed, same goes for high point cost units in general. If I had my druthers, I would change the RRG to say that when counting unit leaders for objectives, heavies and commanders count as 2. I would leave operatives out since R2-D2 exists.

At that point just use point totals to determine who has control of the objective since the B6 argument can be applied to literally every other unit in the game. Also, not EVERY vehicle costs as much as 2 infantry units. The AT-RT is about the same number of points as most infantry units, so giving it an advantage in claiming objectives means it is harder to destroy AND harder to prevent it from claiming an objective.

The advantage vehicles have in securing an objective is better survivability, while still contributing to the rest of the battle. They are less likely to need to hide while holding the objective, and are better able to hold objectives that are in exposed locations. Infantry only really want to be holding an objective while in cover or otherwise hiding.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Agreed, same goes for high point cost units in general. If I had my druthers, I would change the RRG to say that when counting unit leaders for objectives, heavies and commanders count as 2. I would leave operatives out since R2-D2 exists.

No. Heavy vehicles should absolutely NOT be able to capture objectives. Not in the current game environment.

The only way something like a Saber Tank should ever be able to capture an objective is if it was actually feasible to destroy it. Currently it is not. A faction like Rebels has absolutely no feasible way of destroying a Saber Tank. You would basically be ensuring Rebels could never win another game against GAR or CIS ever.

And if a Saber Tank counted as 2 unit leaders, all you would ever see is double Saber Tank lists, because Saber Tanks are nearly impossible to destroy. Making them count for double is an even worse idea.

Light Vehicles like speederbikes, droidekas, and AT-RTs should absolutely be able to capture objectives however. But not heavy vehicles.

On 11/1/2020 at 9:56 AM, Rumar said:

Vehicles still are generally a bad option. They can't take objectives. They don't have enough firepower to justify shooting at them. If you just shoot the infantry, the enemy firepower goes down with every trooper. So bringing antitank equipment is a bad option, too. There is so much of fake choice. Lots of options, but only a small fraction are viable. The problem with the AT-ST is not, that the sabre tank is better. Being a vehicle is the problem.

The Saber Tank and AAT are both used competitively though. The AT-ST and Airspeeder are not.

That means the problem is that the AT-ST is worse than the Saber Tank.

6 hours ago, Fistofriles said:

then don't take bounty hunters who job is to go after high value targets that what empire is quite literately paying for. the are bounty hunters not troops not part of the imperial army.

they are part of the imperial army though. theyre imperial operatives.

ill tell you what, when FFG makes them neutral units, then gives imperials two new operatives instead, then I wont complain about bounty.

4 hours ago, OneLastMidnight said:

This isn't a question of differing opinion.

This is an issue where someone is a prolific poster with "opinion X" that they are not interested in discussing, just hammering home that they're right.

So every thread "But I have opinion X"

Then every other post in that thread "But I have opinion X"

And every quote and reply "But you're wrong about opinion X. I am right."

The. Same. Thing.

Every. Thread.

This coupled with what is extremely clearly a very tenuous grasp of the rules and tactics of the game in general.

It roadblocks discussion by spamming the threads with endless, repetitive and nonsensical posts.

For me it was an easy decision to just use the ignore function (and even that's flawed), but I can't say I disagree with the statement you were referring to...

But thats exactly how discussions are supposed to work.

Argument and counterargument. Until someone either convinces the other party or both parties agree the issue is irreconcilable.

The breakdown occurs when someone resorts to being uncivil, rude, and flipping out instead of just agreeing to disagree. Like you are doing now. Your comments are obviously aimed at me, disrespectful, and unproductive to the discussion. Youre the one roadblocking the discussion by complaining about people who are actually trying to discuss. Its funny because its true lol.

3 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

That's fair, but in my personal opinion unit effectiveness isn't necessarily as important in casual games, especially ones in a small(ish) playgroup. Rules are sometimes easily changed in such groups to make units "feel" right for that group. When I'm playing casually, I also frequently more concerned with taking units I find cool or interesting rather than the most competitive.

I was just teasing. I truly believe in a competitive or highly efficient version of the game, the deployment and scenario cards have to be considered as much as including unit x or cassian over Luke or whatever. It's almost as important as the units. ( I do believe that well-rounded units tend to be useful in most scenarios, where as some units suffer from very specific roles like the fleet troopers)

I do feel in the last year especially, I find myself playing more casual games and skirmish games because that's what I have time for and that's what the opponents are able to do, so sometimes we play pretty loose with the setup and lists and are more interested in just pushing toys around the battle field and trying out our new units.

Just now, buckero0 said:

I was just teasing. I truly believe in a competitive or highly efficient version of the game, the deployment and scenario cards have to be considered as much as including unit x or cassian over Luke or whatever. It's almost as important as the units. ( I do believe that well-rounded units tend to be useful in most scenarios, where as some units suffer from very specific roles like the fleet troopers)

I do feel in the last year especially, I find myself playing more casual games and skirmish games because that's what I have time for and that's what the opponents are able to do, so sometimes we play pretty loose with the setup and lists and are more interested in just pushing toys around the battle field and trying out our new units.

I caught that, but I don't think I made that clear in my response.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of times where people don't pay attention to what cards they include, or just shuffle all of them together for casual play. which seems fine and a quicker way of getting a game going.

Still, it is a good conversation to have that unless you are playing competitively, rules changes that are agreed upon to make the "feel better" are fine. The only potential issue I've encountered is people supplying their house rule when someone is asking about the official rules...
And nothing run with having the primary goal of having fun as opposed to winning 😛 I've played out my fair share of games that where lost causes just because I wanted to keep rolling dice.

Theres also a refreshing simplicity in playing games where the only objective is eliminating all enemy units.

There is no longer an obsession to cram in as many scoring units as you can and the game is no longer as skewed towards trooper units.

7 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I do feel in the last year especially, I find myself playing more casual games and skirmish games because that's what I have time for and that's what the opponents are able to do, so sometimes we play pretty loose with the setup and lists and are more interested in just pushing toys around the battle field and trying out our new units.

That's certainly one thing taking the T-47 is good for - it's great to take in casual games at the shop. It screams out "Star Wars", it helps you teach newer players the basics of strike team positioning and how various keywords work and most of all, it makes it really easy to make sure your newer opponent wins the game ;).

16 hours ago, Khobai said:

But thats exactly how discussions are supposed to work.

Argument and counterargument. Until someone either convinces the other party or both parties agree the issue is irreconcilable.

The breakdown occurs when someone resorts to being uncivil, rude, and flipping out instead of just agreeing to disagree. Like you are doing now. Your comments are obviously aimed at me, disrespectful, and unproductive to the discussion. Youre the one roadblocking the discussion by complaining about people who are actually trying to discuss. Its funny because its true lol.

no that is not how discussions work, that is how arguments work. what we should do on this forum is debate and discussion. the difference is this;

" Discussion means sharing of knowledge. Debating means looking from various view points. Argument means defending ones position, come what may."

A proper debate requires both parties to actually take onboard what the other side has said and then comment on that, then they comment back on your comment explaining how you disagree with their point until you reach a point where you either agree or agree to disagree.

When you have never conceded a point in any thread (that i have seen) you are not being an honest interlocuter. you are just screaming your opinion over everyone elses comments and when they disagreee you scream it again, until they get to a point that you cannot disagree with at which point you change the subject or stop responding. That is what you do. It is the definition of an argument. You are a troll.

34 minutes ago, 5particus said:

A proper debate requires both parties to actually take onboard what the other side has said and then comment on that, then they comment back on your comment explaining how you disagree with their point until you reach a point where you either agree or agree to disagree

Something something modern politics something something current United States election candidates something something darkside.

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Something something modern politics something something current United States election candidates something something darkside.

Only a sith mumbles through absolutes....

13 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Only a sith mumbles through absolutes....

18 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I do feel in the last year especially, I find myself playing more casual games and skirmish games because that's what I have time for and that's what the opponents are able to do, so sometimes we play pretty loose with the setup and lists and are more interested in just pushing toys around the battle field and trying out our new units.

My guys and I are really only competitive with each other, but we love taking the dopey units or making themed armies that don't always mesh well, but are loads of fun to throw around the board.

We have a Hoth board that we love taking a bunch of Hoth-themed units on, and it's a blast. I have a soft spot for my dopey Dewbacks and I love putting them on lists because of how comical it is to see them just lumber around the board (and also continually make the sound they make because all our games devolve into shouting quotes and star wars noises)