33 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

If players are having a bad time playing against clones due to various components they should be inspected and discussed. Even if those instances are small data points or anecdotal in nature.

I agree but I hardly ever see tactics or play styles brought up in these discussions. And I don't mean that in a snarky "get good" way. I mean actual discussion of what, if anything, can counter balance some of the experiences. We shouldn't be so defensive, I mean this in general & not directed at anyone specific, if we say I did this with a unit, this happened, and someone offers that they try something else. If at the end of that there is still general consensus of OP elements then updates are probably warranted.

Personally I used to hate playing against Grievous. He could hide behind LOS blocking terrain to approach, then double move, drop in, and, with his 1 pip, kill my commander and suppress or panic every trooper unit at range 1. He could literally take out half my army in a single activation. I've seen it happen. Instead of defaulting to Grievous is OP and must be nerfed I tried adapting my play when I'm facing him. Now when I play against him I have a better experience because I changed the way I interact with that unit.

13 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

Personally I used to hate playing against Grievous. He could hide behind LOS blocking terrain to approach, then double move, drop in, and, with his 1 pip, kill my commander and suppress or panic every trooper unit at range 1. He could literally take out half my army in a single activation. I've seen it happen. Instead of defaulting to Grievous is OP and must be nerfed I tried adapting my play when I'm facing him. Now when I play against him I have a better experience because I changed the way I interact with that unit.

@Darth Sanguis @Crawfskeezen

Yes there is some hyperbole included. I don't think the OP even intended for this to be a "Bash GAR" post. I think he/she was more "look what this guy got to go off"

I can think of several scenarios where I can max out certain dice pools, but in reality, it doesn't happen very often, and 99.9% of the time, if that's what you're gunning for, you're going to lose the rest of the matchups because you were too stoked trying to force your golden opportunity of dice. I can only think of 2 times I rolled all 4 extra dice with Jyn for Danger Sense and I've played her dozens of times. I still rolled blanks for the majority of those dice. I still lost her quickly both games, and learned that Jyn doesn't really want to be rolling tons of dice with Danger Sense if I want to win the game. So I play her differently now and put her in different situations, and honestly don't roll more than 4-5 dice and that happens late in the game.

2 hours ago, codytx2 said:

I mean actual discussion of what, if anything, can counter balance some of the experiences. We shouldn't be so defensive, I mean this in general & not directed at anyone specific, if we say I did this with a unit, this happened, and someone offers that they try something else. If at the end of that there is still general consensus of OP elements then updates are probably warranted.

I don't disagree. There was an excellent post about it when these discussions about counter clone tactics were more pertinent after all.


If I had to estimate, I'd conjecture that the problem with this method of thinking comes down to the variability of the game. Not every counter is applicable in a given situation. In terms of clones, it's been my experience that most of the provided counters aren't situationally applicable . Ironically leaving "Git Gud" as the best advice you can give a player facing clones.

In seems to me, based on observation alone, part of what makes the clones seem so much stronger in small samples is they have the inherent capacity to punish even the slightest misstep with a severity that is basically unmatched in this game. So while in terms of overall balance, they may be close to the correct mark, in small samples, where even slight mistakes result in instant and often debilitating results, they can be outright unfun to play against.

1 hour ago, buckero0 said:

I can think of several scenarios where I can max out certain dice pools, but in reality, it doesn't happen very often , and 99.9% of the time, if that's what you're gunning for, you're going to lose the rest of the matchups because you were too stoked trying to force your golden opportunity of dice

As an organizer, in terms of clones locally, here's what I can say as fact:

1.) Fire Support shots happen in about 80% of the games I've seen involving clones and they are never weak.
1a.) It has been used to shrug off debilitating suppression on multiple occasions.
1b.) It has been used to shrug off poison on multiple occasions.
1c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders in the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
1d.) A heavy majority of players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

2.) Token sharing happens in 100% of the games I've seen involving clones.
2a.) It has been used to maximize defenses against multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2b.) It has been used to maximize multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders within the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
2d.) A majority of the local players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

This sample size is small. there are a total of 11 players locally, but here are some corollary facts:

1.) At least 3 players will refuse to play against clones outright.
2.) At least 3 players are refusing to play as clones due to their perceived power.
3.) Our best clone player last informed me his record was 23-2.
4.) A heavy majority of our players will outright refuse to play against this player.
5.) 2 players have spoken to me about the possibility of selling out entirely due to balance issues.


All of this to say:

The NPE's which result from these mechanics happen more than you'd think.

27 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I don't disagree. There was an excellent post about it when these discussions about counter clone tactics were more pertinent after all.


If I had to estimate, I'd conjecture that the problem with this method of thinking comes down to the variability of the game. Not every counter is applicable in a given situation. In terms of clones, it's been my experience that most of the provided counters aren't situationally applicable . Ironically leaving "Git Gud" as the best advice you can give a player facing clones.

In seems to me, based on observation alone, part of what makes the clones seem so much stronger in small samples is they have the inherent capacity to punish even the slightest misstep with a severity that is basically unmatched in this game. So while in terms of overall balance, they may be close to the correct mark, in small samples, where even slight mistakes result in instant and often debilitating results, they can be outright unfun to play against.

As an organizer, in terms of clones locally, here's what I can say as fact:

1.) Fire Support shots happen in about 80% of the games I've seen involving clones and they are never weak.
1a.) It has been used to shrug off debilitating suppression on multiple occasions.
1b.) It has been used to shrug off poison on multiple occasions.
1c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders in the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
1d.) A heavy majority of players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

2.) Token sharing happens in 100% of the games I've seen involving clones.
2a.) It has been used to maximize defenses against multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2b.) It has been used to maximize multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders within the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
2d.) A majority of the local players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

This sample size is small. there are a total of 11 players locally, but here are some corollary facts:

1.) At least 3 players will refuse to play against clones outright.
2.) At least 3 players are refusing to play as clones due to their perceived power.
3.) Our best clone player last informed me his record was 23-2.
4.) A heavy majority of our players will outright refuse to play against this player.
5.) 2 players have spoken to me about the possibility of selling out entirely due to balance issues.


All of this to say:

The NPE's which result from these mechanics happen more than you'd think.

Sure, NPE's can happen all of the time. In my last game, I ran Maul + Double AAT against my friends list of Obi + Anakin. I infiltrated Maul and he took the bait, deploying both of his heroes in an effort to get a first turn charge. I then proceed to move + shoot with both AAT's landing 6 hits each (thanks to the rockets and high velocity). He rolled terribly and each of his heroes took 3 wounds in the first couple of activations. Maul proceeded to finish Anakin off at the top of turn 1 (again terrible red defensive dice). At the top of turn three, we called it because he couldn't dig himself out of his hole. Did he moan and complain about AAT's or high velocity? No, he realized, that he made a huge error on deployment and learned a valuable lesson for next time.

If a commander is getting fire supported off of the board turn two, then I would hazard a guess that the general probably screwed up. Fire support is not a secret, and like token sharing, it can and should be planned around. It can be very devastating when it goes off, but when it whiffs, it is just as devastating to the GAR player.

As for your local scene, it seems like your "best clone player" is could be an issue unto themselves. Honestly, who keeps a running tally of their overall record? In my personal experience, it is usually the type of player who is out to win at all costs, and I don't enjoy playing games with those people either.

10 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I don't disagree. There was an excellent post about it when these discussions about counter clone tactics were more pertinent after all.


If I had to estimate, I'd conjecture that the problem with this method of thinking comes down to the variability of the game. Not every counter is applicable in a given situation. In terms of clones, it's been my experience that most of the provided counters aren't situationally applicable . Ironically leaving "Git Gud" as the best advice you can give a player facing clones.

In seems to me, based on observation alone, part of what makes the clones seem so much stronger in small samples is they have the inherent capacity to punish even the slightest misstep with a severity that is basically unmatched in this game. So while in terms of overall balance, they may be close to the correct mark, in small samples, where even slight mistakes result in instant and often debilitating results, they can be outright unfun to play against.

As an organizer, in terms of clones locally, here's what I can say as fact:

1.) Fire Support shots happen in about 80% of the games I've seen involving clones and they are never weak.
1a.) It has been used to shrug off debilitating suppression on multiple occasions.
1b.) It has been used to shrug off poison on multiple occasions.
1c.) It has been used to heavily wound of eliminate commanders in the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
1d.) A heavy majority of players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

2.) Token sharing happens in 100% of the games I've seen involving clones.
2a.) It has been used to maximize defenses against multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2b.) It has been used to maximize multiple attacks in a single game on multiple occasions.
2c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders within the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.
2d.) A majority of the local players who have experienced clones have mentioned how unfun the mechanic is.

This sample size is small. there are a total of 11 players locally, but here are some corollary facts:

1.) At least 3 players will refuse to play against clones outright.
2.) At least 3 players are refusing to play as clones due to their perceived power.
3.) Our best clone player last informed me his record was 23-2.
4.) A heavy majority of our players will outright refuse to play against this player.
5.) 2 players have spoken to me about the possibility of selling out entirely due to balance issues.


All of this to say:

The NPE's which result from these mechanics happen more than you'd think.

Wow your local players are boring. If you are going to quit because you are not winning then you are a terrible person to play against and the whole game would be better off without you.

if they never play against the clones, how will they ever learn how to deal with them?

everyone had to learn how to play against Tauntauns, gun lines and every other combo that has been moaned about and called broken at one time or another, they shouldn't make sweeping changes just because a vocal minority is whining about it.

Your anecdotes are worthless, more so because most of the time that the entire clone wars factions have been out has been during Covid, where you shouldn't have been having any in person games anyway.

As for your new players, they should be playing against your experienced players for their first few games and they should be coaching them through each game, showing them the options that they have for each bag pull and showing them what to avoid. This is just basic courtesy at an FLGS to try and get those new players to stick around. Brand new players should be guided through their first games almost to the point where you are playing yourself. They should be shown how to play against each faction so that they know what to expect.

I will also provide an anecdotal counter data point. CIS is currently the strongest faction in my local meta, and has been so since before the 'rona shut down the ongoing League games. In fact, the top two players in the League were both droid players and both undefeated (with games being cancelled before their scheduled match, which was sad to see). The scene was (and still is) largely Imperial and Rebel players, though the newer factions had a handful of players each. Mostly the players I've faced have been trying to figure out how to deal with how much health and firepower the droids can bring while simultaneously ignoring most suppression.

If I see a player struggling while facing my droids, I try to work out a better solution with them (though usually after the game, since I also try to respect their playstyle). Usually it comes down to objectives and deployment rather than a single ability or turn changing the course of a game.

This is just my own experience, for whatever that's worth.

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This sample size is small. there are a total of 11 players locally, but here are some corollary facts:

1.) At least 3 players will refuse to play against clones outright.
2.) At least 3 players are refusing to play as clones due to their perceived power.
3.) Our best clone player last informed me his record was 23-2.
4.) A heavy majority of our players will outright refuse to play against this player.
5.) 2 players have spoken to me about the possibility of selling out entirely due to balance issues.

All of this to say:

The NPE's which result from these mechanics happen more than you'd think.

1st of all, congrats on having a community to play against.

You may be completely right.

I'm assuming most of these prejudices come from previous encounters though. The new RRG and points booklet/update has literally been out for a week. He's 23-2 in a week or was that before when Standby was being abused ?

I don't know this person but maybe he/she could swap armies with the other players. Playing the other side only makes both players better. It might help the newer players figure out some ways of countering this behemoth.

I know Fire Support happens and usually its a bunch of dice, but you have to have a face up token to do it. Are all of the armies running Rex and nothing else? No one will play Anakin?

Even some of those armies will have 1 pip turns when not every unit has a face up token.

If that's the way your community plays, maybe you should try a different game or sell out. I've never had the problem, so I may be unsympathetic. I don't play in tournaments, mainly because they don't sponsor them around here, and I've had enough poor sportsmanship encounters with X-wing that I've decided I have better things to do with my time and money. I only play people I want to play. It sounds like your community is doing the same. Maybe get the 23-2 guy to play something different or tell them to soften up because he's ruining the community. Everyone's situation is different. I don't think AMG/FFG are going to save the day.

My opinion is there's not a big problem in our community with it.

2 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I know Fire Support happens and usually its a bunch of dice, but you have to have a face up token to do it. Are all of the armies running Rex and nothing else? No one will play Anakin?

Face up tokening isnt always a downside though. Stop acting like it is.

If the unit is about to panic then fire supporting with it still lets it get a quasi-activation when it might otherwise panic and get no activation at all.

Thats one of the problems with fire support. That its supposed downside isnt always a downside and can actually be highly beneficial against factions like Imperials that have a lot of suppressive weapons. Rex even gets more trooper activations with his command cards than most other commanders which makes abusing fire support even easier.

Clever use of fire support can circumvent core game mechanics like panic and suppression and that clearly shouldnt be the case. Thats a major red flag that never shouldve made it past playtesting.

Fire Support has a number of issues that need to be addressed. Ranging from the NPE of instant killing units/characters to the obviously unintended ability to circumvent panic/suppression game mechanics.

Quote

Are all of the armies running Rex and nothing else?

Yes. Why would you run Anakin? Or any jedi for that matter? When GAR players can just fire support them off the board?

And you might think the tougher jedi like Vader or Grievous fare better. But Ive even seen Vader get one shotted off the board from a fire support attack with tons of aim tokens.

Jedi are a liability in competitive play because of fire support. Fire support forces you to hide characters behind terrain the entire game. Which is the exact opposite of how Jedi need to be played. Thats why its such a NPE.

I dont see how anyone could possibly think a game mechanic that forces players to hide their characters all game is in any way beneficial to the game. Fire support definitely needs some changes IMO.

There should be a cap on how many dice can be in a fire support attack pool. Units also shouldnt be able to fire support if they have twice their courage in suppression.

7 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

1c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders in the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.

2c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders within the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.

How is this happening? Do your players stand their characters out in the open at the start of the game.

Jedi should be hiding till the right time to strike.

Terrain can heavily affect games as well, so it would be interesting to see what sort of tables you play on.

14 minutes ago, lologrelol said:

How is this happening? Do your players stand their characters out in the open at the start of the game.

Jedi should be hiding till the right time to strike.

Terrain can heavily affect games as well, so it would be interesting to see what sort of tables you play on.

I run with a local group of friends at a game store and we have a lot of varied terrain, we have built tables around Hoth, Endor, Spaceport, etc.. I have found we have maps with sight blocking terrain, other with firing lanes, some with heavy cover everywhere but no true hard cover etc. The lists that do consistently well are usually ones that can handle varied terrain which is actually a weakness of jedi, they need that vision blocking terrain.

Anyway I haven't run into the clones fire support being OP yet but it is clearly Meta defining IMO, if that mattered right now.

14 hours ago, buckero0 said:

The designers stated at the beginning of the game that the feel of the game would be determined by the characters and heroes of the universe, not necessarily the faceless troopers. I don't know if that will continue to hold true, but buff the characters (like they've been doing) but don't strip the faction completely, its already the least interesting faction in many ways.

I suppose you could buff characters by adding something like a "heroic X" keyword to the game which would reduce damage done to a character by X from units without the heroic keyword.

So like if Vader had heroic X then all damage done to Vader by non-heroic units would be reduced by X. But if Luke hit Vader his damage wouldnt be reduced since Luke would also have heroic X.

The goal of such a keyword being to make characters better vs non-characters and encourage more character vs character clashes.

The question is whether or not that would be enough vs fire support and I dont think it would be. Because its 22 friggin dice with multiple aim tokens. Its way more damage than the game system is designed to handle. I still think fire support needs to be capped for how many dice it can roll because 22 dice is way too much damage after you factor in token sharing and access to multiple aim tokens.

Quote

Jedi should be hiding till the right time to strike.

If Vader has to hide all game he will never be able to strike. Hes speed 1.

Forcing melee characters like Vader to hide doesnt work in legion.

Its better to just not take characters like Vader.

9 hours ago, 5particus said:

1b.) It has been used to shrug off poison on multiple occasions.

Poison kicks off after unit activation. Firesupport is unit activation, it skips rally step but every "after unit activation" effect such as poison, emergancy stims etc. works. I asked Alex about it before.

To use the fire support keyword, a unit must have a faceup order token. After using the fire support keyword, a unit must flip that order token facedown. That unit is considered to have activated and cannot be activated during that round.

3 hours ago, Khobai said:

If Vader has to hide all game he will never be able to strike. Hes speed 1.

Forcing melee characters like Vader to hide doesnt work in legion.

Its better to just not take characters like Vader.

Vader is an outlier. Most characters are speed 2.

Hiding a melee character until the opportune moment can win games.

Most games require you to move towards some part of the battlefield. If you cannot assault that part of the field, it is hard to get that objective, unless your terrain is very open.

19 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

If a commander is getting fire supported off of the board turn two, then I would hazard a guess that the general probably screwed up . Fire support is not a secret, and like token sharing, it can and should be planned around. It can be very devastating when it goes off, but when it whiffs, it is just as devastating to the GAR player.

This is part of the point I was making actually Yes, mistakes often cause this, but no other faction can punish a slight mistake so brutally at that range. As I said:

19 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

part of what makes the clones seem so much stronger in small samples is they have the inherent capacity to punish even the slightest misstep with a severity that is basically unmatched in this game

The misstep the last time I saw this?

Deploying GG behind a piece of LoS blocking terrain with a window nearby . The scout 3 of the Arcs and the scout 2 provided to the Phase 2s by Rex lined up a firing lane on that side of the board. The commander was unable to block LoS through the terrain due to how far the Arcs and Phase 2s were able to move during deploy and how far their weapons could reach. As the players were measuring I was able to discern that nowhere, except the furthest edges of the deploy zone, would have prevented a FS shot for more than a single round. Even with the LoS blockers in place.

These are not from this match in particular but to give an idea of what terrain typically looks like (because we often hear, "well you don't have enough terrain, then")





All of this to say, yes, mistakes happen. None of our players are experts, but the level of power the clones can leverage off of a situations like that is "unfun". And they happen more often than you'd think.

19 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

As for your local scene, it seems like your "best clone player" is could be an issue unto themselves. Honestly, who keeps a running tally of their overall record? In my personal experience, it is usually the type of player who is out to win at all costs, and I don't enjoy playing games with those people either.

The player isn't a bad guy, maybe a little aggressive. I can't speak for the other players, but as one of the few people who wants to play him, I know the main reasons the game becomes frustrating for me are listed in the things I posted above. (Token sharing creates optimal attacks and defenses, chip shots end up putting through 3-4+ wounds, concentrating on a unit to kill it off ends up getting surged or dodged away.) Fire support can outright end units and is easy to set up off the scout deploys. This isn't to discount his skill, he is good. He uses precision while he plays, but I can say the mechanics of the faction play a major roll.

19 hours ago, 5particus said:

Wow your local players are boring. If you are going to quit because you are not winning then you are a terrible person to play against and the whole game would be better off without you.

if they never play against the clones, how will they ever learn how to deal with them?

That's a bit rude, but hey, you do you. I don't try to dictate how other people enjoy things. As for the players thinking of selling out, they are both Imperial players. Suffering losses to every faction. On a 20+ loss streak? (I can attest that they have changed units and tactics as well, it's not like they're just stuck on an old meta type.)

They've all played many matches against clones. All the way up to 3 or 4 matches into the ARC meta. That's where most tapped out. I think what players were learning is that the situationally dependent "solutions" offered by the forums and podcasts didn't prevent the mechanical strength of the clones from over running them. On multiple occasions.

19 hours ago, 5particus said:

Your anecdotes are worthless, more so because most of the time that the entire clone wars factions have been out has been during Covid, where you shouldn't have been having any in person games anyway.

Maybe worthless to you, but I suspect they may carry some insight into why this subject keeps coming up. As for covid, in Ohio the outbreak didn't really even start until March, in our local area which has a low population density, cases didn't start to climb until last month. Players wear masks, have sanitizer available, and must schedule time and exclusive space to play. The owner followed all the guidelines provided by the state. We've had plenty of matches since October last year.

18 hours ago, Kirjath08 said:

I will also provide an anecdotal counter data point. CIS is currently the strongest faction in my local meta, and has been so since before the 'rona shut down the ongoing League games. In fact, the top two players in the League were both droid players and both undefeated (with games being cancelled before their scheduled match, which was sad to see). The scene was (and still is) largely Imperial and Rebel players, though the newer factions had a handful of players each. Mostly the players I've faced have been trying to figure out how to deal with how much health and firepower the droids can bring while simultaneously ignoring most suppression.

If I see a player struggling while facing my droids, I try to work out a better solution with them (though usually after the game, since I also try to respect their playstyle). Usually it comes down to objectives and deployment rather than a single ability or turn changing the course of a game.

This is just my own experience, for whatever that's worth.

This is actually a great addition to this conversation. As a droid main I very rarely lose. I suspect droids, especially after getting buffed, as in a really good spot in terms of power. Skilled players in our group always have a discussion about the odd and ends of the match. Our group is fortunate to have good people who want to teach and have fun as well. It' good to see this is a common practice.

18 hours ago, buckero0 said:

1st of all, congrats on having a community to play against.

You may be completely right.

Thank you. Yes we are very fortunate, our numbers have doubled since the outbreak which is not a common occurrence in these circumstances. (most additions have been in the last 4 weeks even, which strikes me as weird).

18 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I'm assuming most of these prejudices come from previous encounters though. The new RRG and points booklet/update has literally been out for a week. He's 23-2 in a week or was that before when Standby was being abused ?

You are correct. However I will say, standby sharing was never the issue here. Our best clone player has used many archetypes over the course of clones being out. What took off with other players was the 10-11 activation turn 0 token gen lists and that's what most of the clone meta looked like locally. I suspect that with the turn 0 gen gone, we'll see a better response to clones. That said, knowing how many units farm tokens passively, I don't know if this will effect stigma clones face locally because they can still do everything they could do before, just not as easily.

18 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I don't know this person but maybe he/she could swap armies with the other players. Playing the other side only makes both players better. It might help the newer players figure out some ways of countering this behemoth.

I know Fire Support happens and usually its a bunch of dice, but you have to have a face up token to do it. Are all of the armies running Rex and nothing else? No one will play Anakin?

Even some of those armies will have 1 pip turns when not every unit has a face up token.

It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure if he'd be up for it. He bought in to play clones, but maybe I could talk him into coaching players? This player in particular has used Obi-Barcs, Obi Rex, and Rex Padme lists over the last year if I recall correctly. As the meta shifted and new units were released we saw less of Obiwan. I think the only time I've seen him since ARCs have been out is in a Grand Army format. As Khobai said, 1 pip turns aren't really a deterrent. Less so with Padme and coordinate which give the faction some flexibility when they need it.

18 hours ago, buckero0 said:

If that's the way your community plays, maybe you should try a different game or sell out. I've never had the problem, so I may be unsympathetic. I don't play in tournaments, mainly because they don't sponsor them around here, and I've had enough poor sportsmanship encounters with X-wing that I've decided I have better things to do with my time and money. I only play people I want to play. It sounds like your community is doing the same. Maybe get the 23-2 guy to play something different or tell them to soften up because he's ruining the community. Everyone's situation is different. I don't think AMG/FFG are going to save the day.

I appreciate your openness about it. Me personally? I don't mind losing. I play droids. Part of the fun of playing droids is slogging as many B1s at your opponent as you can and watching them chew through them. I LOVE the thematic of CIS vs GAR ( I bought that dope Geonosis terrain after all!). That said, other players are getting annoyed with the faction and if players are frustrated enough to leave that's an issue that needs discussed.

Some people come to play a casual game and getting your teeth kicked in because it was impossible to block LoS to a commander at range 3-4 from every angle the scouting clones could achieve, doesn't foster that setting.

12 hours ago, lologrelol said:

How is this happening? Do your players stand their characters out in the open at the start of the game.

Jedi should be hiding till the right time to strike.

Terrain can heavily affect games as well, so it would be interesting to see what sort of tables you play on.

See above in the post for our terrain. Plenty of LoS blockers and heavy cover.

I can't be definitive, but it seems to me part of the problem is LoS blockers can be circumvented by setting up firing lanes or scouting to angle around them. The last time this happen GG was blocked from the deploy, but scout 3 and 2 respectively on 2 units made enough of him visible to land the shot.

9 hours ago, NetCop said:

Poison kicks off after unit activation. Firesupport is unit activation , it skips rally step but every "after unit activation" effect such as poison, emergency stims etc. works. I asked Alex about it before.

To use the fire support keyword, a unit must have a faceup order token. After using the fire support keyword, a unit must flip that order token facedown. That unit is considered to have activated and cannot be activated during that round.

This is great news we'll pass it along. We couldn't find anything in the RRG that stated that the timing trigger of "At the end of a unit’s activation" was triggered by that line from fire support because it was past tense. Moving forward we'll take this in consideration.




A big thanks to everyone who replied! I honestly didn't expect to come back to 6+ people with replies to my comment. I appreciate all the input, and if I missed your comment I apologize. lol

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Deploying GG behind a piece of LoS blocking terrain with a window nearby . The scout 3 of the Arcs and the scout 2 provided to the Phase 2s by Rex lined up a firing lane on that side of the board. The commander was unable to block LoS through the terrain due to how far the Arcs and Phase 2s were able to move during deploy and how far their weapons could reach. As the players were measuring I was able to discern that nowhere, except the furthest edges of the deploy zone, would have prevented a FS shot for more than a single round. Even with the LoS blockers in place.

That paints a pretty good picture. Most of us clone players were probably thinking, "stop putting your commander in the open in firing range of all those clone units". Losing a unit before possibly activating would make me not want to play either. Still doesn't sound entirely unique to a fire support problem but like you said clones will make it hurt a bit more.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Some people come to play a casual game and getting your teeth kicked in because it was impossible to block LoS to a commander at range 3-4 from every angle the scouting clones could achieve, doesn't foster that setting.

I think what is and is not casual is different for everyone. Your top clone player may think he is playing casual. It may be worth bringing up alone or in group. But if he is trying to basically turn 0 an opponent's commander off board it is safe to say he is probably wanting to play at a higher level though.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

(Token sharing creates optimal attacks and defenses, chip shots end up putting through 3-4+ wounds, concentrating on a unit to kill it off ends up getting surged or dodged away.)

This is where a lot of clone players will probably start to push back. Token sharing is their entire identity. As a faction the units are some of the most expensive and are generally at an activation disadvantage. Them being elite is the upside to running the faction. They should be able to withstand some concentrated fire or add an extra hit or 2 to an attack. That is not to say people have to like it or their experience is somehow negated but maybe it helps bring some players from "refuse to play clones" to "this is not my favorite faction to play against." A lot of us play other miniatures games and in each one there is a faction or playstyle or unit type we do not like. Refusing to play against them seems like an extreme response.

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This is actually a great addition to this conversation. As a droid main I very rarely lose. I suspect droids, especially after getting buffed, as in a really good spot in terms of power. Skilled players in our group always have a discussion about the odd and ends of the match. Our group is fortunate to have good people who want to teach and have fun as well. It' good to see this is a common practice.

We always have these discussions too. A lot of times we have them in the middle of a turn lol.

Player 1:"Not sure if I should activate unit A or unit B".

Player 2:"If unit B is still there when I activate I'm destroying that unit."

Player 1:"So I think I'm going to activate unit B........"

They are great insight.

7 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

I think what is and is not casual is different for everyone. Your top clone player may think he is playing casual. It may be worth bringing up alone or in group. But if he is trying to basically turn 0 an opponent's commander off board it is safe to say he is probably wanting to play at a higher level though.

Ironically, this wasn't done by the guy with the 23-2 record.

This maneuver was done by a player who had played 3 games total (two of which were as Imperials pre CW faction introduction.) He had recently bought into CW era boxes and had me assemble a list for him. (I don't know if this comes up but I collect and play all 4 factions. I say this just to accentuate that I'm at least suitably informed on how they all work. lol ) It was pre RRG 2.0, so the turn zero farm was part of the issue for that attack, but the FS roll was hot but the aims generated by the ARC unit's move with offensive push would have covered the aims he used in that activation, so it's a bit of a wash. (That's part of why I'm concerned the "nerf" didn't really solve anything except eliminating blatant token farm exploitation in round 0. I can build basically the exact same list, minus come gear upgrades, and it will perform just as well in every way except the turn zero alpha. Which is concerning to me).

When we spoke about this after the game the consensus was that clones are very user friendly. If you know what they do, and where they need to be, they're a force to be reckoned with.

22 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

This is where a lot of clone players will probably start to push back. Token sharing is their entire identity. As a faction the units are some of the most expensive and are generally at an activation disadvantage. Them being elite is the upside to running the faction. They should be able to withstand some concentrated fire or add an extra hit or 2 to an attack. That is not to say people have to like it or their experience is somehow negated but maybe it helps bring some players from "refuse to play clones" to "this is not my favorite faction to play against." A lot of us play other miniatures games and in each one there is a faction or playstyle or unit type we do not like. Refusing to play against them seems like an extreme response.

It's true, I do receive quite a lot of push back from our resident clone forum members.

To be clear, I certainly do not want to strip that identity from clone players . Like I said, I play all 4 factions, I'm deeply invested in this game. What I want, if anything , is to eliminate NPEs . I want local players to enjoy the game, be encouraged to try tournaments (when they start again lol) and to expand the game.

1 hour ago, codytx2 said:

We always have these discussions too. A lot of times we have them in the middle of a turn lol.

Yes! many times while I'm playing droids I'll caution opponents to moves that put them in immediate danger and explain how it's bad or what will happen if they do.

37 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

It's true, I do receive quite a lot of push back from our resident clone forum members.

To be clear, I certainly do not want to strip that identity from clone players . Like I said, I play all 4 factions, I'm deeply invested in this game. What I want, if anything , is to eliminate NPEs . I want local players to enjoy the game, be encouraged to try tournaments (when they start again lol) and to expand the game.

I don't get the impression you want to strip away identity either and my phrasing could of used better explanation. Ultimately removing NPEs should be everyones goal so that we do all enjoy the game and it can grow. I think what I meant more was that is the line where a lot of clone players, while agreeing something was a NPE, start to isolate it as a single bad experience and not necessarily the fault of the faction or it's not the norm or it is something that can be avoided because it is also the line where players on the receiving end start to find ways to remove parts of what the faction can do. It's the grey area of a single NPE vs OP.

48 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

When we spoke about this after the game the consensus was that clones are very user friendly. If you know what they do, and where they need to be, they're a force to be reckoned with.

I won't try to discount that. Like you have pointed out too there really is no blanket solution to the issue either. Raising points only sheds fluff off the list and focuses it down to the strongest units.

6 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

It's the grey area of a single NPE vs OP.

Yup, that is the heart of the issue. It's difficult to crowd source data for it too.

All I can base my perspective off of is what my community is facing.

With that grain of salt there are two groups that generate regular NPEs locally.

1.) Clones. (For reasons stated above)
2.) Imperials (General lack of direction and power within the faction)

For the clones, if I'm to believe what I've experienced with them as relevant data, require a light touch (especially now that Turn zero token gen and standby sharing are gone, I feel like they are very close to being just right). Similar to how the droid troopers lose the ability to gain cover from suppression but don't lose actions from suppression, I believe clone troopers should face a negative, even if minor, from sharing tokens. (As I don't see the range requirement as a negative considering how ranges and cohesion work in Legion). The best solutions I've had is to integrate suppression/courage into the mechanic. (Similar to my thoughts for the Fire Support Keyword above). Something that adds a negative cost for using the inherent mechanics of clones, but doesn't prevent them from using the ability or hard cap anything.

For the Imperials, I'll be honest. I think they need a lot of work. One of the local players (a close friend for many years) who is considering selling out has had numerous discussions with me about how the units in the Imperial lists just do not perform well enough to merit their cost. He's also bothered with how only a very specific meta type seemed to maintain imperial relevance, and how the RRG 2.0 did nothing to change that. With this player I've discussed a homebrew errata and I've encouraged him to let us test that to see if it makes the faction worthwhile, or at least fun to play against me with. Long term, I'm hoping we'll see some changes breathed into the faction through AMG, otherwise I'm afraid our imperial players will invest their time and money elsewhere.

27 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

Like you have pointed out too there really is no blanket solution to the issue either. Raising points only sheds fluff off the list and focuses it down to the strongest units.

Yeah, very rarely is it ever as simple as "X needs Hard capped/removed"

10 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Something that adds a negative cost for using the inherent mechanics of clones, but doesn't prevent them from using the ability or hard cap anything.

Besides range and unit restrictions for token sharing I think unit cost was intended to be the other negative to the faction but is not proving to be as impactful as the activation gap is not significant enough. While trying out some Imperial fixes I'd be curious to see any results from implementing some of your ideas for adding suppression/panic into token sharing and fire support. Something maybe also worth considering is fire support being 2 separate attacks so that LOS & cover are determined from each unit and are a larger factor. Let them attack in any order and back to back but treat them as individual. Just because the fire support unit can see 1 mini doesn't mean they should be able to shoot the entire targeted squad. It also separates the surge charts and makes spending tokens a decision as you have to worry about 2 dice pools instead of 1.

3 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

Besides range and unit restrictions for token sharing I think unit cost was intended to be the other negative to the faction but is not proving to be as impactful as the activation gap is not significant enough. While trying out some Imperial fixes I'd be curious to see any results from implementing some of your ideas for adding suppression/panic into token sharing and fire support. Something maybe also worth considering is fire support being 2 separate attacks so that LOS & cover are determined from each unit and are a larger factor. Let them attack in any order and back to back but treat them as individual. Just because the fire support unit can see 1 mini doesn't mean they should be able to shoot the entire targeted squad. It also separates the surge charts and makes spending tokens a decision as you have to worry about 2 dice pools instead of 1.

Side by side, based on some of the calculations I did a while ago that reviewed costs, I'd say you were absolutely right. (As best I can tell the baked in "clone cost" is only +1/mini presuming the FS keyword is worth +2/mini, which when crossed checked with it's value on the DF-90, matches exactly lol) I just don't think they had a way to measure the synergy it would create for the army as a whole. Especially when introducing units that passively generate tokens. (Phase 2s, Rex, Padme, and Arcs create an arguably interesting "perfect storm" of token gen with little to no action cost.) Especially without the disparity in activations I think this cost is arguably too slim.


Thats an interesting way to do it for Fire Support. I don't necessarily disagree.

As I move forward, should we actually get into play testing, I'll be sure to post the results.

1 hour ago, codytx2 said:

Besides range and unit restrictions for token sharing I think unit cost was intended to be the other negative to the faction but is not proving to be as impactful as the activation gap is not significant enough. While trying out some Imperial fixes I'd be curious to see any results from implementing some of your ideas for adding suppression/panic into token sharing and fire support.

How is cost supposed to be a negative when the rules update actually made clonetrooper MK1s cheaper? lol.

Lowering the cost of clonetrooper MK1s is what allowed GAR lists to stay around 10 activations despite arctroopers and R2D2 going up in cost. Because it offset the cost increases to those other units.

If the goal was to use cost as a balance mechanism then Clonetrooper MK1s never shouldve gone down in cost.

Quote

Something maybe also worth considering is fire support being 2 separate attacks so that LOS & cover are determined from each unit and are a larger factor. Let them attack in any order and back to back but treat them as individual. Just because the fire support unit can see 1 mini doesn't mean they should be able to shoot the entire targeted squad. It also separates the surge charts and makes spending tokens a decision as you have to worry about 2 dice pools instead of 1.

Im not sure that really fixes the issue. Two attacks instead of one attack just means cover counts twice instead of only once. But the potential for one shotting a character/unit with one activation still exists. I would rather see a hard cap on how many dice can be in an attack pool.

But also the issue of fire support allowing panicking units to still get a semi-activation needs to be addressed.

Thats one of the reasons Imperials suck so much against GAR right now because their suppressive weapons are marginalized by fire support allowing GAR to ignore the downsides of suppression.

Units should not be able to fire support if they have suppression equal to twice their courage or more.

@Khobai , please post your 10 activation GAR list. Thanks.

54 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

@Khobai , please post your 10 activation GAR list. Thanks.

I have a bunch of 10 activation GAR lists.

The one I most recently played was Rex, x6 Clonetroopers MK1with Z6s , x3 AT-RT with rotary blasters/flamers

Ive also played 10 activation lists with Rex, R2D2, x6 Clonetroopers MK1s with Z6s, x2 Arctroopers (with Fives)

There are lots of 10 activation GAR lists right now because Clonetrooper MK1s got cheaper it offset the other cost increases.

Its hard to do an 11 activation list now because strike teams just arnt worth it anymore IMO. But 10 is absolutely doable for GAR.

44 minutes ago, Khobai said:

How is cost supposed to be a negative when the rules update actually made clonetrooper MK1s cheaper? lol.

Lowering the cost of clonetrooper MK1s is what allowed GAR lists to stay around 10 activations despite arctroopers and R2D2 going up in cost. Because it offset the cost increases to those other units.

If the goal was to use cost as a balance mechanism then Clonetrooper MK1s never shouldve gone down in cost.

Cost as a negative meant that the activation number should be lower than all other factions to the point of it being meaningful. And Phase 1s are still the same point cost as previous?

47 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Im not sure that really fixes the issue. Two attacks instead of one attack just means cover counts twice instead of only once. But the potential for one shotting a character/unit with one activation still exists. I would rather see a hard cap on how many dice can be in an attack pool.

Cover counting twice is one of the perks as it can cancel up to 4 dice instead of only 2. It also means the fire supporting unit has to follow all attack steps such as only attacking units it can see, only allowing dice in the pool from eligible units, etc. Token sharing aims no longer allow cherry picking blanks from a large dice pool. A Z6 doesnt't get a surge chart from a vehicle. On the downside for the defending unit they could receive 2 suppression tokens instead of the normal 1. A few kinks to be ironed out and not intended as a definitive answer just a jumping off point for a possible solution.

The potential for a single unit to one shot another is a different conversation. To hard cap the number of dice in a pool units and/or heavies will need errata. I believe the largest a single unit can do is 11(?) which is shared by a few different units.

7 minutes ago, codytx2 said:

Cost as a negative meant that the activation number should be lower than all other factions to the point of it being meaningful. And Phase 1s are still the same point cost as previous?

Phase 1s cost less now. Z6s and extra troopers went down in cost.

Before:
Phase 1s + Z6 = 77 points
Phase 1s + Extra Trooper + Z6 = 90 points

After:
Phase 1s + Z6 = 75 points
Phase 1s + Extra Trooper + Z6 = 85 points

That cost reduction offset some of the cost increases in other units which still allows GAR to get to 10 activations.

Yes I agree GAR should have lower activations than other factions. They should struggle to reach 9 activations.

But the fact I can play a competitive 10 activation list with Rex, x6 Clonetrooper MK1s /w Z6s, and x3 AT-RTs /w rotary blasters shows that isnt the case lol.