51 minutes ago, Khobai said:

realistically an imperial governor would never be commanding troops in the field though

Realism ? In Star Wars ? I believe Obi-Wan said it best:

(To be taken as tongue-in-cheek)

53 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I mean... Rebels is canon, so despite your opinions to the contrary it is direct proof that Imperial Governors command in the field.

In a lot of ways the Empire in Star Wars is modeled off of Imperial Rome. In both the republic and imperial eras of Rome's history political power directly equated to military command. In fact they even had just one word for it: Imperium. So you saw military commanders at all levels of government. They didnt see a distinction between the two and a career in one by necessity often meant a career in the other.

Her role is much more akin to a Roman governorship than the civilian civil service role that we associate with the word in modern times. A Roman governor of a province had the power (and indeed was expected) to command legions in the field, put down local rebellions, and had practically unlimited authority on the local level.

if its canon wheres my helicopter vader?

I demand a new version of vader with speed 1 and jump 3

14 minutes ago, Khobai said:

if its canon wheres my helicopter vader?

I would love to see that patrol craft in the game as a flying transport

50 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I would love to see that patrol craft in the game as a flying transport

That's not a transport...... that's a Inquisitor....... 😉

2 minutes ago, Bigbboyd said:

That's not a transport...... that's a Inquisitor....... 😉

i think hes talking about the weird skybus thing that governor pryce was flying around in

but yes helicopter inquisitors are canon and should absolutely be in legion.

if imperials arnt going to be a good faction they should at least be a laughably stupid faction

4 hours ago, Khobai said:

i think hes talking about the weird skybus thing that governor pryce was flying around in

but yes helicopter inquisitors are canon and should absolutely be in legion.

if imperials arnt going to be a good faction they should at least be a laughably stupid faction

*shudders* Yeah... Not everything that Rebels introduced into the canon is good. It is canon though... unfortunately.

10 hours ago, Khobai said:

i think hes talking about the weird skybus thing that governor pryce was flying around in

but yes helicopter inquisitors are canon and should absolutely be in legion.

if imperials arnt going to be a good faction they should at least be a laughably stupid faction

I was trying to be humorous about the fact he quoted your statement with a GIF of the helicopter inquisitor by paraphrasing a line from New Hope..... I thought the wink smiley would sort of indicate I wasn't serious.

The problem with Weiss isn't the cost, it's his useless ability and the fact that the Imperial Hammers pilot is stapled to both vehicles.

2 minutes ago, costi said:

The problem with Weiss isn't the cost, it's his useless ability and the fact that the Imperial Hammers pilot is stapled to both vehicles.

His ability is not useless, and you don't always have 10 points to spend on the IH pilot. He's perfect at 1 point. Not every upgrade needs to be something you take every single time.

Okay, maybe not useless but super situational and difficult to take advantage of, due to the weird ranges on AT-ST weapons. So, next to useless in my book.

And the points for Hammers pilot are easy to find, you simply don't load up the AT-ST with all available weapons (which you need to do for Weiss to work best).

15 minutes ago, costi said:

Okay, maybe not useless but super situational and difficult to take advantage of, due to the weird ranges on AT-ST weapons. So, next to useless in my book.

And the points for Hammers pilot are easy to find, you simply don't load up the AT-ST with all available weapons (which you need to do for Weiss to work best).

It costs one point. You don't have to bring all three Hardpoints. A lot of people bring a second Hardpoint on the AT-ST. If you're doing that, and have A POINT to spare, then you get to shoot all 3 of your weapons one turn. Hooray! It costs one point. I can't think of a single "situation" where you can't get a target into range of each of 3 weapons at least one time in a 6 round game.

It costs one point. You don't need to throw 50 points after it to try to "take advantage" of that single solitary point.

4 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

His ability is not useless, and you don't always have 10 points to spend on the IH pilot. He's perfect at 1 point. Not every upgrade needs to be something you take every single time.

I'm not sure I would take an imperial tank without the hammer pilot.

Weiss at 1 and field commander gives just enough incentive to cripple your tank and maybe just put linked targeting on it and bossk and running your army light on characters

8 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

His ability is not useless, and you don't always have 10 points to spend on the IH pilot. He's perfect at 1 point. Not every upgrade needs to be something you take every single time.

his ability is pretty useless

because the at-st weapon range bands dont overlap enough to reasonably fire 4 weapons. you have to fire at different targets, one of which has to be within 2, and another of which has be 4 away which is incredibly goofy and difficult to pull off.

and the occupier tank doesnt even have 4 weapons

so you can never really even use arsenal 4 to its fullest. the best you can really use is arsenal 3 and even thats contingent on getting your vehicle into range 2.

imperial vehicles also dont really like to get into range 2 because they tend to die horribly to other vehicles at range 2, since anti-armor rockets and most other scary things are either range 2 or melee. imperial vehicles generally wanna stay at range 3-4 where theyre safest.

furthermore, because his ability has exhaust, you have to use a recover action to get it back. so youre losing out on an aim token (or a move action) every time you recover. you can of course combo weiss with veers for the free recover but that only helps you for one turn.

lastly taking weiss also comes with the opportunity cost of not taking one of the other pilots, both of which are better than Weiss IMO. Adding surge to hit is practically mandatory for imperial vehicles if you have the 10 points. The only time I wouldnt take hammers elite is if i wanna run a cheaper AT-ST with a grenade launcher and sergeant arbmab.

Again Weiss shouldve been 5 points, field commander, and had arsenal +1 passively (instead of +2 with exhaust). Then hed probably be worth considering.

The range band on the at-st mortar should be 3-5 not 4-infinite so it overlaps with the ranges of other weapons better which in turn would help make weiss better.

The other problem is the AT-ST weapons just cost too **** much. They should all cost 5 points less. Again that would help weiss by making it cheaper to bring additional weapons on the AT-ST.

All of the aforementioned issues contribute to the AT-ST still not being very good. I actually think the Occupier Tank is better than the AT-ST right now. Open Transport is incredibly strong. Not strong enough to make the Occupier Tank competitively viable but strong enough to make it solidly better than the AT-ST.

Hot Take: Instead of giving us the Imperial Hammers pilot in the occupier tank (an upgrade 'fix') they should have just errata'd the AT-ST to have surge:crit like they did with the airpseeder. It's a giant anti-vehicle cannon after all, it should have a higher chance to get crits past cover and dodge tokerns.

Also: All heavy vehicle weapons should have Lethal or Pierce 1 vs. troopers to represent that they are quite simply a larger scale of damage. Its a little ridiculous when you shoot a squad out in the open with a freaking tank gun, score a bunch of hits and they just save them all.

Heroes get access to Pierce not only to represent their 'plot armor' but also from a gameplay perspective to make sure that your big points sink unit almost always removes at least 1 model from the table when it activates. Heavy vehicles should get the same courtesy to make them scarier.

Also: it always bothered me that the Airspeeder main cannon is not range 4. The game has multiple small arms or squad level guns that can shoot farther than an aircraft gun. From a rule standpoint, it would have made the airspeeder better at dipping in and out of range without having to get too close.

On 12/12/2020 at 12:28 AM, KommanderKeldoth said:

Also: All heavy vehicle weapons should have Lethal or Pierce 1 vs. troopers to represent that they are quite simply a larger scale of damage. Its a little ridiculous when you shoot a squad out in the open with a freaking tank gun, score a bunch of hits and they just save them all.

To be fair the AT-ST has blast on its grenade launcher. Its pretty effective at hunting infantry as is. Although using the AT-ST to hunt infantry is kindve a waste of points since Imperials have more cost efficient means of killing infantry.

What imperials needed the AT-ST to be better at is hunting vehicles. The best vehicle hunter AT-ST is 3R/3B/3W with impact 4 and surge to hit and it barely even scratches the paint on other heavy vehicles like the AAT or especially the Saber Tank if Anakin or Padme can feed them dodge tokens.

The AT-STs lack of effectiveness against other heavy vehicles makes it hard to justify its points cost. When a vehicle costs 190+ points its not unreasonable to expect to to be good against other heavy vehicles. But the AT-ST can barely even hurt other heavy vehicles.

To that end, I would like to see a keyword like pierce that only works against vehicles with armor, something like penetrate X. For example the AT-ST's twin laser upgrade could have penetrate 1. That weapon would then be better against vehicles but not better against troopers.

On 12/12/2020 at 12:34 PM, Khobai said:

What imperials needed the AT-ST to be better at is hunting vehicles. The best vehicle hunter AT-ST is 3R/3B/3W with impact 4 and surge to hit and it barely even scratches the paint on other heavy vehicles like the AAT or especially the Saber Tank if Anakin or Padme can feed them dodge tokens.

what about Veers 2 pip, that gives out dodges and outmanouver, what about Pinned down, in that same turn that a Saber is doing 3r4b2w with impact 5 and critical 1 the AT-ST could be doing 3r3b3w with Impact 4 twice. the AT-ST is going to be doing massively more damage on those turns. this was me misreading the card

you are trying to compare a 190 point unit (with its upgrades) to 2 or 3 units that could cost anywhere from 270 points to 480 points (with upgrades), they are not comparable in any way.

How about you start comparing units directly without adding in the extras or start giving us actual lists to comment on.

1 minute ago, 5particus said:

what about Veers 2 pip, that gives out dodges and outmanouver, what about Pinned down, in that same turn that a Saber is doing 3r4b2w with impact 5 and critical 1 the AT-ST could be doing 3r3b3w with Impact 4 twice. the AT-ST is going to be doing massively more damage on those turns.

Wait, what? Neither of those cards let the AT-ST attack twice.

1 minute ago, arnoldrew said:

Wait, what? Neither of those cards let the AT-ST attack twice.

your right, i have never played as imperials and i misread the card as the Heavies token gets put back in the bag,

my bad

On 12/12/2020 at 6:34 AM, Khobai said:

What imperials needed the AT-ST to be better at is hunting vehicles. The best vehicle hunter AT-ST is 3R/3B/3W with impact 4 and surge to hit and it barely even scratches the paint on other heavy vehicles like the AAT or especially the Saber Tank if Anakin or Padme can feed them dodge tokens.

Why? This is really good at hunting vehicles imo. 9 dice and impact 4 is no joke. If you want something that wipes out a vehicle in one turn then you really don't vehicles in the game, and that's a whole other problem.

AtSt does great at killing infantry. Every time I play it, it literally erases units. It does really well at putting wounds on characters and getting up high over a lot of cover.

This has very little to do with Weiss being a field commander though. Weiss being a field commander helps with not having to take a commander and putting those points into other units. Imperials could use that. I hope they release more command cards (CIS and GAR will get more vehicle help via command cards in a couple of months)

7 hours ago, buckero0 said:

Why? This is really good at hunting vehicles imo. 9 dice and impact 4 is no joke. If you want something that wipes out a vehicle in one turn then you really don't vehicles in the game, and that's a whole other problem.

If you plug it into a dice roller program its actually not very good against other heavy vehicles. On average you only do about 2 wounds to a vehicle like a Saber Tank (less if it has a dodge token).

I dont want something that wipes out other vehicles in one turn. But for 190+ points I do expect the AT-ST to perform better against heavy vehicles than it currently does.

Its simply a matter of cost effectiveness. The AT-ST isnt quite where it needs to be for its cost.

Conversely if you look at how much damage a Saber Tank with anti-armor rockets and fire support is capable of doing to an AT-ST its utterly horrendous by comparison. Considering the disgusting damage GAR is capable of I dont think its too much to ask for the AT-ST to be a little better against heavy vehicles.

Quote

This has very little to do with Weiss being a field commander though. Weiss being a field commander helps with not having to take a commander and putting those points into other units. Imperials could use that. I hope they release more command cards (CIS and GAR will get more vehicle help via command cards in a couple of months)

It has to do with what vehicle youd choose to put Weiss in if he had field commander. IMO the Occupier Tank is currently a better choice than the AT-ST. Because the AT-ST is not worth its points cost. The weapons on the AT-ST still cost too many points to make it worthwhile for Weiss' arsenal ability. The Occupier Tank also arguably fills the anti-tank role better than the AT-ST since open transport almost completely mitigates the downsides of cumbersome/exhaust on the HH12.

12 hours ago, Khobai said:

If you plug it into a dice roller program its actually not very good against other heavy vehicles. On average you only do about 2 wounds to a vehicle like a Saber Tank (less if it has a dodge token).

I dont want something that wipes out other vehicles in one turn. But for 190+ points I do expect the AT-ST to perform better against heavy vehicles than it currently does.

Its simply a matter of cost effectiveness. The AT-ST isnt quite where it needs to be for its cost.

Conversely if you look at how much damage a Saber Tank with anti-armor rockets and fire support is capable of doing to an AT-ST its utterly horrendous by comparison. Considering the disgusting damage GAR is capable of I dont think its too much to ask for the AT-ST to be a little better against heavy vehicles.

It has to do with what vehicle youd choose to put Weiss in if he had field commander. IMO the Occupier Tank is currently a better choice than the AT-ST. Because the AT-ST is not worth its points cost. The weapons on the AT-ST still cost too many points to make it worthwhile for Weiss' arsenal ability. The Occupier Tank also arguably fills the anti-tank role better than the AT-ST since open transport almost completely mitigates the downsides of cumbersome/exhaust on the HH12.

they do comparable damage against red saves, the AT-ST gets slightly more damage on average 2.81 vs 2.72 (because of the surge), the Saber gets slightly more against Red saves with armour 2.67 vs 2.40 (because of the increased impact), the difference is tiny for a one shot comparison, if you go for a 2 shot average comparison then you start to see a difference because the Sabers missiles are on cycle, you cannot fire them every round.

Over 2 turns the AT-ST does an average of 5.62 damage against red saves and 5.34 against red saves with armour. A Saber will do only 4.49 damage against red saves and 4.17 damage against red save with armour, this is clear advantage to the AT-ST.

(averages done on https://swlegion.space/ )

The other main difference between the units comes when you look at their defense, the saber has an effective health of 18 whereas the AT-ST has an effective health of 16.5, this is the advantage that the saber has over the AT-ST

Taking both of these together, in a one on one and just shooting the Saber would take an average of 7.9 rounds to kill an AT-ST, an AT-ST would take an average of 6.7 rounds to kill a Saber,

This is reflected in the costs of these builds, 180 for the Saber (saber with AP Shells) and 190 for the AT-ST (AT-ST with Hammer Pilot and 88 twin light blasters) as i think that these are the best builds for these platforms for killing other heavies.

In summary, anyone saying that the Saber does way more damage and kills the AT-ST every time is talking out their butt and has no idea what they are on about.

On 12/15/2020 at 7:25 AM, 5particus said:

they do comparable damage against red saves, the AT-ST gets slightly more damage on average 2.81 vs 2.72 (because of the surge), the Saber gets slightly more against Red saves with armour 2.67 vs 2.40 (because of the increased impact), the difference is tiny for a one shot comparison, if you go for a 2 shot average comparison then you start to see a difference because the Sabers missiles are on cycle, you cannot fire them every round.

Over 2 turns the AT-ST does an average of 5.62 damage against red saves and 5.34 against red saves with armour. A Saber will do only 4.49 damage against red saves and 4.17 damage against red save with armour, this is clear advantage to the AT-ST.

(averages done on https://swlegion.space/ )

The other main difference between the units comes when you look at their defense, the saber has an effective health of 18 whereas the AT-ST has an effective health of 16.5, this is the advantage that the saber has over the AT-ST

Taking both of these together, in a one on one and just shooting the Saber would take an average of 7.9 rounds to kill an AT-ST, an AT-ST would take an average of 6.7 rounds to kill a Saber,

This is reflected in the costs of these builds, 180 for the Saber (saber with AP Shells) and 190 for the AT-ST (AT-ST with Hammer Pilot and 88 twin light blasters) as i think that these are the best builds for these platforms for killing other heavies.

In summary, anyone saying that the Saber does way more damage and kills the AT-ST every time is talking out their butt and has no idea what they are on about.

did you include anti-armor rockets for the saber tank?

anti-armor rockets are what make the saber tank ridiculous against other heavy vehicles. it gets impact 5, critical 1.

On 12/15/2020 at 12:25 PM, 5particus said:

they do comparable damage against red saves, the AT-ST gets slightly more damage on average 2.81 vs 2.72 (because of the surge), the Saber gets slightly more against Red saves with armour 2.67 vs 2.40 (because of the increased impact), the difference is tiny for a one shot comparison, if you go for a 2 shot average comparison then you start to see a difference because the Sabers missiles are on cycle, you cannot fire them every round.

Over 2 turns the AT-ST does an average of 5.62 damage against red saves and 5.34 against red saves with armour. A Saber will do only 4.49 damage against red saves and 4.17 damage against red save with armour, this is clear advantage to the AT-ST.

(averages done on https://swlegion.space/ )

The other main difference between the units comes when you look at their defense, the saber has an effective health of 18 whereas the AT-ST has an effective health of 16.5, this is the advantage that the saber has over the AT-ST

Taking both of these together, in a one on one and just shooting the Saber would take an average of 7.9 rounds to kill an AT-ST, an AT-ST would take an average of 6.7 rounds to kill a Saber,

This is reflected in the costs of these builds, 180 for the Saber (saber with AP Shells) and 190 for the AT-ST (AT-ST with Hammer Pilot and 88 twin light blasters) as i think that these are the best builds for these platforms for killing other heavies.

In summary, anyone saying that the Saber does way more damage and kills the AT-ST every time is talking out their butt and has no idea what they are on about.

12 hours ago, Khobai said:

did you include anti-armor rockets for the saber tank?

anti-armor rockets are what make the saber tank ridiculous against other heavy vehicles. it gets impact 5, critical 1.

yes i did include the AP Shells, as i said in the post, the AT-ST is better overall on a one to one comparison

Once again proving that you don't read the posts that you comment on

16 hours ago, 5particus said:

yes i did include the AP Shells, as i said in the post, the AT-ST is better overall on a one to one comparison

Once again proving that you don't read the posts that you comment on

Your results severely differ from mine. Thats why i asked.

AT-ST with Twin Laser (3R/3B/3W, Impact 4, Surge to Hit --> 190 points) vs Saber Tank's Red Save + Armor = 2.41 hits on average

Saber Tank with Anti-Armor Rockets (3R/4B/2W, Impact 5, Critical 1--> 180 points, 194 with the twin laser)
vs AT-ST's white save with surge + Armor = 3.56 hits on average
vs red save + Armor = 2.68 hits on average <--- even against a red save its still better than the AT-ST

If you give the Saber Tank the benefit of outmaneuver and 1 dodge token it skews even more in favor of the Saber Tank with the AT-ST only averaging 2.01 hits against the Saber Tank. The Saber tank having access to a dodge token is fairly likely due to token sharing abilities like exemplar that can give the Saber Tank tokens on demand. With a dodge factored in, the Saber Tank is doing almost twice the damage output as the AT-ST. And it has more overall health than the AT-ST (18 health for the saber tank and 16.5 health for the at-st).

I also need to mention fire support. Because a fire supported Saber Tank absolutely crushes an AT-ST. Were talking dead in 2 turns. A fire supported Saber Tank can do 6-7 wounds to an AT-ST easily! Imperials can fire support their AT-ST with a mortar I suppose but thats not nearly as scary as what the Saber Tank is capable of. Just having the option of a massive fire support attack makes the Saber Tank so much better.

So im not sure where youre getting that the AT-ST is better when its clearly not. the AT-ST will almost always lose that fight unless theres some serious deviation in the dice results. And the GAR player literally has to not be using token sharing or fire support for some confounded reason. Saber Tanks also have access to field commander which gives GAR even more options Imperials dont have. Theres also the minor advantages the Saber Tank has over the AT-ST like being able to strafe and being a hover/repulsor tank instead which is better than a walker.

Im gonna have to stick to my original conclusion that the AT-ST is not very good compared to the Saber Tank. GAR is better able to support their Saber Tank with other units in their army and that makes all the difference. Imperials really dont have all that much that can support an AT-ST aside from maybe Veers throwing an aim token on it. But GAR can do that too and in ways that are way more flexible and versatile than Veers.

Theres really nothing that makes the AT-ST stand out compared to a Saber Tank. Its essentially just a way worse Saber Tank in every way that matters. Not really surprising since a lot of imperial units are worse than their GAR counterparts. The worst part though is the fact the AT-ST isnt even significantly cheaper than the Saber Tank. A 10 point cost reduction on the AT-ST wasnt enough to make it viable.

What changes do I think the AT-ST needs? Give it scout 1 because its a scout walker. Decrease the cost of all AT-ST weapons by 5 points each. give the twin laser critical 1 so its better against armor. change the mortar's range from 4+ to 3-5 so its range overlaps with other weapons. Give Weiss Field Commander and passive Arsenal 1 (no more exhaust) and make him cost 5 points.

3 hours ago, Khobai said:

Your results severely differ from mine. Thats why i asked.

AT-ST with Twin Laser (3R/3B/3W, Impact 4, Surge to Hit --> 190 points) vs Saber Tank's Red Save + Armor = 2.41 hits on average

Saber Tank with Anti-Armor Rockets (3R/4B/2W, Impact 5, Critical 1--> 180 points, 194 with the twin laser)
vs AT-ST's white save with surge + Armor = 3.56 hits on average
vs red save + Armor = 2.68 hits on average <--- even against a red save its still better than the AT-ST

If you give the Saber Tank the benefit of outmaneuver and 1 dodge token it skews even more in favor of the Saber Tank with the AT-ST only averaging 2.01 hits against the Saber Tank. The Saber tank having access to a dodge token is fairly likely due to token sharing abilities like exemplar that can give the Saber Tank tokens on demand. With a dodge factored in, the Saber Tank is doing almost twice the damage output as the AT-ST. And it has more overall health than the AT-ST (18 health for the saber tank and 16.5 health for the at-st).

I also need to mention fire support. Because a fire supported Saber Tank absolutely crushes an AT-ST. Were talking dead in 2 turns. Imperials can fire support their AT-ST with a mortar I suppose but thats not nearly as scary as what the Saber Tank is capable of with fire support. Just having the option of a massive fire support attack makes the Saber Tank so much better.

So im not sure where youre getting that the AT-ST is better when its clearly not. the AT-ST will almost always lose that fight unless theres some serious deviation in the dice results. And the GAR player literally has to not be using token sharing or fire support for some confounded reason. Saber Tanks also have access to field commander which gives GAR even more options Imperials dont have. Theres also the minor advantages the Saber Tank has over the AT-ST like being able to strafe and being a hover/repulsor tank instead which is better than a walker.

Im gonna have to stick to my original conclusion that the AT-ST is not very good compared to the Saber Tank. GAR is better able to support their Saber Tank with other units in their army and that makes all the difference. Imperials really dont have all that much that can support an AT-ST aside from maybe Veers throwing an aim token on it. But GAR can do that too and in ways that are way more flexible and versatile than Veers.

Theres really nothing that makes the AT-ST stand out compared to a Saber Tank. Its essentially just a way worse Saber Tank in every way that matters. Not really surprising since a lot of imperial units are worse than their GAR counterparts. The worst part though is the fact the AT-ST isnt even significantly cheaper than the Saber Tank. A 10 point cost reduction on the AT-ST wasnt enough to make it viable.

What changes do I think the AT-ST needs? Give it scout 1 because its a scout walker. Decrease the cost of all AT-ST weapons by 5 points each. give the twin laser critical 1 so its better against armor. change the mortar's range from 4+ to 3-5. Give Weiss Field Commander and passive Arsenal 1 (no more exhaust) and make him cost 5 points.

I think most of this analysis borders so far on the circumstantial or hypothetical it is not really relevant to the comparison originally being made. In order to have access to dodge tokens in the manner prescribed, one either needs Padme or Anakin (the two units with exemplar). Taking Padme would further necessitate also taking another commander, the cheapest option of which right now is Rex,. As a whole, one is committing almost half their points- and this is without taking any further upgrades than the ordinance rockets on the saber tank and none on Anakin or Padme/Rex- just for the tank and an exemplar unit. (Anakin and Saber being 340, Padme/Rex and the Saber being 360). And to be fair, exemplar can be used for the benefit of the army, not just the tank, so that is not necessarily that detrimental, except that in this analysis it seems to assume that the exemplar unit is providing its dodges almost exclusively to the tank as its said that the tank can access these doges "on demand." In order for it to be "on demand" access, it is assuming there is ALWAYS a dodge on the exemplar unit to be shared, meaning it cannot be used for the benefit of any unit but the tank. It is also assuming that the exemplar unit will always activate prior to the tank being shot at or will gain a dodge before the tank being shot at through command cards or card effects such as padme's 1 pip and 2 pips, which is not always the case. If one was facing someone who has the exemplar tank combo, and they think they are going to try to spam out dodges for the tank with the exemplar, and they also are committed to a tank v tank battle as opposed to trying to gain utility and value from their tank elsewhere, it is reasonable that one would try to gain priority to activate their tank first to limit the enemies ability to share dodges. But similar to this analysis, that borders heavily on hypothetical in game events that can quite literally vary game to game based on the objective, deployment, rng with dice, prio control, etc. This analysis is granting the benefit of long term speculative strategizing to the republic in this situation, but not the imperials. There is counterplay to someone who is dodge spamming their tank as you mentioned, or at least other options one can devote their tank to to gain back value if they're determined they cannot win that fight.

The tank also can gain access to dodges through Plo Koon or through the clone pilot that allows a one time token sharing with clones. In either case, this again changes the analysis. That is 9 more points for Plo Koon, and 7 for the clone pilot, in either case increasing the cost of the saber tank by a small yet substantial margin. Plo koon, while quite good, is exhaustible and requires moving in order to proc. More often than not, this will result in him being used once, maybe twice in a game, as you would have to recover and move with him to gain the dodges more than the first time, and to do this in a single turn necessarily means you cannot shoot. So, he effectively guarantees 2, and maybe 4 dodges, but only two on any given turn, and only after the tank activates, which again you are assuming that you are activating your tank prior to the enemies in order for this to be a benefit in the tank vs tank matchup. This is again too presumptive out of game. As for the clone pilot, he may allow access to a single dodge on a given turn, prior to the tank activating, but it still requires that a given clone trooper unit has activated first, dodged as opposed to another action, and is in range one and line of sight. This is a much more restrictive set of conditions than exemplar, and I don't think one can really attach the idea of "on demand" dodges to it given that its once per turn and has several other limitations; that is, unless they set aside an entire unit to only generate dodges for the tank every turn, which is at minimum a 52 point commitment to the tanks defense.

And, similarly to how this analysis claims the republic tank can get support, the AT ST has reasonable access to support as well. Veers 2 pip card provides a dodge for the AT ST and allows it to dodge crits; in this analysis, you said if you give the saber tank the benefit of outmaneuver and ONE dodge token it skews the battle, but with Veer's two pip one can provide the same to the AT ST. Veer's one pip allows a 4 red, impact 2 attack one can use as an early strike against the tank, which at even the assumed odds of only getting 2 crits, would send one damage through the red saves of the saber tank. And, just as Padme or Anakin have a way in which to provide dodges to the saber tank, veers can provide aims to the AT ST, which is an increase to its offensive capability. Though this also suffers the same problem as the exemplar build, because its assuming that veers activates first to give out his aim. However, Veers is only a 90 point increase to support the tank in this way, whereas Padme, due to requiring a commander being taken with her, is a 180 point increase and Anakin is a 160 point increase to support the saber tank respectively. Now, one could also make the argument that those aren't that great of command cards to take, and that other ones are better for the imperials, but in the context of this comparison where it is two tanks duking it out, one can take those cards to even out the fight. It might not be the best set of cards overall, but if one's strategy is heavily tank reliant or you want it to act as a hammer in your army, and where you think the enemy has a tank such as the saber tank and means of supporting it, these cards become much more valuable. Their value depends heavily on what you expect your opponent to do, what your intent for the tank is, and how you think they will build for and react to your tank. And again, that broaches the realm of speculation, hypothetical, and contextual circumstances, both pre-game and in game.

Finally, lets talk fire support. Fire support is an admittedly top tier key word that can do a lot of damage, and though I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it broken it definitely approaches that on the game balance spectrum. However, fire supporting a saber tank against the AT ST might actually be a negative use of the ability. Fire support is primarily good for the following reasons; it allows the consolidation of two attack pools into one, which makes it so the enemies cover is only applied once to a scale of damage wherein it would normally be applied twice, and it can allow quick eradication of enemy activations to quickly turn the tide of activation control. The AT ST, being a heavy vehicle, doesn't receive the benefit of cover, and so the benefit of essentially negating a use of cover is ignored. And in order for the one shot ability to be useful, it needs to truly eliminate something or reduce it down to where its activation is hardly relevant; otherwise, you are essentially forfeiting an action. If it does not do sufficient damage to one shot something or reduce its value to a point of irrelevance, there is not really a large difference between fire supporting and sending the attacks in two separate activations other than the cover benefit (which, as established, is mute against the AT ST). At that point, one is reducing their action economy needlessly. Given the damage that the analysis stated the two tanks alone will put through each other on a given turn, it seems unlikely for fire support to function as a one shot capability against the AT ST. The only benefit the fire support might bring is attaching the impact and critical value of the saber tank to the attack pool; however, the saber tank, on the whole, has pretty good odds of procing its own impact max value itself with the anti armor and main gun attack, being impact 5 with 3 red, 4 black, and two white. So there really isn't a gain there in using fire support. So, one is essentially reducing their action economy by one in order to do the same damage to the AT ST that they would would if they simply attacked it with the saber tank and fire support unit respectively. And at that point, one is pretty much just acknowledging that other units can target the tanks. Which is entirely accurate, but it applies to both sides evenly. The republic does have a slightly better anti armor corps unit because the HH 12 is god awfully bad, but the saber tank has weak point on the sides which makes getting at least some impact against it much easier for all enemy units. All in all, that again gets into in game how much each player respectively wants to commit to the tank, how much they value the tank, what the objective is, etc. It steers substantially far from the original base comparison of a one on one between the two tanks.

I do want to add this disclaimer because this is my first post in these forums. and also because I've read a lot of these debates on the forums in the last few months and feel like you catch a lot of heat Khobai. I am not disagreeing to be contrary, nor to target you, and I am not going to invalidate you by calling you a "troll." I respect your opinion as your own opinion, and think you can make some very accurate and compelling points. While writing my response, I did the best to try and keep it objective and focused on my analysis without targeting something you said as absurd or bad. My comment stands for what it claims too; there was a debate that I find interesting, and I believe that the analysis I'm quoting is flawed for the reasons mentioned in my own analysis. This is predicated on my own experience, game knowledge, and logic- it by no means is definitive, and I'm sure you probably disagree. By all means, I would be interested in hearing how you disagree, if you do, too further the discourse on this topic.