Again you are comparing a lone AT-ST to a Saber supported by other units.

You also ignore the fact that Saber rockets have cycle, which makes his damage output uneven (which was taken into account by @5particus if you had bothered to actually read his post).

4 hours ago, costi said:

Again you are comparing a lone AT-ST to a Saber supported by other units.

No. Im simply pointing out that GAR has the option to support the Saber Tank and that Imperials have almost no options for supporting the AT-ST.

Units being able to support or be supported by other units has inherent value. That supportability is one of the key advantages that makes the Saber Tank outright better than the AT-ST. In fact, GAR having strong factional advantages and Imperials having almost no factional advantages creates a huge power level disparity across the board between those two factions.

What exactly does the AT-ST get? It gets no factional advantages. It does nothing that makes it stand out compared to a Saber Tank. It doesnt even get field commander on a character that FFG themselves created and described as being a field commander lol. The AT-ST is just straight up worse in every way that matters.

Quote

You also ignore the fact that Saber rockets have cycle, which makes his damage output uneven (which was taken into account by @5particus if you had bothered to actually read his post).

The Saber Tank can still take a recover action to refresh the anti-armor rockets. Its entirely possible for a fire supported Saber Tank to kill an AT-ST in 2 turns with purely average dice rolls. Conversely I dont believe theres any way an AT-ST can ever kill a Saber Tank in 2 turns with average rolls. Its just outclassed completely in the bigger picture.

Im not saying Imperials should be able to support their units as well as GAR, because synergistic support is actually GAR's faction advantage. What im saying is Imperial units shouldnt be worse versions of GAR units and right now Imperial units seemingly have no faction advantages of their own whatsoever. And it isnt just an isolated incident between the AT-ST and the Saber Tank. Theres numerous examples of Imperial units that are straight up worse than their GAR counterparts and the list will continue to grow with time. The lack of factional advantages isnt just a balance problem either, it also makes it so imperial units arnt particular interesting or exciting to use.

For example whenever I put down Vader on the board and im not thinking of all the cool things Vader can do. Im thinking of all the cool things the opponent can do to kill him and how I can possibly avoid that. Theres no excitement to playing Vader. Theres just contempt for how slow Vader is and how I have to play him so much more reservedly and carefully than other jedi characters because they decided to make him speed 1 and gave him zero compensation for it. Vader should do at least one cool thing to make up for his crippling speed-1 weakness, and he doesnt. And then they came out with Anakin for GAR...

I definitely think there should be some kindve special rules update that focuses specifically on fixing everything thats wrong with the Imperial faction. Having to wait another year to hope Vader maybe gets fixed is not something Imperial players should have to be put through.

3 hours ago, Khobai said:

No. Im simply pointing out that GAR has the option to support the Saber Tank and that Imperials have almost no options for supporting the AT-ST.

You keep saying this, but that's not entirely true. You see the Imperials have this guy that passes out Aim tokens. There are also generic options for creating and passing out dodge and aim tokens.

You can even pass out surge tokens (they don't help on defense) on the AtSt. It's not as easy as the token sharing the Clones do, but they still have to generate the tokens and be in range and LOS which takes precious turns. So it's not a given the saber tank will have everything it needs when it needs them.

1 hour ago, buckero0 said:

You keep saying this, but that's not entirely true. You see the Imperials have this guy that passes out Aim tokens. There are also generic options for creating and passing out dodge and aim tokens.

You can even pass out surge tokens (they don't help on defense) on the AtSt. It's not as easy as the token sharing the Clones do, but they still have to generate the tokens and be in range and LOS which takes precious turns. So it's not a given the saber tank will have everything it needs when it needs them.

so imperials have 1 guy that can pass out 1 aim token to the at-st? dodge tokens dont do the at-st any good because it lacks outmaneuver (unless you mean the one turn Veers uses his laughably bad 2-pip command card that nobody ever takes anyway)

and surge tokens dont do the at-st any good because it should already have both surge to hit and surge to defend.

wow so much support. you just backed up my argument that imperials cant really support the at-st very well...

Lets review:

Saber Tank:
+can be fire supported to do MASSIVE damage
+can have aim/dodge tokens shared with it using numerous methods (clone pilot or exemplar)
+has better base survivability and outmaneuver
+has better anti-vehicle firepower and similar anti-trooper firepower
+has better mobility (strafe, hover, repulsor vehicle).
+can block LoS to friendly units
+can have field commander
+generally costs 190-200 points

AT-ST:
+has 1 guy that can give it 1 aim token a turn.
+same guy can give it outmaneuver for one turn if you use the worst command card in the game
+generally costs 180-190 points

WOW YOURE RIGHT THAT TOTALLY MAKES THEM EQUAL.

the reality is the at-st is complete trash in comparison... all of the advantages the saber tank gets are worth more than a 10 point difference.

Im not saying the at-st should necessarily be as good as the saber tank in combat. Its a scout walker afterall. The problem is it doesnt FEEL like a scout walker. The AT-ST should have scout-1 and light transport 1: closed. now its a scout walker. now it can transport vader around like in ESB. And now it does things the Saber Tank cant so its not straight up worse than the Saber Tank. Aside from that Weiss should cost 5 points but have field commander and passive arsenal +1 (no more exhaust). And the AT-STs weapons cost too many points (all its weapons should cost 5 points less) and they need some minor changes like giving the twin laser critical 1 and changing the mortars range to 3-5 so the mortar is actually usable for dealing suppression since thats supposed to be the imperials faction advantage...

On 12/19/2020 at 9:21 PM, 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. 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.

you are completely ignoring the fact that i said 1 on 1 aren't you, 1 on 1 means that there are no other units involved,

I will admit that i messed up on the defense part of the calculations, i added in the defense twice (average damage after red save's and then effective health rather than just health) so it took twice as long for them to kill each other

I have redone the numbers (and corrected for the AT-ST having white surge defense not red) and even after that the AT-ST does more damage on average over 2 turns to the saber than the saber can do to the AS-ST, 5.62 wounds after saves over 2 turns on the saber and 5.56 wounds after saves on the AT-ST over 2 turns, the AT-ST wins because it has more health although both would be dead after 4 rounds of shooting so it depends on who goes first.

you complaining about outmaneuver is laughable though, it will almost never have an effect in this match up, this is because dodges are spent before impact is applied so it doesn't need outmaneuver to get the benefit from dodges unless the AT-ST rolled all crits. Outmaneuver is there to mitigate damage from units like sniper teams that rely on crits to do damage to armoured vehicles, it does nothing against impact weapons. The AT-ST can also take a dodge but 90+% of the time both vehicles are going to take Aims not dodges so why are you even thinking about adding a dodge into the equation.

If the GAR is better able to support their heavy then that means that you have put points into supporting that heavy, the only units that can support the heavy well without any other upgrades are Padme and Anakin with Exemplar, usually you want to be using these 2 units to support the other units in your army that need the support not the one unit in your army that doesn't need it. Not to mention the fact that they have to go before the Saber if you want the benefit from this.

Fire supporting a saber against an armoured target is also a waste of an activation unless it can add either some critical or impact to the dice pool (none of which are common heavies to take) the saber will already use most/all of its impact and most likely its critical as well so any dice pool that you are adding on to it is useless without more keywords as it is just going to be crit fishing with a 1/8 chance of a crit per die, average of 1.25 crits for a full squad with a z6, way better to fire that at another unit that doesn't have armour and get an extra aim as well.

You always seem to ignore the support the Imperials can give the AT-ST with their generics not veers, what about evasive manouvers, that gives out dodges and outmaneuver, why does that never come up, what about coordinated fire, that also never comes up, that one give out 3 Aims to your troopers that can be used and then given to the AT-ST as well, way better than being able to share the tokens, you get to use each token twice (or more) as well as pass it on to another unit.

GAR currently also has no good way of getting spotter without spending 8 points on the electobinoculars and then wasting a units action that they are usually far better off spending on a move, shoot or even an aim action for themselves that they could pass on to a different unit if needed (but not the Saber because almost no one takes the pilot that allows you to do that)

if you are complaining about the Saber being better then why are you never complaining about the AAT? it is far better for only 185 points than either the Saber or the AT-ST, it has 5 red 2 black attack with critical 2 and impact 4 and on the rounds where the shells are cycling it has 2 attacks with 4 red dice and critical 2 impact 1 in one activation. It also has outmanouver and field commander. It averages 6.05 damage after saves every 2 turns against the AT-ST so will kill it even faster than the Saber but again both the AT-ST and AAT are dead after 4 turns on average so it depends on who goes first.

2 hours ago, Khobai said:

so imperials have 1 guy that can pass out 1 aim token to the at-st? dodge tokens dont do the at-st any good because it lacks outmaneuver (unless you mean the one turn Veers uses his laughably bad 2-pip command card that nobody ever takes anyway)

and surge tokens dont do the at-st any good because it should already have both surge to hit and surge to defend.

wow so much support. you just backed up my argument that imperials cant really support the at-st very well...

Lets review:

Saber Tank:
+can be fire supported to do MASSIVE damage True but costs an activation
+can have aim/dodge tokens shared with it using numerous methods (clone pilot or exemplar) True but so does the AT-ST, with Spotter and Co-ordinated fire
+has better base survivability and outmaneuver 1.5 effective health difference or 8.3%, not that much really, outmaneuver also only works against natural crits and critical not impact
-+has better anti-vehicle firepower and similar anti-trooper firepower, wrong, the AT-ST has better Anti tank firepower and better anti personnel firepower
+has better mobility (strafe, hover, repulsor vehicle). true, but the AT-ST can also see over most LOS blocking terrain to get a shot in while benefiting from that same cover
+can block LoS to friendly units Possible but very unlikely, usually there will be a bit of the template showing so the unit can still be shot at as it is still quite short
+can have field commander I'll give you this one, not sure why they didn't give it to Weiss
+generally costs 190-200 points

AT-ST:
+has 1 guy that can give it 1 aim token a turn. 2 guys not 1 (veers and generic), and taking Electro binoculars is worth it sometimes on a naked storm trooper
+same guy can give it outmaneuver for one turn if you use the worst command card in the game again not really relevant except against natural crits or critical X
+generally costs 180-190 points

WOW YOURE RIGHT THAT TOTALLY MAKES THEM EQUAL. yeah it does, in fact the AT-ST come out on top in pretty much any 1 on 1, it is the Army supporting that makes the difference not the heavy unit that it the problem and the Heavy should not pay the price for the rest of the army supporting it well

the reality is the at-st is complete trash in comparison... all of the advantages the saber tank gets are worth more than a 10 point difference.

Im not saying the at-st should necessarily be as good as the saber tank in combat. Its a scout walker afterall. The problem is it doesnt FEEL like a scout walker. The AT-ST should have scout-1 and light transport 1: closed. now its a scout walker. now it can transport vader around like in ESB. And now it does things the Saber Tank cant so its not straight up worse than the Saber Tank. Aside from that Weiss should cost 5 points but have field commander and passive arsenal +1 (no more exhaust). And the AT-STs weapons cost too many points (all its weapons should cost 5 points less) and they need some minor changes like giving the twin laser critical 1 and changing the mortars range to 3-5 so the mortar is actually usable for dealing suppression since thats supposed to be the imperials faction advantage...

Quote

yeah it does, in fact the AT-ST come out on top in pretty much any 1 on 1, it is the Army supporting that makes the difference not the heavy unit that it the problem and the Heavy should not pay the price for the rest of the army supporting it well

The AT-ST doesnt come out on top in 1v1. Ive already gone over the dice statistics which completely disproves what youre saying. the saber tank is not only better 1v1 but gets even better still when properly supported.

Also when did I ever say the Saber Tank should pay a tax for being supported? I never once said the saber tank should be nerfed because it can be supported.

All I ever asked for was the AT-ST to get buffed.

Quote

wrong, the AT-ST has better Anti tank firepower and better anti personnel firepower

legion dice simulator says otherwise.

AT-ST = 3R/3B/3W + impact 4 + surge to hit = 2.41 hits vs red save
Saber = 3R/4B/2W + impact 5 + critical 1 = 2.68 hits vs red save

2.68 is greater than 2.41

And the saber tank can do a recover action to refresh its ordnance. It does not need to use cycle.

lets look at survivability now:

AT-ST = 11 health / 2/3 - 16.5 effective health
Saber Tank = 9 health / 1/2 = 18 effective health

Saber Tank also has outmaneuver and numerous ways to get dodge tokens. So the Saber Tank is the clear winner on survivability.

So if the saber tank does more damage every turn and has more effective health how could the AT-ST possibly beat it 1v1?

Quote

I have redone the numbers (and corrected for the AT-ST having white surge defense not red) and even after that the AT-ST does more damage on average over 2 turns to the saber than the saber can do to the AS-ST, 5.62 wounds after saves over 2 turns on the saber and 5.56 wounds after saves on the AT-ST over 2 turns, the AT-ST wins because it has more health although both would be dead after 4 rounds of shooting so it depends on who goes first.

Your numbers are wrong.

I have compared the AT-ST with twin laser 3R/3B/3W and impact 4 and surge to hit to the Saber Tank with anti-armor rockets 3R/4B/2W and impact 5/critical 1 and the Saber Tank does more damage. The Saber Tank can also take more damage before being destroyed.

Also your 2 turn damage analysis is flawed because it completely omits the fact the saber tank can use a recover action to use anti-armor rockets every turn. their use is not limited to every other turn as you have misled everyone to believe.

Your comparison also ignored all of the other inherent advantages of the Saber Tank. Like its superior mobility.

Furthermore comparing the two 1v1 is absurd anyway because the game isnt 1v1. The Saber Tank is outright better when you look at it in the context of actual gameplay which is two armies fighting eachother and not purely 1v1.

You who else is good 1v1? Vader. But you know why Vader isnt good? Because the games not 1v1. thats exactly why 1v1 comparisons dont work. Because its an army vs army game. And you need to take the entire army into consideration.

Quote

Fire supporting a saber against an armoured target is also a waste of an activation unless it can add either some critical or impact to the dice pool

The saber tank adds impact 5, critical 1 to the dice pool. So yes it is absolutely worth fire supporting a saber against an armored target specifically because it DOES add both impact and critical to the attack pool.

Quote

if you are complaining about the Saber being better then why are you never complaining about the AAT?

Im not complaining about the Saber being better. Im complaining at the AT-ST being worse. The Saber Tank doesnt need to be nerfed. The AT-ST needs to be buffed.

FFG said the AAT is supposed to be the baseline for all heavy vehicles. why would I complain about the vehicle thats supposed to be the baseline for all other vehicles?

I would say the Saber Tank and AAT are fairly close to eachother. My complaint is that the AT-ST wasnt buffed to the same baseline as the AAT.

But again my expectation isnt even for the AT-ST to be as good in combat as the Saber Tank or AAT. I would settle for the AT-ST becoming an actual Scout Walker by getting rules such as Scout-1 and Light Transport 1: Closed. A rule like unhindered would be nice as well since all-terrain should mean its all-terrain. As well as a few of the other minor buffs I listed above. I want it to feel more like a scout walker which it currently doesnt.

TLDR: Wow I actually expect a unit called an "all-terrain scout transport" to have rules reminiscent of it being all-terrain, a scout, and a transport? How HORRIBLY unreasonable of me to expect a unit to do exactly what its name says it does . Its almost as ridiculous as expecting Vader to be more than a speed 1 potato.

30 minutes ago, Khobai said:

The AT-ST doesnt come out on top in 1v1. Ive already gone over the dice statistics which completely disproves what youre saying. the saber tank is not only better 1v1 but gets even better still when properly supported.

Your numbers are wrong.

I have compared the AT-ST with 3R/3B/3W and impact 4 and surge to hit to the Saber Tank with 3R/4B/2W and impact 5/critical 1 and the Saber Tank does more damage. The Saber Tank can also take more damage before being destroyed.

And your 2 turn analysis is flawed because it completely omits the fact the saber tank can use a recover action to use anti-armor rockets every turn. their use is not limited to every other turn.

OK, here are the stats for shots with the various platforms with and without aims. sure with the saber if you aim shoot on the first turn and then recover shoot the 2nd and 3rd turn you can on average kill it on the 3rd turn, only just though so usually on the 4th turn. The AT-ST is firing back though and because it doesn't have to recover it can aim every time, and on average it will also kill the saber on the 4th turn.

that's all assuming that the saber is recovering every turn, in reality both the saber and AT-ST would be moving to either get into a firing position or to take objectives or to provide cover meaning the Saber is losing its shells every other turn but the AT-ST is only losing an Aim. This means that the AT-ST just about goes down in round 4 and the saber goes down in round 4 on average.

Not really seeing much of a difference

51 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Furthermore comparing them 1v1 is absurd because the game isnt 1v1. The Saber Tank is outright better when you look at the bigger picture which is not 1v1.

Im not complaining about the Saber being better. Im complaining at the AT-ST being worse. The Saber Tank doesnt need to be nerfed. The AT-ST needs to be buffed.

FFG said the AAT is supposed to be the baseline for all heavy vehicles. why would I complain about the vehicle thats supposed to be the baseline for all other vehicles?

My complaint is that the AT-ST wasnt buffed to the same baseline as the AAT.

it is not the tank that is better it is that the tank can have better support from the rest of the army.

you are complaining about the Saber being better when it is not. i could see the AT-ST weapons coming down in price but that is it and only by a little.

if you are not complaining about the saber being better and the Baseline heavy is the AAT then why are you never comparing the AT-ST to the AAT, the AAT is better than the Saber as well.

all you do is complain about GAR and for no good reason, pretty much everyone on here thinks that the IMPS need a buff, that does not mean nerfing the other factions units.

20 minutes ago, 5particus said:

all you do is complain about GAR and for no good reason, pretty much everyone on here thinks that the IMPS need a buff, that does not mean nerfing the other factions units.

I never once suggested nerfing the saber tank though.

Again I only ever suggested buffing the AT-ST. And in mostly non-combat ways that make it more capable towards its namesake of being all-terrain, a scout, and a transport.

The fact the AT-ST doesnt do a single thing in its name is kindve ludicrous. unhindered, scout 1, and light transport 1: closed are all reasonable buffs for the AT-ST. The other buffs I suggested are reasonable as well.

And I dont complain about GAR for no reason. I have perfectly good reasons. That Imperial units are straight up worse than their GAR counterparts. And I have demonstrated that for multiple Imperial units. Imperials definitely need some major buffs so they dont just end up being a worse version of GAR.

The only nerf GAR needs is a slight change to fire support so it cant be used to easily circumvent suppression/panic. Because I dont believe the game designers ever intended for fire support to be used in that way. Units with twice their courage in suppression tokens should not be able to fire support. Again that is 100% reasonable because suppression is not supposed to be completely useless.

On 12/19/2020 at 8:44 PM, Captain Teemo said:

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

Padme can generate 2 dodge tokens a turn with her actions. And every one of her command cards gives her one or more dodge tokens often during the command phase so theyll be available at any time during the turn. So the assumption of her having multiple dodge tokens available is a good one.

If GAR wants their tank to have access to a dodge token they easily make it happen through numerous means. Thats a fact.

Quote

And, similarly to how this analysis claims the republic tank can get support, the AT ST has reasonable access to support as well

Any support Veers provides GAR can easily match and exceed with Padme and fire support.

Veers command cards are also considered among the worst in the game. And they are certainly worse than Padmes.

Quote

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.

GAR doesnt have to pay extra for a commander at all. GAR can take field commander on the saber tank for 5 points. The Saber Tank becomes the commander.

You have it backwards. Its actually Imperials that have to pay for a commander because they dont have field commander.

Quote

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 definitely broken on some level. Not only because of the damage it allows but also because it allows GAR to completely ignore panic/suppression. Fire Support does so many different things that when you list everything it does its hard to view it any other way than being broken. Do you really think the game designers intended Fire Support to allow GAR to circumvent panic/suppression game mechanics? Because I certainly dont.

Using fire support against the AT-ST is absolutely not a negative use of the ability because the tank adds upto impact 5 and critical 1 to the fire support attack pool. Fire supporting a saber tank is by far the most effective way to destroy an AT-ST. Because it maximizes the likelihood of fully using the impact 5 keyword.

51 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Padme can generate 2 dodge tokens a turn with her actions. And every one of her command cards gives her one or more dodge tokens often during the command phase so theyll be available at any time during the turn. So the assumption of her having multiple dodge tokens available is a good one.

If GAR wants their tank to have access to a dodge token they easily make it happen through numerous means. Thats a fact.

Any support Veers provides GAR can easily match and exceed with Padme and fire support.

Veers command cards are also considered among the worst in the game. And they are certainly worse than Padmes.

GAR doesnt have to pay extra for a commander at all. GAR can take field commander on the saber tank for 5 points. The Saber Tank becomes the commander.

You have it backwards. Its actually Imperials that have to pay for a commander because they dont have field commander.

Fire Support is definitely broken on some level. Not only because of the damage it allows but also because it allows GAR to completely ignore panic/suppression. Fire Support does so many different things that when you list everything it does its hard to view it any other way than being broken. Do you really think the game designers intended Fire Support to allow GAR to circumvent panic/suppression game mechanics? Because I certainly dont.

Using fire support against the AT-ST is absolutely not a negative use of the ability because the tank adds upto impact 5 and critical 1 to the fire support attack pool. Fire supporting a saber tank is by far the most effective way to destroy an AT-ST. Because it maximizes the likelihood of fully using the impact 5 keyword.

Respectfully, it seems you may have missed a few things in my original post. Again, I am quoting you in saying "on demand access," which necessitates dodges always being there. Regardless of it being 1 or 2 generated per turn, with two assuming Padme is stationary and not attacking at all, to have it be on demand for the tank means its not being used for the rest of the army. The dodges have to be on Padme for them to be on demand- how can the tank spend dodges that aren't there? Furthermore, only 2 of her 3 command cards provide dodges, and sometimes it is better to use one of those options for its variety of other effects (leading me back to the circumstantial elements that originally make your analysis flawed). It is a decently viable assumption that dodges may be available, but one the imperial player can make as well as play around, as I discussed previously. GAR can make dodges available, but only at the expense of not spending them elsewhere, which is a very bold assumption to make outside the context of any given game.

I have explained how fire support is not really any different than attacking the tank normally with a separate activation. The tank has little trouble procing its own max impact value on its own, so adding it to a fire support attack pool does very little. And again, you do so at the cost of losing an action for the turn. Prima Facie it may sound like an advantage that fire supporting adds the impact value to a much larger pool, but a slightly deeper analysis reveals it doesn't really matter because that max impact value is typically being used even without the increased die pool. If you could explain to me how fire support somehow negates suppression (not panic), I'm all ears. From my understanding, if a unit is suppressed it can still perform an action, and fire support essentially allows the performance of a a single attack action. What is fire support negating here? As for panic, I actually agree with you, that was probably outside of the game designers intention, and I agree with your argument that there should be a rule that a unit at its panic value cannot use fire support. It is this reason that I think fire support is near a state of being broken, but I think that the applicability of this broken mechanic is somewhat hyperbolized. Given the courage value of phase two clones or the ability to use a nearby friendly commander's courage to check for panic, I don't often see many clone units panicking in the first place. This seems an admittedly broken, but somewhat niche application of fire support, which will hopefully be fixed. But as a whole, the keyword is not necessarily broken in some grand sense, it just currently has a small loophole that allows its application to extend beyond its intended function.

To your credit, I missed the field commander option with Aayla. Allow me to revise that; there is a cost of taking at least Aayla with Padme, and then there is the opportunity cost of not taking Plo Koon or the veteran clone pilot which are ways you previously referenced allowing easy dodge access. You are still paying 95 points in order to make this viable, and that is still substantial on top of the points already committed to the saber tank with impact shells. And again, that is assuming you aren't upgrading the tank and Padme further.

And, as an aside on the field commander topic, it is sad that Weiss doesn't have it. That surprised me, and it seems that almost everyone on these forums agrees on that point.

Again, it seems you may have only skimmed what I said on Veers as well. I agree, his command cards may generally seem lackluster, but when you are building a tank heavy build or expect a tank to emerge as a counter to yours, their value increases substantially. Just because something is not always the best option in every context does not mean it is not a good option in certain contexts or situations. Part of effective strategizing is being able to find the value in the things that aren't inherently good, and applying them in a certain way to make specific strategies come together. It almost seems like you are limiting yourself with your unwillingness to adapt or be versatile, or consider that certain things can be good given certain applications or contexts. You have a great variety of tools at your disposal with any faction in this game; it is your own unwillingness to recognize the potential value found in many of them that seems to be causing your frustration.

I would encourage a more in depth reading of my posts prior to responding- you seemed to pull specific statements out of the context of any argument I originally made without actually addressing the substance of argument itself. Almost all of your responses are effectively reducible to "no thats wrong," but you don't explain why my response is wrong, you simply repeat the same claims you made prior to my responses that actually addressed those very same claims substantively. You are not effectively demonstrating your point by saying, actually x is wrong, especially after how I just explained my reasoning for why that may not be the case. That is called "begging the question," and is a logical fallacy. You need to actually address and really engage each point for your arguments to have any impact. Which I am actually encouraging you to do, because I've seen other posts you've made on here and think you have some really solid points and a pretty good game understanding.

I eagerly await your response, good sir

@Captain Teemo I think that given Fire Support was not changed in the latest sweeping update, that using Fire Support to avoid Panic is not "outside the game designer's intentions." It could easily have been changed as part of the V2 RRG to require the supporting unit to not have enough courage tokens to cause Panic, but they didn't.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Captain Teemo I think that given Fire Support was not changed in the latest sweeping update, that using Fire Support to avoid Panic is not "outside the game designer's intentions." It could easily have been changed as part of the V2 RRG to require the supporting unit to not have enough courage tokens to cause Panic, but they didn't.

Absolutely not. Thats a flawed statement because it assumes game designers are infalliable, dont make mistakes, and dont miss things ever. Well they do. And they did.

If what youre claiming is true, and FFG is so perfect, then why did they even need to release rules updates in the first place? The very fact we have rules updates means they dont get things right the first time and have to change them later. Rules updates are admissions of imperfection.

Theres a lot of things they shouldve added in the rules update but didnt. Like making Vader not suck. Or buffing Imperials in ways that actually mattered so they wouldnt still be the worst faction in the game. They also shouldve updated the rules for suppression and changed the rules for fire support so GAR couldnt ignore suppression/panic.

Give me one good reason why GAR shoud be able to ignore suppression/panic game mechanics with fire support or how that even makes sense in any logical way. Why even have suppression at all when 3 out of 4 factions can ignore or reduce the effects of suppression to the point where its almost meaningless? The suppression rules in this game 100% needed an update because its one of the weakest aspects of the game right now. And you cant tell me thats deliberate, because it makes no sense to introduce a core game mechanic like suppression and then have it do almost nothing.

So no the fact they didnt change fire support is hardly proof of anything. It just means the rules update wasnt as comprehensive or complete as it should have been. Probably due to a variety of factors like time constraints, human error, or just general laziness (and yes game developers are notoriously lazy, Vader is proof of that). Covid certainly didnt help either because it limited competitive play and playtesting which might have otherwise exposed some of the unaddressed balance issues.

Quote

Respectfully, it seems you may have missed a few things in my original post. Again, I am quoting you in saying "on demand access," which necessitates dodges always being there. Regardless of it being 1 or 2 generated per turn, with two assuming Padme is stationary and not attacking at all, to have it be on demand for the tank means its not being used for the rest of the army.

1) if youre only generating 1-2 tokens with Padme a turn youre probably doing something very wrong. All 3 of her command cards generate dodge tokens. When I play Padme its not uncommon for me to have 3-4 dodge tokens a turn on her on command card turns. Furthermore her command cards can also give other units in her army dodge tokens which increases the likelihood of dodge tokens being available for the tank.

2) As the controller of padme you get to decide how to spend her dodge tokens. If you know your tank might need a dodge token you can guarantee it will have a dodge token available simply by leaving a dodge token on Padme and saving it for the tank.

Again given how easily it is for GAR to generate and share tokens its not unreasonable to assume at least 1 dodge token will be available to the tank.

Quote

GAR can make dodges available, but only at the expense of not spending them elsewhere

Thats not true though. GAR can always spend their dodge tokens on whatever units they want thanks to token sharing and exemplar. Just because GAR plans on saving a token in case their tank needs one doesnt mean theyre locked into using that token for the tank. They can change their plan at any time. That flexibility is part of what makes token sharing and exemplar so powerful.

You just have to keep track of how many activations your opponent has left and make sure you use all your dodge tokens before they make all their attacks so you dont end up wasting dodge tokens.

16 hours ago, Captain Teemo said:

Furthermore, only 2 of her 3 command cards provide dodges

All 3 of her command cards can provide dodges

Quote

If you could explain to me how fire support somehow negates suppression (not panic), I'm all ears.

Because a unit that uses fire support technically gets no actions anyway. Fire supporting units get no actions so theyre not affected by the action loss penalty of suppression. But they still get the benefits of suppression such as light cover. Trying to punish GAR with suppression by taking their actions away is a pointless endeavor because any time you deny a GAR unit an action it can simply be used as a fire support unit and it loses nothing.

GAR units that are about to panic can also use fire support to still get a semi-attack and avoid panicking entirely. That isnt right for obvious reasons.

Quote

But as a whole, the keyword is not necessarily broken in some grand sense, it just currently has a small loophole that allows its application to extend beyond its intended function.

are you serious? you dont think a keyword that allows GAR to instantly delete characters and units off the board and ruthlessly punish any mistake your opponent makes, allows for some insane LoS tricks like corner shots, and also allows GAR to ignore suppression/panick is overpowered?

not only is fire support overpowered but its one of the worst negative play experience in the game. it forces you to constantly hide all of your characters behind buildings. fire support shouldve been addressed for the fun vacuum it creates alone.

Quote

I have explained how fire support is not really any different than attacking the tank normally with a separate activation. The tank has little trouble procing its own max impact value on its own, so adding it to a fire support attack pool does very little.

A Saber Tank with anti-armor rockets rolls 3 red, 4 black, and 2 white (with impact 5, critical 1). On average a saber tank will not statistically roll 5 hits and 1 surge to or even come close to maximizing its impact 5 and critical 1 keywords.

Fire supporting a Saber Tank absolutely helps you max out your impact/critical keywords. That is precisely why you should fire support the saber tank.

16 hours ago, Captain Teemo said:

Again, it seems you may have only skimmed what I said on Veers as well. I agree, his command cards may generally seem lackluster, but when you are building a tank heavy build or expect a tank to emerge as a counter to yours, their value increases substantially

Veers' 2-pip command card is bad regardless of whether you bring vehicles or not. It is almost never worth using. Even his 3-pip is pretty bad. Again his command cards are considered among the weakest in the game. They are far weaker than Padmes.

I simply dont agree that Veers' command cards (especially his 2-pip) are good in any circumstance. Vehicles or not.

And I do not agree that Veers' is as good as Padme. Hes not even close.

4 hours ago, Khobai said:

Absolutely not. Thats a flawed statement because it assumes game designers are infalliable, dont make mistakes, and dont miss things ever. Well they do. And they did.

And they have had 2 RRG's now to change it if they though that it was wrong, so they probably don't think that.

If what youre claiming is true, and FFG is so perfect, then why did they even need to release rules updates in the first place? The very fact we have rules updates means they dont get things right the first time and have to change them later. Rules updates are admissions of imperfection.

this is mostly due to new things coming out that interact strangely with the old keywords and so the old keywords have to be clarified or old units needing buffs due to the unavoidable power creep that happens with all games that release new content, nobody ever said that the Devs were perfect.

Theres a lot of things they shouldve added in the rules update but didnt. Like making Vader not suck. Or buffing Imperials in ways that actually mattered so they wouldnt still be the worst faction in the game. They also shouldve updated the rules for suppression and changed the rules for fire support so GAR couldnt ignore suppression/panic.

Could they have done more, sure, should they have done more, probably not, making too many changes at once is bad for any game and the Imps are better than they were.

Give me one good reason why GAR shoud be able to ignore suppression/panic game mechanics with fire support or how that even makes sense in any logical way. Why even have suppression at all when 3 out of 4 factions can ignore or reduce the effects of suppression to the point where its almost meaningless? The suppression rules in this game 100% needed an update because its one of the weakest aspects of the game right now. And you cant tell me thats deliberate, because it makes no sense to introduce a core game mechanic like suppression and then have it do almost nothing.

Clones are the most highly trained soldiers in the galaxy and are also programmed to follow orders, is there a more obvious way of showing this than making them be able to ignore suppression/panic when they have been given an order. Droids may ignore suppression but they don't get any benefits from it and they still panic. The Imps being more afraid of Vader than they are of the enemy shots is the only one that i think is a bit odd (that can wait till after the battle.) besides, Vader is never going to make your units hold because you never take him cos you think he is crap, right?

So no the fact they didnt change fire support is hardly proof of anything. It just means the rules update wasnt as comprehensive or complete as it should have been. Probably due to a variety of factors like time constraints, human error, or just general laziness (and yes game developers are notoriously lazy, Vader is proof of that). Covid certainly didnt help either because it limited competitive play and playtesting which might have otherwise exposed some of the unaddressed balance issues.

Wow, that s a lot of accusations to throw around, because they didn't change 1 thing in the way that you wanted all the devs are lazy, wow you are an arsehole.

1) if youre only generating 1-2 tokens with Padme a turn youre probably doing something very wrong. All 3 of her command cards generate dodge tokens. When I play Padme its not uncommon for me to have 3-4 dodge tokens a turn on her on command card turns. Furthermore her command cards can also give other units in her army dodge tokens which increases the likelihood of dodge tokens being available for the tank.

So you focus entirely on defense with Padme? I can understand that but most people don't play that way. The game is about killing the enemy/capturing objectives not protecting your own units from the enemy, you would be better off taking other tokens like Aims or Standbys with her if you want to win, only her 1 pip requires you to take Dodges.

2) As the controller of padme you get to decide how to spend her dodge tokens. If you know your tank might need a dodge token you can guarantee it will have a dodge token available simply by leaving a dodge token on Padme and saving it for the tank.

But Anakin also needs the dodge to activate his Djem So Mastery, so does Obi-Wan for his Soresu Mastery, realistically the Tank is the least likely to need a dodge as it has armour, if she still has one and is in range then great but the other units need them more.

Again given how easily it is for GAR to generate and share tokens its not unreasonable to assume at least 1 dodge token will be available to the tank.

Nobody takes the Clone Pilot, it is not worth it, Aayla Secura is the only one worth taking for Field Commander, if the Clone pilot allowed unlimited sharing like the other clones have between them then it would be worth taking at 10 points let alone 7 but a one off that you need to exhaust is not worth it.

Thats not true though. GAR can always spend their dodge tokens on whatever units they want thanks to token sharing and exemplar. Just because GAR plans on saving a token in case their tank needs one doesnt mean theyre locked into using that token for the tank. They can change their plan at any time. That flexibility is part of what makes token sharing and exemplar so powerful.

yes and they pay a premium for this by having their cheapest non-unique unit cost 8 points more per squad than the Imps, 12 points more than the Rebels and 16 points more than the CIS. the difference ends up being usually a 1-3 activations more in the other armies when comparing them (i have seen it go as far as a 6 activation difference).

You just have to keep track of how many activations your opponent has left and make sure you use all your dodge tokens before they make all their attacks so you dont end up wasting dodge tokens.

You can never guarantee that all of the next incoming attacks won't kill the unit even with those dodges so you are better off spending them when you can and know that there is going to be a benefit to doing so

All 3 of her command cards can provide dodges

They can do but it is often (not always) the worst option if you want to win, if you want to keeps your units alive then sure but sacrifices have to be made to win, if you cannot do that then you are never going to be a good player

Because a unit that uses fire support technically gets no actions anyway. Fire supporting units get no actions so theyre not affected by the action loss penalty of suppression. But they still get the benefits of suppression such as light cover. Trying to punish GAR with suppression by taking their actions away is a pointless endeavor because any time you deny a GAR unit an action it can simply be used as a fire support unit and it loses nothing.

It has the same number of actions if it fire supports or if it activates, 1. The difference is that if it activates it could roll off that suppression so it is actually a net loss for that unit.

GAR units that are about to panic can also use fire support to still get a semi-attack and avoid panicking entirely. That isnt right for obvious reasons.

when is the last time that you saw a unit with enough suppression tokens to cause it to panic but had enough minis left in that unit to actually make a decent fire support, by the time they have enough suppression to care about trying to avoid the panic they are usually down to only 1 or 2 minis. 1 clone can provide 1 black die (more if it is Fives or Echo) as fire support, 2 minis could provide 1b6w but that averages out at just 2 damage extra, usually not worth it.

are you serious? you dont think a keyword that allows GAR to instantly delete characters and units off the board and ruthlessly punish any mistake your opponent makes, allows for some insane LoS tricks like corner shots, and also allows GAR to ignore suppression/panick is overpowered?

No I don't think it is over powered, i think it is powerful sure but they are quite a few disadvantages to doing it. Namely, the fire supporting unit doesn't get to have an activation, meaning no movement or tokens generated either for themselves or for the other clones around them and they have to have an order token, this means that it is A) easy to predict and B) uses up one of your few orders that you get as GAR, most of the GAR units have no way of getting an HQ uplink on them at the moment and even if they did it would be too expensive for them to use it as they need the points just to get the troops on the field.

not only is fire support overpowered but its one of the worst negative play experience in the game. it forces you to constantly hide all of your characters behind buildings. fire support shouldve been addressed for the fun vacuum it creates alone.

Fire support comes off maybe 2 or 3 times a game at most, it is not that big a deal

A Saber Tank with anti-armor rockets rolls 3 red, 4 black, and 2 white (with impact 5, critical 1). On average a saber tank will not statistically roll 5 hits and 1 surge to or even come close to maximizing its impact 5 and critical 1 keywords.

It averages 5 damage exactly actually with critical 1 taking it to 5.73 average damage, so actually yes it usually does use most of the impact on its own

Fire supporting a Saber Tank absolutely helps you max out your impact/critical keywords. That is precisely why you should fire support the saber tank.

The tank should only ever be fire supported if the target has Armour 1 or no armour and the target has more than 5 health or is a Commander or Operative any other time is a wasted shot with the unit that is fire supporting

Veers' 2-pip command card is bad regardless of whether you bring vehicles or not. It is almost never worth using. Even his 3-pip is pretty bad. Again his command cards are considered among the weakest in the game. They are far weaker than Padmes.

Padme's command cards are more about supporting the rest of the army, Veers 1 pip is a great first strike against a unit with armour or a unit that has deflect, his 2 pip gives out dodges to 2 and outmaneuver to all the imperial vehicles in your army and his 1 pip gives out a recover to 2 units, seems like a good one to use on those Stormtroopers with the HH-12 that want to fire again the next round, or maybe you want to use it on Darth Vader who has just exhausted all of his force powers, or maybe on your death troopers/Kallus because you want them to swap their weapons etc. Just because a card is not useful in every situation doesn't mean that it is not useful in a different one, its called using your brain to think for yourself and not just blindly follow everyone else.

I simply dont agree that Veers' command cards (especially his 2-pip) are good in any circumstance. Vehicles or not.

That's an opinion not a fact, one that i disagree with wholeheartedly as stated above.

And I do not agree that Veers' is as good as Padme. Hes not even close.

Could Padme go up in price, sure. Will she? probably not. This is because even though she is a great support character she doesn't put out that much damage, 1.87 damage on average which then gets reduced by defense, she does get pierce 1 which is nice but it is only range 2 unless you want to spend more on her for better range but worse damage (1.25 on average before defense) the other thing preventing her from costing more is that she only has 9 effective health, even Veers who you claim is useless has 10 effective health. she has the joint worst effective health out of all the named characters except for R2-D2 and if R2 takes 3P0 then they have the same effective health.

Quote

when is the last time that you saw a unit with enough suppression tokens to cause it to panic but had enough minis left in that unit to actually make a decent fire support

Wow you have completely missed the point. The point of preventing a unit from panicking isnt so it can fire support. Its so it can continue to hold objectives and not run off the board. Getting to fire support is just a bonus.

Quote

No I don't think it is over powered, i think it is powerful sure but they are quite a few disadvantages to doing it. Namely, the fire supporting unit doesn't get to have an activation

thats not a disadvantage if panic would deny the unit an activation anyway.

the ability to ignore panic and still get an attack when the unit should be panicking instead is broken.

Quote

It averages 5 damage exactly actually with critical 1 taking it to 5.73 average damage, so actually yes it usually does use most of the impact on its own

Thats not how it works. Not all 5 of the damage comes from regular hits that are upgraded to crits due to impact. Some of the damage comes from naturally rolled crits which impact has no effect on.

The statistical odds of a saber tank rolling 5 hits and 1 surge and upgrading all of those to crits with impact 5, critical 1 is less than 30%. So the vast majority of the time it does not use most of the impact on its own. Less than 1/3rd of the time it does. Its easy to see for yourself in legion dice simulator.

So yes there is absolutely an advantage to fire supporting a saber tank. Again you clearly dont know what youre talking about.

Quote

That's an opinion not a fact, one that i disagree with wholeheartedly as stated above.

No its an absolute fact that Veer's 2-pip is garbage. It can be proven by comparing it to other 2-pips which are clearly better.

Multi-vehicle lists are bad for Imperials for self-explanatory reasons.

Quote

the other thing preventing her from costing more is that she only has 9 effective health, even Veers who you claim is useless has 10 effective health.

Padme has nimble. 9 effective health with nimble is better than 10 effective health.

Nimble gives Padme significantly better survivability than Veers.

I notice that of the 20 points that i made saying that you were wrong you could only come up with a response to 5 of them, so we are making progress.

23 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Thats not how it works. Not all 5 of the damage comes from regular hits that are upgraded to crits due to impact. Some of the damage comes from naturally rolled crits which impact has no effect on.

The statistical odds of a saber tank rolling 5 hits and 1 surge and upgrading all of those to crits with impact 5, critical 1 is less than 30%. So the vast majority of the time it does not use most of the impact on its own. Less than 1/3rd of the time it does. Its easy to see for yourself in legion dice simulator.

So yes there is absolutely an advantage to fire supporting a saber tank. Again you clearly dont know what youre talking about.

a saber is rolling an average of 4.74 hits/crits (5.45 hits/crits with critical 1 in there but we are not worried about that at the moment) all legion dice have a 1 in 8 chance of being a crit instead of a hit. lets apply that to the shot. 4.74 / 8 = 0.59, this means that on average 0.59 of the 4.74 damage that the saber is rolling is going to be a crit, usually this is going to be either a 1 or a 0 this means that on average the saber is going to be using 4.74 - 0.59 = 4.15 of its 5 impact, so on average a fire supporting shot can only use 0.85 of an impact,

like I said before, it is pretty pointless to fire support a shot into a vehicle that has Armour unless either the fire support is only adding a few dice or the fire support has other keywords to add like critical, impact or pierce. Again the math has proven you wrong.

34 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Wow you have completely missed the point. The point of preventing a unit from panicking isnt so it can fire support. Its so it can continue to hold objectives and not run off the board. Getting to fire support is just a bonus.

thats not a disadvantage if panic would deny the unit an activation anyway.

the ability to ignore panic and still get an attack when the unit should be panicking instead is broken.

I'll do these together as they are all to do with Panic. If the unit holding the objective has enough suppression to panic then it is also probably down to only 1 or 2 wounds left, if you are playing against a clone player and want to remove that unit then it is quite easy, you shoot it, if they wanted to fire support with it then at least one of your units was able to see it, so just kill the unit and be done with it. it is not hard.

As i said in the previous post, it is thematic anyway as the clones are programmed to always follow orders and so the only way for a unit to not panic is to give them an order, I'd say that was pretty on point personally.

9 hours ago, Khobai said:

I simply dont agree that Veers' command cards (especially his 2-pip) are good in any circumstance. Vehicles or not.

3 hours ago, 5particus said:

That's an opinion not a fact, one that i disagree with wholeheartedly as stated above.

44 minutes ago, Khobai said:

No its an absolute fact that Veer's 2-pip is garbage. It can be proven by comparing it to other 2-pips which are clearly better.

Veers 2 Pip gives out dodge tokens to any vehicle that gets an order, this includes any that get an order from HQ uplink or any other method, it also gives outmaneuver to every vehicle in your army, dodges on vehicles with armour are great as it allows them to dodge impact before it is converted, dodges with outmaneuver can dodge crits as well, what is so bad about that, it is a situational card for sure but you take Veers because you have vehicles in you list.

You put it down on the same turn that you are going to be sending your speeder bikes into the enemy deployment zone to drop their bombs and suddenly you can have 2 speeder bikes with 2 dodges that have moved up to 18 inches and a 3rd one that has moved the same with 1 dodge on it and they can all dodge crits as well. Sounds pretty good to me and that is just 1 example of what you could do with them.

45 minutes ago, Khobai said:

Padme has nimble. 9 effective health with nimble is better than 10 effective health.

Nimble gives Padme significantly better survivability than Veers.

Only if you have the dodges to spend on her and by the sounds of it you always want to be spending her dodges on the saber tank so she is out of luck there. sure she can spend it herself and get it back again before she sends it off to the tank but I have found that the units that usually do the most damage to her are enemy snipers, and most of them have high velocity so dodges cannot be used. Neither of them survive long anyway.

1 hour ago, 5particus said:

I notice that of the 20 points that i made saying that you were wrong you could only come up with a response to 5 of them, so we are making progress.

a saber is rolling an average of 4.74 hits/crits (5.45 hits/crits with critical 1 in there but we are not worried about that at the moment) all legion dice have a 1 in 8 chance of being a crit instead of a hit. lets apply that to the shot. 4.74 / 8 = 0.59, this means that on average 0.59 of the 4.74 damage that the saber is rolling is going to be a crit, usually this is going to be either a 1 or a 0 this means that on average the saber is going to be using 4.74 - 0.59 = 4.15 of its 5 impact, so on average a fire supporting shot can only use 0.85 of an impact,

like I said before, it is pretty pointless to fire support a shot into a vehicle that has Armour unless either the fire support is only adding a few dice or the fire support has other keywords to add like critical, impact or pierce. Again the math has proven you wrong.

I'll do these together as they are all to do with Panic. If the unit holding the objective has enough suppression to panic then it is also probably down to only 1 or 2 wounds left, if you are playing against a clone player and want to remove that unit then it is quite easy, you shoot it, if they wanted to fire support with it then at least one of your units was able to see it, so just kill the unit and be done with it. it is not hard.

As i said in the previous post, it is thematic anyway as the clones are programmed to always follow orders and so the only way for a unit to not panic is to give them an order, I'd say that was pretty on point personally.

Veers 2 Pip gives out dodge tokens to any vehicle that gets an order, this includes any that get an order from HQ uplink or any other method, it also gives outmaneuver to every vehicle in your army, dodges on vehicles with armour are great as it allows them to dodge impact before it is converted, dodges with outmaneuver can dodge crits as well, what is so bad about that, it is a situational card for sure but you take Veers because you have vehicles in you list.

You put it down on the same turn that you are going to be sending your speeder bikes into the enemy deployment zone to drop their bombs and suddenly you can have 2 speeder bikes with 2 dodges that have moved up to 18 inches and a 3rd one that has moved the same with 1 dodge on it and they can all dodge crits as well. Sounds pretty good to me and that is just 1 example of what you could do with them.

Only if you have the dodges to spend on her and by the sounds of it you always want to be spending her dodges on the saber tank so she is out of luck there. sure she can spend it herself and get it back again before she sends it off to the tank but I have found that the units that usually do the most damage to her are enemy snipers, and most of them have high velocity so dodges cannot be used. Neither of them survive long anyway.

On the whole I think that 5particus did a great job addressing most of your responses to my post Khobai, and it seems mute to pretty much type out exactly what he said, so I would encourage thoroughly reading what he has to say. I'll see if I can find anything I think I can build upon from his stellar analysis.

You are precisely right that the GAR can spend dodges anywhere and that is the benefit of exemplar. It is quite powerful in this regard. But the actual number of tokens to be spent is static based on the exemplar unit's ability to generate them, and the thing is they can be and often need to be spent everywhere, as 5particus has pointed out. But in your original analysis, you are assuming that a dodge is available for the tank, meaning it is not spent elsewhere; otherwise, you cannot say the dodge is present with any degree of certainty. As I have said in both posts, that gets into the realm of speculation and in game context that removes it too far from objective analysis. Either you can objectively assume, as you did and I followed, that the exemplar unit is exclusively generating for the tank, in which case it is a relevant factor to include (again this assumption coming from the term "on demand," meaning it is there whenever you need it. Your words, not mine), or you can shift, as you have, to the more general and objective conclusion that dodges MAY be available for the tank at a given point, but that they can be held and spent elsewhere also. But it is important you cannot convolute the two, as they necessarily contradict each other. If the tank is spending the dodge tokens for itself, they cannot be given to the army, and if the army is spending Padme's dodges, they cannot be given to the tank. Its a matter of limited resources and how you devote them, which highly depend on in game factors and contexts. One can even go so far as to counter assume and say they will try to force Padme to spend her dodges elsewhere by unleashing a hailfire of fury upon a high priority unit in GAR's list; this takes things into a realm of pure speculation, as I originally pointed out.

I will admit I spoke incorrectly with her command cards generating dodges, an oversight from my failure to to see how the 3rd is applicable in this context at all. Padme's 3 pip can grant her a dodge on round one of the game, and from my game experience that turn one dodge is pretty much used for her own defense from her potential to infiltrate and drop farther up the map than her allies. I do not reasonably see how this would come into effect in a significant way in the tank battle except under a slew of favorable deployments like roll out or battle lines, and assuming you don't get something like limited visibility. For that reason, I have granted her the benefit of having two command cards that give her a dodge in my analysis in how her exemplar pertains to the tank matchup. One of which grants her up to two extra dodges on a given turn provided there are enough friendly units nearby with suppression, and the other of which grants herself one extra dodge, as opposed to two. So, max of 3 on one turn, max of 4 on another. Again, this would be assuming however that you are never moving her and dodge/ quick thinking per turn, which is unrealistic because at some point she at least needs to keep up with the army in order to be in range and los for exemplar. So more accurately, she would probably get 3 on her 1 pip turn, and 2 on her 2 pip. And she is only capable of that kind of generation twice, on those command card turns, which you yourself pointed out. The most prevalent state of Padme's dodge generation in a given turn is locked in at a max of two, (3 of the 6 rounds, with the explanation of her 3 pip as to why it probably isn't consistently applicable to this context). That is 2 dodges spread across an entire army that needs them, assuming of course that Padme activates prior to the rest of the army most of the time (which, in order guarantee, generally means granting a faceup order token which detracts from the ability to use fire support since you're not granting that faceup to a unit with the key word).

I think 5particus covered this well but I'll briefly speak on it as well. There are disadvantages to using fire support in losing an entire action (meaning the unit is static for the round), and in that it is entirely predictable. You can quite literally see what units your opponent is able to fire support with, and the inability to issue any appreciable degree of faceup order tokens to corps units except with certain cards like Rex's 4 pip make it so it is limited in the number of its uses per round. Typically, the GAR does have fewer activations than other lists, as 5particus has mentioned, unless you opt for an activation heavy list that spreads your points pretty thin (in which case you have more activations, but typically weaker activations in trading off phase 2's for phase 1's, not equipping personnel or heavy units, etc). But the altogether safe assumption is that you will out activate the GAR, and you can play around fire support in this regard too by forcing them to eventually activate a unit they would use for fire support. Fire support is really more of a zoning tool than an offensive tool if your opponent knows how to adequately play around it, because they will not walk a priority unit into a position where it can be shot at with fire support. There are plenty of ways to get around or avoid fire support shots, and that coupled with the disadvantages it also brings makes it so that it is pretty balanced. Once they fix the issue with panicking. On that sub-point, you and I are in concurrence (I respect the argument made by 5particus and Caimhuel as to how the game designers could have intentionally left it in given the recent rules errata and the factual discipline of the clone army. However, I think it is also a real possibility that the primary concern for the last "patch," as it was, was standby token sharing and the designers may not have wanted to hit the clones that much at once, and I think that it comes down to flavor vs function regarding the discipline. Though it kind of makes sense given clone troopers training, the ability to circumvent a core game mechanic in avoiding panicking does seem a little unbalanced to me, and I would agree it should probably be amended).

Again, you seem to be falling into the trap of logical fallacy. If you believe that Veer's two pip is bad, explain why substantively in response to what I have said, not in a declaratory state with a very vague reference to other command cards. This is "begging the question"; you are responding to an argument made on a given question with the very premise that the argument deconstructs of analyzes. Essentially, your response results in me or the "audience" thinking... "Well, are they?" because we just provided or were provided evidence that that very claim may be false. The burden of proof is on you to show why the argument is wrong, and that cannot really be accomplished by merely restating the claim the argument attacks.

Finally, I feel as though your language is strongly indicative of your own mental barriers on adaptability. After being presented with substantive arguments, from multiple people, as to why Veers may be good or functional in given contexts, you respond without really addressing them and stating that "I simply do not agree x... I do not agree x..." but do not really explain why to any appreciable degree, and certainly not in a manner that defeats the points erstwhile made by others. This shows that either A: you are not taking the time to generate adequate counter arguments despite having them, which I would prefer you not do because I, at least, value your input and want to hear your fully constructed opinion, B: that you cannot generate adequate counter arguments, and are so stuck in your ways and thinking you are unwilling to reconcile very validly made arguments with your game view, which is somewhat disheartening from one who seems to so thoroughly enjoy discourse on this game, or the most depressing answer C (which I refuse to believe, as you seem more intelligent and well versed than this), that you cannot generate any counter arguments, and due to attaching a heavy degree of your pride to your own position, will simply refuse to abdicate it because doing so would wound your ego. I truly believe that A or B are the answers, and given your activity on this forum A certainly does not seem a likely answer. So again, I revert to my original conclusion; you are deadlocking yourself by failing to consider the potential value of all the tools at your disposal in this game. Much of your own frustration with the empire seems to emanate with you insistence on any one thing being bad at x or for x reason, while you are simultaneously not trying to find ways to make the very same things good or valuable. Even the faction as a whole you have written off as useless and just horrible, but several people seem to have found ways to use it effectively and enjoy playing it themselves; perhaps you are being a little stubborn in how you play or view the game? I would encourage opening your mind a bit and trying glean tidbits from others about what makes certain things about the imperials good or fun, and building upon it with your own limitless creativity.

On the whole, I again encourage mores substantive responses to mine or 5particus's analysis. If we are truly wrong, really hammer it home why, don't just beg the question. I once more await your response, good sir

Also shoutout to 5particus for defending a lot of what I had said, I appreciate it. Though I've seen a great deal of frustration surround conversations with Khobai, I would encourage avoiding use of expletives like "arsehole" in your responses. As Obi Wan would say, doing so is "so uncivilized," no matter how tempting.