Jump to content

Decarior

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Decarior

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

285 profile views
  1. It doesnt have to be that drastic. Maybe instead introduce a new token effect that lets you roll fewer dice on the next attack or gives the opponent the chance to modify those attack dice by re-rolling some of them.
  2. Also interesting is the list of Anakin's Upgrades: Choke, Anger, Fear - all of them dark side force powers. Also two unannounced cards: Force Barrier and Seize the Initiative. Additionally he seems to get access to Relentless and Outmaneuver with his command cards since both these keywords get explained.
  3. As a native speaker I can confirm this. You spend any number of observation tokens that the enemy unit has to reroll that many attack dice. Observation tokes are removed at the end of the round.
  4. Same source? The last couple of FFG leaks all came from (local) distributor catalogs - which makes sense since these will know about new products 9+ months before release. They have to order them in production and do localisation. This leak though is from the presentation page of 'Spiel' the largest boardgame convention in the world, where they list which products will be presented. It also includes all known upcoming FFG products like CW Armada. It was just bad timing I guess since Spiel probably uploads the entire presentation page in bulk. And besides we all know how long the Disney approval process for News articles is, so the official announcement will still be in the pipeline somewhere.
  5. You seem to play a very different Legion than I do or the people that played in the leagues and tournaments I participate in. You know the Red Player can veto cards? And that the deck will most likely contain cards that support the red player's army strategy too? If you build a battle deck you don't only consider what benefits your own army but what the opponent might bring too. Certain cards will be good in one match-up but not the other. However, if your army composition is already strong in that specific match-up it might be a good idea to bring these card to bolster the other. Or take deployments like Disarray - maybe your army isn't at its best in that deployment, but GAR and CIS are much worse at it plus you have practiced it! So you have advantage not based on your army composition but because of your own experience and the match-ups you are expecting. There is much more going on here. Neglecting experience and match-ups oversimplifies battle card selection. I would be interested in blue vs red win rates since Vital Assets. Before that wins were very evenly split see for example the analysis of LVO 2019 from the Notorious Scoundrels .
  6. Just make red player choose the table side so they have more control over the deployment zones. Together with the advantage of having the last battle card veto and a deployment advantage (due to placing second) might be enough. Or let red player win when tied as that puts the pressure on acting during the game to the blue player especially in missions with even objectives markers. One player building the Battle Deck introduces depth to the game. You can build your army around certain objectives but have to pay for it with an (uncertain) bid or you build an army that doesn't really care which battle cards are being played. The systems is fine, but maybe remove one of the other advantages from blue player either choosing side or winning on ties.
  7. They is nothing wrong with Corp units and for all factions but Rebels they play an important role. GAR's economy run on Corp Troopers, CIS take 5-6 B1 most of them with heavy weapons, Imp's run Shoretrooper+Mortar gunlines - the only reason the don't run Stormtroopers anymore is that the Shore T21 trumps all other range 4 weapons. Only Rebels is left behind and that's mostly because the Dodge mechanic and Nimble are somewhat ill conceived, too many Range 4 threats and GAR overwatch shennigans. If some of these issues were to change I see Rebel heavies becoming again more reliable.
  8. Honestly, for the most part I find Rebels Sniper Strike Teams to be rather underwhelming. In my last Invader League they were the most under-performing units of my entire army and I was playing Jyn - so that should say something. Since you usually have to attack targets in heavy cover even with an aim token they miss 38% of the time. When playing against other Rebels and CIS other than Tauntauns they are is often times a lack of valuable targets since Hereos can be hidden. Against Empire you have to consider that if you can attack with the sniper than it also means that the enemy unit (Shores, DTs...) is only one move away from shooting back at you. Clones are the only match-up I bring snipers for as they are the only counter-play to the standby bubble of doom. If they should ever change standby sharing rules this won't be as necessary anymore. Also for Rebels they are not as good for activation padding as for other factions because you lack order control. Usually you don't want to pass valuable orders to your snipers, because orders on your critical units like Hereos, Tauntauns etc. are more important. Might just be my experiences for Rebels though and as I said: even I bring Snipers most of the time. Be it only because of Clone Standbys or to fill out my SFs slot so that pulling the other non-strike team SF is more likely.
  9. In general I like the idea of strike teams and a dedicated sniper unit in particular. However, the play pattern that arise from an abundance of Sniper Teams especially when used as a support to an gunline style army are not always enjoyable. List building is less diverse because Sniper Strike Teams are somewhat of an requirement for many army concepts. Changing their weapon range to 5 was a good first step but not enough. My main problem with them is their resilience - in particular their ability to hide the extra model behind LOS blocking terrain to make them unkillable with a single attack (and always turning on heavy cover). Together with Medics reviving the lost model and Tactical on ARCs Snipers are simply to effective. So what would I propose? Inspired from the Counterpart Rules I'll change the Heavy Weapon Team bullet point from to Combined with the standard rules that the Leader always dies last that means no more hiding for strike teams. You can always destroy the entire unit in a single attack without the ability of medics to bring them back. Together with their limitation to range 5 as well as Cassian and Iden as natural sniper hunters that could limit their ubiquitous somewhat. Or at least accelerate the Sniper Wars.
  10. I don't think this is a problem. Maybe other tabletop companies address this differently although looking at Infinity's rulebook with an abundance of special rules or the ton of unique abilities on Hero cards in Marvel Crisis Protocol don't let me think so. FFG's other miniature games, X-Wing and Armada, introduce a ton of new unique abilities on ships and upgrades with each expansion. The only difference to legion? They don't codify it as keywords but that doesn't mean that they don't introduce more rules and game effects.
  11. Standy sharing wasn't really a problem before the introduction of ARC Sniper teams. Because without the strongest range 5 sniper unit in the game clones still had to make plays happen. Even a untargetable standby bubble isn't as useful if your opponent has the range advantage and isn't forced to move into you. I think removal of standby sharing is necessary although they might be some other less drastic rule changes that adequately addresses this issue like the requirement of the unit sharing the standby to have LOS and/or range to the enemy unit triggering it. One way or the other it won't affect GAR list building much. If they are ever gonna to change Tactical and Agile as to only trigger on move actions and not on moves from Scout and command cards though...
  12. This short does a good job with adding more nuance to imperial characters same as other canon material like the novels (Twilight Company, Alphabet Squadron, Inferno Squad) or some of the comics. Fascist extremists and power-hungry officials should be displayed when portraying the empire, but so should be sympathetic idealists and all the shades between those ends. Same goes for the rebels where even Rogue One as one of the new movies showed ruthless and fanatical rebels. This surely is a departure from the simple black-and-white moral of the mainline movies but ultimately aimed a different audience. Squadrons seems to follow the same narrative in having you play both sides and adding depth to the factions.
  13. I think the gap between 'low tier' and 'highly competitive' units is smaller than some people might think. Sure maybe you don't win Worlds with an Airspeeder but in the last tournaments that I played him he was fairly useful. Keep him alive by careful placement and he does wonders as a late game disruption tool. Fleet troopers and Han are good too if you build your army around them and learn how to play them. Again maybe not Worlds/Invader League top tier competitive but there will always only be a few broken units good enough for that. Most units could be adjusted with simple point changes. Han Solo, (full) Commandos and Pathfinders are a tad to expensive probably because Low Profile, Danger Sense, Scout and Infitlrate got overvalued. Jyn Erso is basically a support commander and should be costed closer to Leia and Cassian. Wookies might need a greater points reduction and possible some keyword errata (like Scale). There also needs to be more to the MKII Medium Blaster, either a health increase or better yet: the Long Shot (1) keyword. I would have liked to see the Indomitable keyword on Veterans too. Also I almost forgot the awful Landspeeder - yes the weapons are way too expensive and (Open) Transporter rules don't do enough. Dewbacks and (full) Scouts for the Empire are definitely too expensive. Shoretroopers are just badly designed. They overlap way too much with Stormtroopers in terms of role and playstyle. The Shoretrooper T-21B should be a Range 3 weapon (with points lowered accordingly). Leave the Range 4 Corp weapons to the Stormtroopers. For CIS I think that Droidekas are a decent unit and only needing a slight point cost reduction. GAR has a similar problem to the Empire in that two of their Corp troop choices are just to similar to each other. I will be hard to balance Phase 1 and 2s without one being strictly better or more efficient than the other. Maybe removing Standy sharing and thus less reliance on P2s Overwatch upgrade slot could bring out more P1s with their more varied weapons choices (with access to non-cumbersome R4 and R2 Pierce). In general I would like to see a few upgrades to boost existing units and archetypes. For Rebels a command upgrade that gives Corp units (and the Commander himself?) Outmaneuver. Only in a certain range band? Than there should be a Training upgrade to give Saboteurs a 1-move after arming a device similar to how Bossk's and Sabine's 1-pip work. Right now the action economy of Saboteur strike teams is just too bad.
  14. You can't evaluate Han by looking at his unit card alone. His power comes from his command cards that open up a lot of strategies. Yes he can die under concentrated ranged fire that's why you have Reckless Diversions or Sorry About That Mess for a last-first activation from one turn to the next. He is a control character essentially and requires a lot of finesse - much like Dooku. I agree he could be a little bit to expensive right now, but not by that much. Maybe he should cost like 120 or 110 points. The one downside of using him right now is the prevalence of Lightsaber users so you usually need someone like Sabine to counter them, which limits list building.
  15. They do have twice as much hull true, but without defense tokens that oftentimes equates to less effective hull overall. And I want to see the two generic TiE-Fighter squads that do more damage than Mauler can do consistently with a single move for less cost. And that is not the only example, there are definitely some more aces that outperform generics of the same combined cost (Steele, Shara, Cienna). Also aces need fewer squadron activation/carriers and can combine more firepower into a single activation - I mean that's why two ship list are so formidable. However, as in my post above I in general agree that people underestimate generics, but also let's not undervalue aces here. Some of them are definitely too cost effective.
×
×
  • Create New...