Everything posted by CCassier
I don't see in what her save is related to friendly trooper catching the bullet for her. The fact that 2/3 of Veers hit are gone be crits somehow mitigate the issue. Sure this is nice to put 3 supression on the opponent but there are good chance that 1 is gone to be removed before the activation (not counting on the potential presence of veers or another leia). So yes it's very nice but that may be mitigated. Also using a speed 1 card with only one unit activation that has to be Leia is not the best 1st turn command. I found the standing order or assault way more useful as there let's you delay the important activation(s) while there is not much in fire range. Veers one's got the same problem. But is way more usefull at killing big stuff so overall there both situational on who is best.
Let's try to break them down here (keeping comand card out of the discution): Resistance (Veers > Leia): - Leia => 6 health + white defence (with surge) = every 3 hit you make she'll lose 2 hp => you'll need an average of 9 hits to kill her - Veers => 5 health + red defence = every 2 hit you make he'll louse 1 hp => you'll need an average of 10 hit to kill him NB: Nimble mean Leia will have an increased resistance against focusing fire from separate units if she has time to dodge, the fact that her unique action give dodge token is to take into acount. Offence(Leia > Veers): - Leia => 3 black with surge = 1.875 average damage per shot (2.57 with aim) => the Sharpshooter 2 ensure that thouse will go into hit. - Veers => 3 white with surge = 1.125 average (1.82 with aim) => Sharpshooter 1 get rid of light cover. NB: there are 7 very important things to note here 1) Veer's will be marginaly more effective again armor due to precise allowing more rerol to fish for crits. 2) Veer's Sharpshooteer 1 and 1.25 average hit without reroll can look underwhelming but the fact that 2/3 of the hit you are gone make are gone be crits that ignore cover anyway and the ability to fish for crits with precise (and that a decision you can make based on you first roll) mean that veers is gone put hit on units under cover. 3) The lack of precise 1 on Leila is not that much of a drawback in the comparison (outside of point 1 that is marginal) because she got sharpshooter 2 and so dos not need to fish for crits to shoot in eavy cover and she'll rarely miss more than 2 hit. 4) Veers action got to have us think that aim token will be see more than often on him 5) They both got Pierce 1 meaning that the first hit is ensure to go trough the armor while the second may be canceled. This mean that Veers average 1.125 hit is a bit more closer that Leia average 1.875 hits in term of effeciency that what the number can suggest (depending on the oponnent defense dice) 6) Leia melee is just better that Veers but I tend to think this is marginal because they got so many action to do before thinking to go into melee. 7)Leia range is a real issue Buff vector (Leia> Veers): Inspire 2 on Leia is just beter that inpire 1 on Veers. The comparison betwen spotter 2 and take cover 2 is not that easy and we may call it a draw. There is however a point to be maid on Leia: Inspire is more usefull if you activate after friendly units took an hit while take cover is something you want to be used early on (especialy with nimble) meaning that you'll be put in front of the dilema of activing her early in the round or a bit later (will you rather save your troops or ensure there all do 2 actions). Veers dilema is less of a thing. Price (Veers>Leia): Veers chiper that's it. Conclusion: They both look to have the same efficiency to me, Leia being a bit above veers but more expensive. They just does't have the same flavor and playstyle.
I love how people cite example of real life completely out of context to justify an opinion on a game. - First of all even though I understand that some people like immersive gameplay I don't believe that comparison with D-Day and Pyrrhus got nothing of use for gameplay purpose. - Second point the Pyrrhus victory had nothing to deal with people avoiding a battle for a minimum victory once the 6th turn end (Of course if someone can show me an historical example where people on battlefield wait for there turns and all end up after the six where general account casualty and objective...) - And for the case of Pyrrhus this one is famous not because it was tied and result in a win that was contestable but because it was the realisation from Pyrrhus that despite wining battles over the Roman he was loosing the attrition war to the far more resourceful republic and the understanding by the Greek general that he will loose in the long run due to sheer number of the Romans (despite having casualty and captive ratio of 1/2 and 1/3.5 in favour of the Greeks in the two battle witch is no close to a tie from my point of view). All of this got no meaning to be representative of anything in a tournament round that is completely out of context of a global war (in star wars universe only the rebellion will be able to score a Pyrrhic victory during the galactic civil war anyway, and I remind you that you can have Darth Vader vs Darth Vader... So we will pass on immersive and global context argument) All of that explanations to say I don't believe immersive and historical argument have any kind of value when it come to gameplay and tournament rules. So I like the current system but I found it a bit to much rewarding on the win big gameplay. I understand that being Insensitive on engaging your opponent make round more fun and that there is no magic system in a 3 round tournament. Surely the cut followed by direct elimination is good for big tournament and make the all thing a bit less odd in the outcome that it does on small tournament. However I got this personal point of view that current system favour to much wining big over wining consistently. And that some objectives and fleet type are not often see just because of the way tournament rules reward the result (I don't even remember when is the last time I saw opening salvo). So not changing everything but maybe adjust a bit the mov and reduce the wining point earned and making 6/5 to 6/4... May keep the current flavor and simplicity while tempering a bit the current incentive to make ultra aggressive take it all or go home list. And for those who say that this will end up in people going away from the battlefield and avoiding fight I will say that if one of the two player don't want to it wont happen (or if it append it will mean that he has been overplayed and in that case I'll say well done to the guy managing to push is plan over the other one)