Jump to content
Kalandros

A fundamental flaw in these games.

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I think the Armor keyword works pretty well. AT-RT's, snowspeeders and AT-ST's are supposed to be lightly armored and somewhat vulnerable to small arms fire. The Occupier tank should be heavier but that's why it has a red armor save.

I feel like even if DLT didn't have impact we would be in the same situation with vehicles. What we need is more ways for them to influence objective scoring. Either some new objectives, revise the current ones in the RRG, or some new rule that lets them contest.

this i agree with. an AT-ST camping an objective should have more value than a trooper sergeant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I think the Armor keyword works pretty well. AT-RT's, snowspeeders and AT-ST's are supposed to be lightly armored and somewhat vulnerable to small arms fire. 

I think with the glancing hits and whatnot that T-47’s appeared to survive from AT-AT’s they should be virtually  immune to small arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I think with the glancing hits and whatnot that T-47’s appeared to survive from AT-AT’s they should be virtually  immune to small arms. 

They are. It takes 6-7 sustained rounds of fire for a full unitDLT to on average bring down a T-47.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Derrault said:

They are. It takes 6-7 sustained rounds of fire for a full unitDLT to on average bring down a T-47.

This is running into problems with things like DnD. It would work better for me if no number of pistol rounds could possibly hurt it, but one direct shot from an AT-ST could bring it down. Not sure how that can work in FFG's model of custom icon dice and such though. It's hard for that sort of thing to properly distinguish between a lot of rifle or one cannon.

I'm also wondering if anyone here has tried the HQ uplink on the T-47 much? Kinda off topic tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

This is running into problems with things like DnD. It would work better for me if no number of pistol rounds could possibly hurt it, but one direct shot from an AT-ST could bring it down. Not sure how that can work in FFG's model of custom icon dice and such though. It's hard for that sort of thing to properly distinguish between a lot of rifle or one cannon.

I'm also wondering if anyone here has tried the HQ uplink on the T-47 much? Kinda off topic tho.

Yeah it's a case of gameplay > fluff. It's an NPE if my list can't possibly harm a vehicle in your list, even if it is more 'realistic'.

HQ uplink is amazing on any speeder unit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

AT-RT's, snowspeeders and AT-ST's are supposed to be lightly armored and somewhat vulnerable to small arms fire.

 

I might agree on ATRT (this one actually would get Armor X instead of universal Armor) and Snowspeeder, I have to disagree on ATST -  this one was always described as hard to crack death machine - namely in T.Zahn's Allegiance (even though it's Legends). In R1 when it shows up, everyone scatters.

That said, ATST is pretty tanky due to sheer number of hitpoints, so it is represented somewhat accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Yeah it's a case of gameplay > fluff. It's an NPE if my list can't possibly harm a vehicle in your list, even if it is more 'realistic'.

It's bad gameplay in it's own way though. To be fair to games, it's a really hard happy medium to hit.

SWMB and Battletech (my first games) had no special effects to speak of and no cool gamer-toys like weird dice and cool counters and stuff. It did make the games kind of dry. Currently 40k has way too many special effects and not nearly enough fun gamer-toys like blast templates or exotic dice. Legion has too many special effects AND too many fun gamer-toys. Middlehammer (despite having issues) hit the realism vs. balance and fun thing about as close as anyone ever does, I think.

If your list can't possibly harm an AT-ST in a game that has AT-ST's... well it's not my fault you didn't take a balanced list. I think the big heroes are getting impossible to hurt unless you take lots of big heroes which is the same sort of problem. After all, Han and a wounded Leia surrendered to an AT-ST, I wouldn't see an AT-ST likely to handily trash them in Legion. If you play with enough terrain, the AT-ST has a really tough time bringing itself to bear against the people zipping around on the ground, I think that's about the only achilles heel it needed.

17 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

HQ uplink is amazing on any speeder unit

Good to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the original point the OP makes, I don’t think it solves anything, really.  It just shifts the options around, making previously less optimal options worth considering while making others less appealing.  It’s still a points based system and will have essentially the same issues.  

What the OP proposes is similar to the “power” system GW has.  It’s marginally easier to use, opens up options while closing others down, and suffers from the same issues.  I’d much rather have the following:

1.  A way to easily modify point values.  X-Wing 2.0 shows that it’s both possible and desirable in a game where competitive play is the “standard”.  It has a few negative side effects, like the meta seeming to always be in a state of chaos, but it seems far better than certain units or option languishing for years or being OP when a simple points change would bring them back in line.

2. Variable values based on the unit, regarding upgrades.  Certain upgrades in Legion would be well served by having different costs depending on the unit equipping them.

3. I’m not opposed to a simple system that doesn’t require as much list building for casual or narrative games, as a second option to a more competitive minded point system. Again, I’ll point to X Wing.  I think it’s quick build cards fulfill largely the same function as that which the OP desires in a less nuanced point system, while allowing room for options rarely seen in standard play to see the light of day.  

4. It looks like FFG may be heading in this direction already, but Legion and nearly every other tabletop game would be well served by legitimate and well supported non-standard game types.  A robust campaign pack allowing for asymmetrical games and continuity between games would be most welcome.  

 

TLDR: point systems are designed to allow options while still maintaining at least the facade of fairness and balance in games which are by their nature competitive.  Switching to less granular systems has not in my experience alleviated the essential problem with these systems that there are inevitably good and bad choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

If your list can't possibly harm an AT-ST in a game that has AT-ST's... well it's not my fault you didn't take a balanced list. I think the big heroes are getting impossible to hurt unless you take lots of big heroes which is the same sort of problem. After all, Han and a wounded Leia surrendered to an AT-ST, I wouldn't see an AT-ST likely to handily trash them in Legion. If you play with enough terrain, the AT-ST has a really tough time bringing itself to bear against the people zipping around on the ground, I think that's about the only achilles heel it needed.

I guess I'm biased. I think I've only had my AT-ST destroyed in 2 games. And both times it was due to an anti-armor weapon (Luke the first time and AT-RT laser cannon the second). Most games my opponent either scatters before it or foolishly pours blaster fire into it doing very little damage.

I think the Armor keyword is satisfying in that it provides the 'feel' of imperviousness while still giving any unit a chance to have an effect.

As far as the big heroes go, you actually do need to play them pretty smart or they will die quick. Even Vader or the Emperor or Luke. You need to be aware of activation order (your favorite! I know) and use melee to your advantage. Any of the non-jedi are very vulnerable to pierce and so you need to be even more careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I guess I'm biased. I think I've only had my AT-ST destroyed in 2 games. And both times it was due to an anti-armor weapon (Luke the first time and AT-RT laser cannon the second). Most games my opponent either scatters before it or foolishly pours blaster fire into it doing very little damage.

I think the Armor keyword is satisfying in that it provides the 'feel' of imperviousness while still giving any unit a chance to have an effect.

As far as the big heroes go, you actually do need to play them pretty smart or they will die quick. Even Vader or the Emperor or Luke. You need to be aware of activation order (your favorite! I know) and use melee to your advantage. Any of the non-jedi are very vulnerable to pierce and so you need to be even more careful.

This is beside the point. The AT-ST is extra impervious because shooting at it is dumb. With the point cost you need to take down an AT-ST, you can kill infantry amounting to a lot more firepower than an AT-ST. Giving any infantry unit a chance to kill a tank is silly. Never mind unrealistic or not in tune with the movies, but you take away the rock, paper, scissors mechanic, which is a bad thing in my book.

Edited by Rumar
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Imperial armour is 100% impervious to non anti-tank blasters what were those numpties in the trenches on Hoth playing at? Hoping an AT-ST would slip in their mashed remains?  

The vision devices on even our most modern fighting vehicles are vulnerable to small arms fire and the joints on AT-STs are supposedly a weak spot in that they can jam when hit repeatedly.  A 'dead' AT-ST isn't necessarily exploding, it's potentially combat ineffective and the crew have bailed.

On 3/23/2019 at 7:22 PM, KommanderKeldoth said:

HQ uplink is amazing on any speeder unit

Especially with Solo pulling some distracting dance off moves to draw the fire of anyone with an impact weapon or giving it (almost) automatic initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Katarn said:

If Imperial armour is 100% impervious to non anti-tank blasters what were those numpties in the trenches on Hoth playing at? Hoping an AT-ST would slip in their mashed remains?  

The vision devices on even our most modern fighting vehicles are vulnerable to small arms fire and the joints on AT-STs are supposedly a weak spot in that they can jam when hit repeatedly.  A 'dead' AT-ST isn't necessarily exploding, it's potentially combat ineffective and the crew have bailed.

Especially with Solo pulling some distracting dance off moves to draw the fire of anyone with an impact weapon or giving it (almost) automatic initiative.

the guys on Hoth did have Anti-tank weaponry, the ATGAR, snowspeeders, and AT grenades all would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jcmonson said:

the guys on Hoth did have Anti-tank weaponry, the ATGAR, snowspeeders, and AT grenades all would work.

True. Some did.  These chaps on the ground don't.  

Image result for hoth infantry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Katarn said:

If Imperial armour is 100% impervious to non anti-tank blasters what were those numpties in the trenches on Hoth playing at? Hoping an AT-ST would slip in their mashed remains?  

Keeping ground troops away from the base, protecting the 1.4s which could take down AT-STs from Snowtroopers. Much like infantry supporting anti-tank guns against an advancing column of tanks and infantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure, but didn't they started firing their rifles long before the Snowtroopers deployed? We first saw the Troopers in the base itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Keeping ground troops away from the base, protecting the 1.4s which could take down AT-STs from Snowtroopers. Much like infantry supporting anti-tank guns against an advancing column of tanks and infantry.

That's what I'd assume, but it's never shown.  There are no snowtroopers on the ground, though that's probably the budget and practicality of film making over basic tactics.  Though there also looks to be very little cover where the AT-ATs roam, so perhaps it's the threat of fire that keeps them in their cabins.  That and AT-ATs seem to move faster than people on foot- especially in heavy armour.

Anyway, my general point is that vehicles aren't impervious, even when their manual says so.  Or Tarkin.  Don't trust his opinion of invulnerability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were probably going to show more snowtrooper action if the concept art is anything to go by. But it got cut for practical reasons I’d imagine. Also there was gonna be a bigger part for the AT-ST which didn’t meet shooting deadlines. Hence all the seemingly pointless merch in 1980 for a “blink and you miss it” vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that Luke drew no small arms fire while he sabotaged the AT-AT shows there were no ground troops debarked, but there definitely was concept art for snowtroopers in recon rolls on the ground. I also had a toy as a kid of a snowtrooper vehicle that looked like some kind of concrete roller. I really hope it never appears in Legion because it looks straight-up awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rumar said:

This is beside the point. The AT-ST is extra impervious because shooting at it is dumb. With the point cost you need to take an AT-ST down, you can kill infantry amounting to a lot more firepower than an AT-ST. Giving any infantry unit a chance to kill a tank is silly. Never mind unrealistic or not in tune with the movies, but you take away the rock, paper, scissors mechanic, which is bad thing in my book.

Yeah this is the real problem with heavy vehicles in Legion. They either need to be cheaper or they need to be able to affect scoring in the RRG. I think their durability is represented alright, in that it takes many rounds of sustained fire to harm them significantly unless you bring lots of high impact weapons.

I think using the battle of Hoth as a reference is a losing proposition. We only really see AT-ATs engaged and they have a whole other magnitude of armor. Luke straight up says that their armor is too strong for blasters, meaning not even the speeders could meaningfully damage them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

 

I think using the battle of Hoth as a reference is a losing proposition. We only really see AT-ATs engaged and they have a whole other magnitude of armor. Luke straight up says that their armor is too strong for blasters, meaning not even the speeders could meaningfully damage them.

Yes. Because the movies have big ticket needs which are wholly unrelated to the needs of gaming within a setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, srMontresor said:

I think the fact that Luke drew no small arms fire while he sabotaged the AT-AT shows there were no ground troops debarked, but there definitely was concept art for snowtroopers in recon rolls on the ground. I also had a toy as a kid of a snowtrooper vehicle that looked like some kind of concrete roller. I really hope it never appears in Legion because it looks straight-up awful.

Yeah that whole set wasn't really anything more than Kenner trying to put out a set of lower price point vehicles.  

80-81 was a pretty tough year for lots of people.  We were just out of the oil embargo and the recession/"economic malaise" was still in effect.  The AT-AT was $49.95 retail and the minimum wage was $3.10.  I'm pretty sure it was close to an entire days wages for either one of my parents.  

I'm pretty sure they talk about how and why they made these absurd things on The Toys that Made Us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, srMontresor said:

I think the fact that Luke drew no small arms fire while he sabotaged the AT-AT shows there were no ground troops debarked, but there definitely was concept art for snowtroopers in recon rolls on the ground. I also had a toy as a kid of a snowtrooper vehicle that looked like some kind of concrete roller. I really hope it never appears in Legion because it looks straight-up awful.

Well, that depends on where in the column of AT-AT the one he destroyed was. If it was bringing up the rear, I'd expect it to be undefended since the ground troops should primarily be at the front of the advance engaging the Rebels in the trenches. Otherwise, not having ground troops delay him serves to shorten the scene keeping the movie length down. 

Some of the canon novels reference snowtroopers being deployed prior to entering the base such as Battlefront: Twilight Company and Star Wars: On The Front Lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the battlefront games are in no way cannon, they imply there was a healthy troop fight around the trenches in front of the base. 

Could have been entirely off screen, while we were busy watching Han and Chewie argue over how to fix the Falcon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...