Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TylerTT

should speeders get breaks?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

speeders are universally a bit weak. maybe it would be ok to give them a Breaking token.

At the end of an activation they can take a break token. this removes the compulsory move and any natural cover bonus they have. the break token is removed after their next movement action.

Kind of a side grade but I think it would make them less of a liability and it would make repairability make more sense.

Edited by TylerTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

T-47 needs a bit of a boost.  Bikes are honestly just fine.

All vehicles need a change/addition to objectives that makes them more relevant to scoring.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/3/8/charging-into-battle/

so much special rules on those cards they almost run out of space 

Fine really ?

Edited by Darth evil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Darth evil said:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/3/8/charging-into-battle/

so much special rules on those cards they almost run out of space 

Fine really ?

Cover 1 is a passive ability that is always on while agile requires the unit to activate and move to be able to benefit at all from the rule. You could argue that being able to be suppressed is somewhat better since that'll give you the same benefit as cover 1, but it also means you can route with a speed 3 move that also has reposition.

Speeder 1 is better than unhindered outright as not only will you ignore difficult terrain, but also allows you to fly over most obstacles in the field. It also makes the bikes break even with the tauntauns in terms of distance traveled with a shoot action at the end, but bikes don't have to worry about suppression slowing them down to begin with and they have better range and damage against troopers in the open and armor. Given the relative ease of flanking with bikes, most of your targets are going to be out of cover to begin with.

In order to even try to keep up with bikes, tauntauns needed to have relentless. Considering bikes already have the ability to move twice then shoot it makes them even in that regard, ignoring that bikes do more damage at better ranges and to more targets.

The only real advantage tauntauns have over bikes is reposition and 2 extra total HP. With how maneuverable both units are, it's unlikely their targets are going to be in cover beyond what suppression has given them so sharpshooter isn't that big of a deal. Bikes still have range, an inability to be suppressed, and value against armor over tauntauns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TylerTT said:

Maybe parked speeders and ground vehicles can hold objectives?

If I could make one change to Legion it would be contesting objectives. If any enemy unit, of any kind, is within Range X of the objective, you can't get points for it. It would help ground vehicles more than repulsorcraft else but still. It would also cut down on the need to have a ton of scoring units if just one unit, right between two or more objectives, can effectively neutralize those victory points. A 1-0 win is still a win.

Accessible, fun, vehicles rules for 25mm+ scale, are almost always going to be, for lack of a better word, ****ing idiotic. I've seen systems with amazing vehicle rules, but each vehicle has more bookkeeping than a DnD character. You gotta just shrug off the oddities in Legion's vehicles as a necessary evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like this Idea. I think it should be part of the "speeder" rules in a way that the T-47 Airspeeder and 74-Z Speederbikes need a higher cost or they cannot even do it (and there is no need to errata the cards). So linking the mechanic to the speed will be ideal... not sure how but in a way that the new speeder can do it easily since is only speed 2.

Edited by Andreu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Andreu said:

not sure how but in a way that the new speeder can do it easily since is only speed 2.

"Only" speed 2 with a huge base is rather fast though. Kinda like how my snowtroopers with a free attack and "only" speed 1 turned out to be faster than stormtroopers in practice if not on paper. Such is the opacity created by the core mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reposting for reference: 

Base size: Speed 1| Speed 2 |Speed 3

27mm:  4.06 | 6.16 | 8.36

50mm:  4.97 | 7.07 | 9.27

70mm:  5.76 | 7.86 | 10.06

100mm: 6.94 | 9.04 | 11.24

All movements worked out in inches using measurements found on the forum

'

Edit: There is some small logic in vehicles being unable to hold objectives. Historically, tanks and other armoured vehicles are primarily weapons of attack, not defence. A stationary vehicle can more easily be outflanked and vulnerabilities can be taken advantage of. Infantry are for holding objectives. However, I do agree that vehicles should be able to contest more objectives. After all, it is hard to secure a position when you are busy hiding from a large armoured vehicle you can't destroy. 
 

Edited by Caimheul1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Reposting for reference: 

Base size: Speed 1| Speed 2 |Speed 3

27mm:  4.06 | 6.16 | 8.36

50mm:  4.97 | 7.07 | 9.27

70mm:  5.76 | 7.86 | 10.06

100mm: 6.94 | 9.04 | 11.24

All movements worked out in inches using measurements found on the forum

'

Edit: There is some small logic in vehicles being unable to hold objectives. Historically, tanks and other armoured vehicles are primarily weapons of attack, not defence. A stationary vehicle can more easily be outflanked and vulnerabilities can be taken advantage of. Infantry are for holding objectives. However, I do agree that vehicles should be able to contest more objectives. After all, it is hard to secure a position when you are busy hiding from a large armoured vehicle you can't destroy. 
 

So if a snowspeeder does nothing but fly fast, it goes 24" in a turn and ignores most terrain... seems pretty fast. On a 3x6 table...

Doesn't a turn represent like 10 seconds anyways? If a 6 turn game is roughly a minute of combat, you aren't gonna brake to a full stop and do much if you began the game moving. Or is there no timescale at all? FFG is presumably as silent on this issue as they are on groundscale so I don't hope for an "official" timescale.

Contesting objectives, IMO, would make a lot of stuff more balanced. Snipers are too far away to contest, anything which is hard to kill is automatically useful, etc. Though this may get into simply making houserules and testing them out by hosting tournaments.

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


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

So if a snowspeeder does nothing but fly fast, it goes 24" in a turn and ignores most terrain... seems pretty fast. On a 3x6 table...

Doesn't a turn represent like 10 seconds anyways? If a 6 turn game is roughly a minute of combat, you aren't gonna brake to a full stop and do much if you began the game moving. Or is there no timescale at all? FFG is presumably as silent on this issue as they are on groundscale so I don't hope for an "official" timescale.

Contesting objectives, IMO, would make a lot of stuff more balanced. Snipers are too far away to contest, anything which is hard to kill is automatically useful, etc. Though this may get into simply making houserules and testing them out by hosting tournaments.

Isn't the T-47 on a 100mm base? So doing nothing but flying puts it at ``@33" between the compulsory and two move action. 

No idea what the time scale is "supposed" to be, those rarely make sense in a wargame anyway. 

Either contesting objectives ore more objectives that can be taken by vehicles, or more conditions that favour vehicles like Hostile Environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Isn't the T-47 on a 100mm base? So doing nothing but flying puts it at ``@33" between the compulsory and two move action.

I have no idea. It's bigger than a speeder bike's base which in turn is bigger than a person's base. So I just assumed it was 3 notches down that chart and the biggest base was the unreleased one.

Share this post


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

I have no idea. It's bigger than a speeder bike's base which in turn is bigger than a person's base. So I just assumed it was 3 notches down that chart and the biggest base was the unreleased one.

It's also bigger than an AT-RT's base, which is bigger than a bike's base, which is bigger than a person's. 😉

Share this post


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

I have no idea. It's bigger than a speeder bike's base which in turn is bigger than a person's base. So I just assumed it was 3 notches down that chart and the biggest base was the unreleased one.

I believe the only unreleased base is the oblong one for the Occupier tank, which I'll update the chart once I get the length measurement for that base. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

I mean, anyone should get a break, it's probably union mandated.  I just think it's inappropriate for the bikers to take 5 in the middle of a firefight.  The Empire believes in professionalism after all.

 

P.S.  I think you mean brakes ;)

I was thinking of some snacks during the break

Share this post


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

"Only" speed 2 with a huge base is rather fast though. Kinda like how my snowtroopers with a free attack and "only" speed 1 turned out to be faster than stormtroopers in practice if not on paper. Such is the opacity created by the core mechanics.

I agree with you but that is a inconvenience of the current movement system for the sake of simple/agile gameplay.

But in my coment I wasn't underestimating it's speed, I was only conveying that it is a mechanic that could be implemented only for speeder units with speed 2 (or all of them but way harder for speed 3 ones) representing that something that goes faster can't break easily.

Only an idea though, I don't dislike the current mandatory movement mechanic tbh. 

Share this post


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

Only an idea though, I don't dislike the current mandatory movement mechanic tbh. 

Neither do I but, I've seen worse! Mandatory moves of variable speeds depending on how fast you moved the previous turn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s see how people feel about this timing structure. 

Goal being to as smoothly as possible allow breaking while making it a slow stop and slow start.

After a unit makes a compulsory move they may take a park token. (This means players can’t instantly stop and have to take that compulsory move.) 

While a unit has a park token they 

Lose key word cover

Lose compulsory moves.

Can be repaired.

can not make a full move action

Park token can be removed by making a pivot action. (Slow start with some maneuverability)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

decent idea adding something to stop or slow down compulsory moves, yet they are compulsory for a reason and it would wildly change the unit. That is it's merit and flaw, without it then its more merit and less flaw which makes it unbalanced. ppl can say units in this game are supposedly unusable or lesser than they actually are in skilled hands, yet the facts are every single unit ever made is outstanding in it's own way and in it's own play style. If don't understand that then yeah I guess literally to yourself it is ineffective, yet just because it is ineffective to yourself doesn't mean it is anything less than very powerful in the skilled right persons hands.   As I said in a different post, wouldn't a helicopter be a worthless waste of space and pile of junk to a 3rd world tribe in the jungle!? Yet would it be the same to a civilized pilot, of course not lol, the pilot knows how to use it!!!   When it comes down to it, it's great how it is. When time comes, something will come out that won't make it better, but instead will give a different way to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly play at all and have not bothered collecting the stuff needed for a meta list. 

 

I thought parking would be cool for a few reasons

1. Repairing a moving speeder is silly! Breaks my immersion a bit

2. Not being able to park is also kind of silly

3. being able to do park gives them a reasonable way of contesting objectives. 

4. Air speeders specifically benefit from slow roll deployment so that other forces can deal with or distract the things that hard counter air speeders.

i honestly don’t think people would park speeder bikes as losing the free cover would be awful for them in particular.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...