Jump to content
ThumperLOLZ

New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas

Recommended Posts

On 9/5/2019 at 9:15 PM, azeronbloodmoone said:

they have always been worth as it gives crit 2 to the entire unit. but now its more of a incentive to bring them

They were only better than Z6s if you were shooting at armor or something with Guardian, even then your chances of rolling a crit were lower , but 17 points would just about buy you courage 2 and an extra black dice on the attack for another 0.5 DMG which more (so DMG wise you can obtain the same DMG buy just buying an extra trooper for 10 pts on the Z6 unit, so even with the cheaper cost now it's less effective on troopers , but now at least you can say critical 2 is worth the two points.

Comparison 

Z6, extra trooper cost 72. DMG 4 average per hit 2.5 from unit 1.5 from heavy

Vets , cm093 cost 74 DMG average 4 average per hit 2.5 from hit 1.5 from heavy (surge will cause an extra crit 1 per roll on average but no extra DMG, but that crit will do nothing on average since it doesn't add to DMG but will punch through guardian or armor)  however this is on a platform with one less wound than above. 

Sum up you trade 1 wound and pay 2 extra points for the same DMG output against troopers and perhaps one extra DMG against guardian/armor. The Z6 has nimble which gives it better survivability than the vets when under fire from multiple units ESP when it has one extra wound, so the vets still only become worthwhile if you have an emplacement that can sit at range one even at the new cost , but at it's old cost it wasn't worth considering

Share this post


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

The whole squad or just the launcher?

Both!

Whether with no upgrades, the scatter gun or the MPL fleets hit hard for their points. The only issue is that they only do so at range 2.

And of those three options, the Scatter Gun is head and shoulders ahead of the rest. Against red armour, it is even slightly better against heavy cover compared to the MPL (which has Blast) thanks to Pierce.

Have a read of this, I think you will enjoy it.

https://thefifthtrooper.com/fleet-troopers/

The author has some credit, having come #2 in last world's. Take a look around the rest of that sure too, lots of good info.

Edited by colki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, syrath said:

They were only better than Z6s if you were shooting at armor or something with Guardian, even then your chances of rolling a crit were lower , but 17 points would just about buy you courage 2 and an extra black dice on the attack for another 0.5 DMG which more (so DMG wise you can obtain the same DMG buy just buying an extra trooper for 10 pts on the Z6 unit, so even with the cheaper cost now it's less effective on troopers , but now at least you can say critical 2 is worth the two points.

Comparison 

Z6, extra trooper cost 72. DMG 4 average per hit 2.5 from unit 1.5 from heavy

Vets , cm093 cost 74 DMG average 4 average per hit 2.5 from hit 1.5 from heavy (surge will cause an extra crit 1 per roll on average but no extra DMG, but that crit will do nothing on average since it doesn't add to DMG but will punch through guardian or armor)  however this is on a platform with one less wound than above. 

Sum up you trade 1 wound and pay 2 extra points for the same DMG output against troopers and perhaps one extra DMG against guardian/armor. The Z6 has nimble which gives it better survivability than the vets when under fire from multiple units ESP when it has one extra wound, so the vets still only become worthwhile if you have an emplacement that can sit at range one even at the new cost , but at it's old cost it wasn't worth considering

But what about factoring in cover?

Share this post


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

But what about factoring in cover?

Most of the time unless you roll just crits and /or surges the cover will remove regular hits. Not that common, still a factor, and still not worth losing nimble and 17 points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 9:27 AM, Alpha17 said:

Anyone see any changes to the RRG other than the points adjustments?  I print off physical copies for myself and my FLGS group, and don't want to waste paper reprinting everything if I can avoid it.  I'll just print off the extra pages. 

For what it's worth, I also just noticed this latest version comfirms barricades give heavy cover to the Occupier tank.

Addition to Cohesion for models with a notched base.

Addition to Command Hand to identify cards by Commander's name not picture and you can use more than 3 of one commander. Also clarification that a character's cards can't be used after they are defeated. It used to say commander, so this covers operatives.

In the Line of Sight section, there are some specifics for the E-Web, Mortar trooper, and Occupier tank that override checking LoS from the center of the base.

Range section incorporates the new range 5.

And Wheel Mode is moved to proper alphabetical order.

Edited by Weikel

Share this post


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

For what it's worth, I also just noticed this latest version comfirms barricades give heaby cover to the Occupier tank.

Addition to Cohesion for models with a notched base.

Addition to Command Hand to identify cards by Commander's name not picture and you can use more than 3 of one commander. Also clarification that a character's cards can't be used after they are defeated. It used to say commander, so this covers operatives.

 

So Vader and Luke can stack a command hand with their operative cards as well as their command cards, and covers the loophole of the being operatives instead of commanders (although I don't see how that could be abused with the command cards we have)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, colki said:

Both!

Whether with no upgrades, the scatter gun or the MPL fleets hit hard for their points. The only issue is that they only do so at range 2.

And of those three options, the Scatter Gun is head and shoulders ahead of the rest. Against red armour, it is even slightly better against heavy cover compared to the MPL (which has Blast) thanks to Pierce.

Have a read of this, I think you will enjoy it.

https://thefifthtrooper.com/fleet-troopers/

The author has some credit, having come #2 in last world's. Take a look around the rest of that sure too, lots of good info.

I disagree with the scatter gun being head and shoulders above the mpl.

 

though yes that site is a great source of info.

Edited by Tirion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two games in with double T-47s and triple Tauntauns, both opponents knew what I was bringing as they're both players that I regularly bounce lists off of.

69547585_2432790613671117_61681318251861

 

70746124_2432790720337773_16935978564153

 

Game 1, opponent concede at end of turn 3, game 2 opponent concedes at end of turn 4.  I have 3 minimum Rebel Trooper units that calmly walked up to and secured objectives while my opponents drowned in a pile of nonsense.  *shrugs*  seems legit.

 

EDIT:  Weirdly, both opponents had similar feedback on the usefulness of various imperial units in combating the list.  The E-Web and shoretroopers performed well (surge to crit and critical on the Shores were useful against both the T-47 and Tauntauns and the Sentinel overwatch from the E-Web was useful), but DLTs were mostly useless (dice pool was too weak, the extra range 4 did nothing as they ended up fighting at point blank range right away and the impact was too inefficient against T-47s) with one particularly interested in T-21s for the Critical 2.

Edited by MasterShake2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Two games in with double T-47s and triple Tauntauns, both opponents knew what I was bringing as they're both players that I regularly bounce lists off of.

69547585_2432790613671117_61681318251861

 

70746124_2432790720337773_16935978564153

 

Game 1, opponent concede at end of turn 3, game 2 opponent concedes at end of turn 4.  I have 3 minimum Rebel Trooper units that calmly walked up to and secured objectives while my opponents drowned in a pile of nonsense.  *shrugs*  seems legit.

As a Hoth-only collector this warms the gothic arches of my heart. 

Share this post


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

Two games in with double T-47s and triple Tauntauns, both opponents knew what I was bringing as they're both players that I regularly bounce lists off of.

69547585_2432790613671117_61681318251861

 

70746124_2432790720337773_16935978564153

 

Game 1, opponent concede at end of turn 3, game 2 opponent concedes at end of turn 4.  I have 3 minimum Rebel Trooper units that calmly walked up to and secured objectives while my opponents drowned in a pile of nonsense.  *shrugs*  seems legit.

 

EDIT:  Weirdly, both opponents had similar feedback on the usefulness of various imperial units in combating the list.  The E-Web and shoretroopers performed well (surge to crit and critical on the Shores were useful against both the T-47 and Tauntauns and the Sentinel overwatch from the E-Web was useful), but DLTs were mostly useless (dice pool was too weak, the extra range 4 did nothing as they ended up fighting at point blank range right away and the impact was too inefficient against T-47s) with one particularly interested in T-21s for the Critical 2.

Aaargh...early concessions 😆 ...you must have being doing something right! A little off topic, but do you have thoughts about possibly increasing sentinel of the 1.4 cannon by 1 to account for increased range effectiveness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 2:43 AM, TallGiraffe said:

But what about factoring in cover?

Also, don’t the veterans get a dodge token on order (meaning they don’t have to activate to have defense) and they potentially  distribute two orders for the price of one 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Derrault said:

Also, don’t the veterans get a dodge token on order (meaning they don’t have to activate to have defense) and they potentially  distribute two orders for the price of one 

 

^ we have a winner.  How many times have your Rebel Troopers gotten hammered without nimble being a factor i.e. taken 1 really big hit or gotten wiped before they activate?  Everybody mentions Nimble, but it's a Corps unit, how often are you really activating them first or, at least, early enough to really get value out of Nimble?  On the Other Hand, by HQ uplinking vets, they just start the activation phase as an undesirable target, especially in heavy cover (and, because they want HQ Uplink anyways, they also synergize really well with My Ally is the Force and No Time For Sorrows). 

 

In order for Nimble to matter, you have to have a dodge token and also get attacked while having that dodge token multiple times (if you only get shot at once, nimble wasn't even relevant), so you can go entire games with Nimble on your corps literally doing nothing.  On the flip side, if your opponent tries to kill an HQ uplinked Rebel Vet unit that always get orders, Defend adds value, potentially multiple times and very easily.

Share this post


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

I am on the side liking Veterans. :D

I actually like them but the cm093 was costed too high even still it isn't an auto include (it shouldn't be) but with the possible influx of armour it could be a better choice than a z6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 5:59 AM, Alpha17 said:

How is it not organized in a sensible fashion?  It's a basic overview of the game mechanics, then game terms in alphabetical order?  Even if you have an issue finding something just by flipping through, there's a glossary.  I'm legitimately confused about how it could be better. 

I have to look at at least three entries to figure out how cover works; it should all be in one place (i.e. the beginning section).

Something like this would be better:

Overview
Definitions of terms
Game Turn (with definitions of actions)
Movement
Terrain
Shooting
Cover
Melee
Troopers (all sorts)
Vehicles (all sorts)
Embarking/Disembarking
Appendix

Now they've already got something like that at the beginning, but it isn't fleshed out. I shouldn't have to look in the appendix until I need to know what a keyword does. Everything else should come first.

Share this post


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

Now they've already got something like that at the beginning, but it isn't fleshed out. I shouldn't have to look in the appendix until I need to know what a keyword does. Everything else should come first.

I think there would a lot of repetition (more than they already have) if they structure it like that.  To know how cover works you have to look at multiple sections... that are all linked together, with the link (if using a digital copy) provided at the bottom of the section.  If you're using a paper copy, you don't have the joys of just clicking on a link, buy you do save a ton of ink and paper by not having everything repeated at least twice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:10 PM, MasterShake2 said:

Two games in with double T-47s and triple Tauntauns, both opponents knew what I was bringing as they're both players that I regularly bounce lists off of.

69547585_2432790613671117_61681318251861

 

70746124_2432790720337773_16935978564153

 

Game 1, opponent concede at end of turn 3, game 2 opponent concedes at end of turn 4.  I have 3 minimum Rebel Trooper units that calmly walked up to and secured objectives while my opponents drowned in a pile of nonsense.  *shrugs*  seems legit.

 

EDIT:  Weirdly, both opponents had similar feedback on the usefulness of various imperial units in combating the list.  The E-Web and shoretroopers performed well (surge to crit and critical on the Shores were useful against both the T-47 and Tauntauns and the Sentinel overwatch from the E-Web was useful), but DLTs were mostly useless (dice pool was too weak, the extra range 4 did nothing as they ended up fighting at point blank range right away and the impact was too inefficient against T-47s) with one particularly interested in T-21s for the Critical 2.

Long live the new Hoth META

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 4:04 AM, MasterShake2 said:

 

^ we have a winner.  How many times have your Rebel Troopers gotten hammered without nimble being a factor i.e. taken 1 really big hit or gotten wiped before they activate?  Everybody mentions Nimble, but it's a Corps unit, how often are you really activating them first or, at least, early enough to really get value out of Nimble?  On the Other Hand, by HQ uplinking vets, they just start the activation phase as an undesirable target, especially in heavy cover (and, because they want HQ Uplink anyways, they also synergize really well with My Ally is the Force and No Time For Sorrows). 

 

In order for Nimble to matter, you have to have a dodge token and also get attacked while having that dodge token multiple times (if you only get shot at once, nimble wasn't even relevant), so you can go entire games with Nimble on your corps literally doing nothing.  On the flip side, if your opponent tries to kill an HQ uplinked Rebel Vet unit that always get orders, Defend adds value, potentially multiple times and very easily.

I'm curious how an HQ uplink always gets an order months vet unit, are you recovering each round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 2:48 PM, TallGiraffe said:

Was the T7 the first?

Thought the Fleets damage per point was bad too. 

Fleets generally cost around points per point of average damage and are the most point efficient unit in the game (as of a month ago, I was off comm for a bit).

Pre change T47 was 46-183 points per damage.  I'll update the tables later for new units and point changes.  
 


Oh @Derrault; my first thought when I saw the news article was that I couldn't wait to see how your cognitive dissonance manifested around these changes.  So, question for you.
May I please ask that you clarify what you mean when you say the changes are temporary?  
Are you asserting that the point values that were changed will revert in a year or that they will be changed to different numbers in a year?  Are you ruling out the possibility that these particular point values will stay static (in whole or in part) and that sometime in 2020 we might see changes to other numbers, perhaps for units we haven't even dreamt of yet?

Also, what is the purpose of your mantra that they are only "temporary"?  Will you stop playing the game until they are no longer able to change the numbers?  Will you stop opining on things because everything is fleeting and all is impermanence?  Or is this just a way to rationalize that even though there was metaphorical graphite on the ground and the RBMK reactor did explode, you were right all along and continue to be right that nothing is wrong and there is no possible way to gather enough data about the units for the purposes of game design and re-design?

Edited by Zrob314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zrob314

1) It was quite clear the first time. They're planning to do points changes on the tournament scene every year. I'm not saying they revert per se, although that's technically true in that a new list of adjustments would be issued, which may or may not contain the current set. 

I mean, if you want to spend your time naval gazing to reach the metaphysical answer, it's quite close to a ship of theseus problem. I tend towards the perspective that it's not the same, regardless of the configuration of the parts being the same.

And, no, I'm not ruling out that they'll re-issue the same set of points for tournament play. 
Would it make it easier to digest if I used "yearly" instead of "temporary", even though it's tantamount to the same thing?

2) The point of my mantra was obvious to anyone who did the reading. It was a discussion about issuing new cards or not based on yearly changes. The obvious answer again is, no, because they'll be apt to change again soon.

The rationale behind the adjustments was plain, adjustments were made to increase frequency of use. Here, a direct quote saying literally that:
"It is our hope that this will allow players to field a much wider variety of units in a competitive setting and give them renewed interest in the lesser-used miniatures in their collections. The vast majority of our adjustments are aimed at improving under-utilized units so that they can compete at the same level as many of the army-building staples players reach for time and time again. Vehicles, particularly from early waves, are seldom taken in competitive lists, and this update delivers large discounts to both vehicles and some of their key upgrade cards. A plethora of other updates are targeted at things like increasing the diversity of commanders that see play, deepening the pool of useful upgrade cards, and steering players toward lists that don’t rely as heavily on a full compliment of Corps units. As a rule, these changes will impact players collections in a purely positive way, allowing for much more diversity in army creation." - Alex Davy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derrault said:

@Zrob314

1) It was quite clear the first time. They're planning to do points changes on the tournament scene every year. I'm not saying they revert per se, although that's technically true in that a new list of adjustments would be issued, which may or may not contain the current set. 

I mean, if you want to spend your time naval gazing to reach the metaphysical answer, it's quite close to a ship of theseus problem. I tend towards the perspective that it's not the same, regardless of the configuration of the parts being the same.

And, no, I'm not ruling out that they'll re-issue the same set of points for tournament play. 
Would it make it easier to digest if I used "yearly" instead of "temporary", even though it's tantamount to the same thing?

2) The point of my mantra was obvious to anyone who did the reading. It was a discussion about issuing new cards or not based on yearly changes. The obvious answer again is, no, because they'll be apt to change again soon.

The rationale behind the adjustments was plain, adjustments were made to increase frequency of use. Here, a direct quote saying literally that:
"It is our hope that this will allow players to field a much wider variety of units in a competitive setting and give them renewed interest in the lesser-used miniatures in their collections. The vast majority of our adjustments are aimed at improving under-utilized units so that they can compete at the same level as many of the army-building staples players reach for time and time again. Vehicles, particularly from early waves, are seldom taken in competitive lists, and this update delivers large discounts to both vehicles and some of their key upgrade cards. A plethora of other updates are targeted at things like increasing the diversity of commanders that see play, deepening the pool of useful upgrade cards, and steering players toward lists that don’t rely as heavily on a full compliment of Corps units. As a rule, these changes will impact players collections in a purely positive way, allowing for much more diversity in army creation." - Alex Davy

You do also realise they called it a point RE-BALANCE. So it would also be fair to say that they looked at the under utilised units and 're-balanced' them for the tournament scene. Why was this necessary, because those same units were at the very least , viewed to be points ineffective (very much so with the Airspeeder which really couldn't be points justified in a competitive list whichever way you looked at it). Between activation spam and the effectiveness of sniper strike teams which brought about a bit of a stagnant meta. While not the only effective list, the proliferation of the build known as "efficiency gunlines" was not good for the game. Even the very name shows it for what it is, sniper strike teams, (and saboteur for those that learned to play them) z6 rebel troopers and DLT stormtrooper units were the most efficient and consistent units in the game, the points re-balance brought many units in line with that efficiency. 

When the game was released, there was no benchmark, the Efficiency Gunline provided that benchmark to measure everything against. I love playing Jyn Erso and Pathfinders but even I knew point for point they were both not as effective as an equivalent amount of Z6 units. Now armour is going to be more likely to be on the table either via the clone wars factions or cheaper units, which will also bring in anti armour to the game. (Example I'd never consider Bistan in a PF unif, but I am now)

Share this post


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

You do also realise they called it a point RE-BALANCE. So it would also be fair to say that they looked at the under utilised units and 're-balanced' them for the tournament scene. Why was this necessary, because those same units were at the very least , viewed to be points ineffective (very much so with the Airspeeder which really couldn't be points justified in a competitive list whichever way you looked at it). Between activation spam and the effectiveness of sniper strike teams which brought about a bit of a stagnant meta. While not the only effective list, the proliferation of the build known as "efficiency gunlines" was not good for the game. Even the very name shows it for what it is, sniper strike teams, (and saboteur for those that learned to play them) z6 rebel troopers and DLT stormtrooper units were the most efficient and consistent units in the game, the points re-balance brought many units in line with that efficiency. 

When the game was released, there was no benchmark, the Efficiency Gunline provided that benchmark to measure everything against. I love playing Jyn Erso and Pathfinders but even I knew point for point they were both not as effective as an equivalent amount of Z6 units. Now armour is going to be more likely to be on the table either via the clone wars factions or cheaper units, which will also bring in anti armour to the game. (Example I'd never consider Bistan in a PF unif, but I am now)

I mean, I agree that more armor is very likely to require more anti-armor to deal with it.

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...