I'd like to get a bit of input from the community on a matter. I think that our game has seen the Attack value of pieces increase much faster than the Defense value, making the Defense value of pieces less and less important. What's the difference between 18 and 20 defense now? Not that much. What about the difference between 20 and 23 defense? It definitely exists, but it isn't a huge gap. Squads now regularly get characters attacking at +16 or greater, making the Defense stat less useful.

If you had the choice between a character with 23 Defense and no defensive special abilities or a character with 18 Defense and Parry, Evade, or both, which would you pick?

What about high hitpoints versus defensive SAs? If you had the choice between a character with 150 HP and no defensive powers or a character with 80 HP, Parry, and Evade, which would you pick?

Would you like to see the Defense stat matter more? Do you think that characters with more than 23 Defense is a good idea? Would you like to see more abilities that increase the Defense stat like Advantageous Cover, Lightsaber Duelist, etc?

I'm not a designer for set 4, the V-set currently in development, so this is me asking as a member of the community more than as a designer because I'm just curious. What do you think about the evolution of Attack vs. Defense in the game? Have attackers gotten too much lately so the aggressor is more likely to see good stuff happen than they should be, or should attackers get more boosts to be able to land more shots on those annoying pieces that can negate damage with a save? If you think there is a problem and you were a designer, how would you address this?

Simply put, what IS more important in the current game, and what SHOULD BE more important in the game; the Defense value on the card (and abilities that increase it) or defensive Special Abilities like Parry, Evade, etc.?

Great topic. I feel like sith is probably right on this. When you compared a 150HP piece vs an 80HP one, my first thought was "well... can i get this 150 piece access to an evade/mobile CE?". For me, high HP is more valuable than defense. Attack is so easy to boost, that its almost impossible to get a high enough hp to survive a loda/lancer sweep. I think if the v-sets started boosting DEF to compete with the godly high attacks, a few things would happen:
1. The game would take even longer to play.
2. More pieces would become useuless. Attack is the primary form of damage in this game. If you make it less useful by boosting DEF's, pieces who cannot adapt are phased out.
3. Attacks would eventually have to be boosted even higher to repair the problem. It would become an arms race.

I think that Siths idea is spot on. Take for example the clone trooper with the repeating blaster. Its such an awesome piece, every one is a huge fan of it, and its effective. But it never sees competitive play because no one will pay a 20+ cost for a 20 HP attacker who will die when the first 5pt storm trooper with +15 attack manages to hit him. You just can't afford to invest in such a costly piece when there are so many ways do deal 20 damage, some automatic... and no amount of DEF is going to change that.

I agree that the huge damage output is the larger issue here. Having a high attack is good. Boosting Defense will just turn the game into more of a luck fest. While luck is good, I think squads should be rewarded with hits if they are built around boosting attack a lot, instead of losing because even at +18 attack they can't kill that guy sitting at 32 defense in cover.

I think damage is the issue. I build my squads knowing I will take hits while I close, and take damage. It is annoying when you get popped by a Naboo Pilot for 40 damage per hit if they have opportunist.

So I think we need more people giving out damage reduction and stuff like that. I would love for storm troopers and clones to have some kind of protection from their armour. I think the 16 defense was meant to simulate that, but then the clones came out with their measly 14 defense and I think that is ridiculous. DR 10 would be cool for them or something.

i do enjoy a more defensive game, but lots of defensive abilities do slow the game. and if a player is "Rolling Well" it can make it almost impossible to kill a piece with evade, parry or soresu ect. i would like to see some higher printed defenses like 24, 25 even 26, as i dont think it would make a huge difference because rolling 2 higher doesnt break the game.

as for damage reducing abilities, im sorta for it. dr10 would make 10 damage figures almost useless and just drive up the need for higher damage.

what i would like would be an ability that would limit or cap the amount of damage or attacks a figure could take in a single turn or even give a temporary boost to defense.

something like:

Evasive Manuvers(sp?) (This character gains +3 defense each time he is hit by an attack until the end of this turn)

or

Battle Hardening (Damage this character takes from attacks is reduced to half rounded down to a minimum of 10)

these abilities wont avoid total damage but it lessens it and makes it more managable.

There are ways to boost defense with out ruining attacks. Highly specialized boosts like:
Quick Reflexes: +6 Def against attacks of opporunity and against attacks made with Gallopping Attack or Strafe Attack.
Room to Manuever: This character gets +4 Def against non-adjacent attacks if it has no cover.
Evasive: After this character is attacked, he culmatively gets +3 Def for the rest of the turn.

Super high defenses aren't necessarily bad. But to get those high defenses, they must be earned, either with a big combo or specific circumstances. Raising the base defense is a really dangerous place to go, made even more dangerous with Atris.

Attacks are the basis of the game. You make to many defenses against attacks, then you broke the game. Which is why I'm still really hesitant about GOWK coming back.