I don't like the options so I'll type my answer here. :)

Saves are fine. This is a dice-based game with enough rolls to generally even out the luck (but of course not always). Luck is most pronounced when single die rolls have huge influences and there aren't that many die rolls. A crucial init, for example. If most inits don't matter then the one that does matter injects a decent amount of luck into the game. (And of course 1-activation in the first phase was a GREAT change.)

There are some boardgames out there that appear to have "less luck" because they only use dice in a few spots but in fact can be even more luck-based than a game like SWM or Risk where there are enough dice rolls that mitigating the luck becomes an important skill. So there - I disagree with the premise of the 4th option.

I'm surprised option 1 has any votes. Too many saves just gets annoying.

I'm pretty much right between options 2 and 3. I think we're okay but if you want to build a squad that goes overboard on saves you can, and that can slow the game down.

I'm fine with the number of saves we have right now. Some squads have too many, some have way too few, but I think overall we're good. Abilities that require two saves aren't numerous - Shields 2 and similar abilities aren't running amok, Avoid Defeat doesn't happen very often, and Lightsaber Reflect costs too much to get spammed. Shien just isn't common either.



+1 to this. To a certain extent, you need to be able to deal with saves. You will come up against Grenade swarms and such like.

On the other hand, squads with non-Force direct damage (i.e. Blast Bugs or Double Flamethrowers) without a save are a little obnoxious because they don't require anything other than good positioning. You just toast the enemy before they toast you.

If anything, the only saves I find to be annoying are things like Poison saves - not the status effect poisoned, I'm talking about stuff like Virulent Paralyzing Poison and Rakghoul Disease. There are enough automatic armor/defense abilities that you will often need to roll 3 or 4 saves just to resolve one attack.

This might be an extreme example, but I recently ran Rakghouls against Neo-Crusaders. Even with Overwhelming Power negating Beskar'gam, it was still 4-6 die rolls in one turn between two pieces that cost less than 20 points each. Without Overwhelming Power it would have been even more. So save-based damage boosts really slow the game down and make your damage output vary wildly.

Hit the wrong thing, i meant to hit we have a bit too many.
Im fine with rolling saves any game like Swm has saves. But sometimes theres just a lot lf them

I need to save vs all this polls lately!
I get you're looking for feedback for future pieces, but to little-to late I fear.

Saves aren't a huge deal.... Its part of the game and adds more variables for closer squads.

*Note if you wanted them reduced, getting rid of boardwide CE would help

well, new republic gives out evade boardwide, same with rebels

Evade, lightsaber defense, force renewal allows for saves, board-wide use this characters force points, shields, dark armor, grenades, each ally may reroll each failed save once, giving out soresu, etc. etc. those are just the ones off the top of my head

I took to long to reply, but they did for me. CE handing out boardwide abilities if they were reduced to 6 squares we would see "less" saves per game. Or atleast make Using the saves more strategic

He is just voicing his opinion, which is what is being asked. Just because his opinion about CEs carries over to other aspects of the game (ie saves in this instance) doesn't mean that it should be ignored.

The designers asked for everyone's opinions, and I am sure they want to see what people think about various topics.

+1