My only true complaint has to be the jigsaw bases, yeah they are demos in the videos that are out there, everyone seems to struggle to disconnect them. While they are demo quality, there isn't a very neat fix for this sort of thing short of resizing the base by a couple millimeters to make the connections looser.

Edit: Well, that and the decision to go for a 6x3 board which seems to be on the larger side of things.

It's a definite concern, but I'm not going to think too much on it until we see videos of the final product. It may be that they slide together and slide apart very nicely. If nothing changes from the demo copies, however, then I think your quibble is justified.

I've been pretty satisfied with FFG components so far. I've got friends who hold the same opinion as the OP, but I'm willing to take it on faith at this point that the final materials will be quality.

My only true complaint has to be the jigsaw bases, yeah they are demos in the videos that are out there, everyone seems to struggle to disconnect them. While they are demo quality, there isn't a very neat fix for this sort of thing short of resizing the base by a couple millimeters to make the connections looser.

Edit: Well, that and the decision to go for a 6x3 board which seems to be on the larger side of things.

Yeah, the bases seem a little weird, though the idea is a good one, I'll have to see them in person before I render a final judgement

Personally I like the 6/3 table, it's more realistic for a battlefield

It just occurred to me that with a 6'x3' table, some sweet pre-printed terrain mats are almost a certainty.

It just occurred to me that with a 6'x3' table, some sweet pre-printed terrain mats are almost a certainty.

I'm limited to a 5' x 3' gaming space, now I'm sad

It just occurred to me that with a 6'x3' table, some sweet pre-printed terrain mats are almost a certainty.

I'm limited to a 5' x 3' gaming space, now I'm sad

Use 167pts armies, problem solved.

I cant see it being more fiddly than changing activation sliders for squadrons on a cluttered board in Armada, or dealing with a bunch of bumping in Xwing.

Im keen to see a full 200 v 200 pt battle laid out on a 6' x 3' table, should look suitably epic! The commitment to make a full rank and file game is exciting.

What I may need to do is create cardboard versions of all my terrain pieces so that if units interact with them I can keep everything flat by replacing the 3D terrain model with it's imprint.

Terrain will be an interesting thing to try to deal with.

I'm trying to figure out how scaling a mountain or hill might work. Since the trays effectively lock units onto a plane, and since trays can be organized in multiple configurations, I'm having a hard time coming up with minimum size to make a given elevation.

If the rules state a minimum and maximum width/length to tray configurations then it won't be an issue.

Also, say you wanted to do a siege type scenario. Maneuvering trays through a gate could be a nightmare if you're constrained to using the templates. Might have to fudge things with some "within half a tray" types of rules. Or just a wholesale, "You've approached the gate, next turn you're on the other side of the gate". A bit clumsy, but then so are the trays.

I'm not a fan of the bases because the units will look bad displayed on them. I've kinda resolved to just making separate display bases for storage and for play, but still a bummer.

Maybe we can use selfmade movement trays with flat sides and put square bases with holes into that tray and then the miniatures within fitting round holes for the bases!?

The problem with that is the configuration of the ranks & files. You can change their formation within the game i think so fixed movement trays would be a problem. Clever from FFG that you have to use their bases !

A much smarter solution instead of the jigsaw bases, would be magnets within the sides of the bases, for connecting them to each other and form a regiment, or new formation, but i dunno if that is possible to produce, because of the plus/minus poles of the magnets!? ...

A much smarter solution instead of the jigsaw bases, would be magnets within the sides of the bases, for connecting them to each other and form a regiment, or new formation, but i dunno if that is possible to produce, because of the plus/minus poles of the magnets!? ...

While it would be nice that it could make a mess when a couple of units are close enough so that poles would attract (or pull depending on poles). Lots of fun anyway...

(would be very funny one of your own units "charging" another of your units)

And the cost would be a bit more i guess.

Maybe we can use selfmade movement trays with flat sides and put square bases with holes into that tray and then the miniatures within fitting round holes for the bases!?

The problem with that is the configuration of the ranks & files. You can change their formation within the game i think so fixed movement trays would be a problem. Clever from FFG that you have to use their bases !

A much smarter solution instead of the jigsaw bases, would be magnets within the sides of the bases, for connecting them to each other and form a regiment, or new formation, but i dunno if that is possible to produce, because of the plus/minus poles of the magnets!? ...

On the aesthetics, the problem that I am seeing with any third party trays that have a flat edge around them is that you need the front right ranks key to fit the movement template into. Perhaps, a third party can make a new set of movement templates with some kind of a magnet mechanism to both fit the template on, and also to make the bases fit together, but even that makes it so that the edges of the bases cant be flocked. All in all, i guess its purely a decision to go for game design over aesthetics on this one angle, but its a shame we wont be able to play with stuff like these:

On the gameplay mechanics of the reform point...i have been thinking about this a good bit because of some of the things said at the GenCon demo, and I dont think they are going to allow "reform" in a sense that you can change your formations. The reason for my thinking on this is because of the cards themselves. Look at Reanimates:

There is only one formation for the amount of trays that you start with. You must start with 2, 4, 6, 9 or 12 trays (because that is all we know the point values for) and they have to be in the configuration that is listed on the card. Some units may allow variation in formation (i.e. can do 3x2 or 2x3) but that would have to be listed on the back of the card. No units are set up this way so far.

I heard in one of the videos, that the demo guy was talking about strategy in unit building, but at this point I dont see how there is any strategy to it because its a fixed aspect of the unit size. I doubt that you can reform on turn one and completely change what they have listed there. The reason for this restriction is probably balance related. Because there are no defensive benefits to formation....only offensive....there would be a mathematical "best" vs various units that would allow you to game your alpha strike in a manner that would be unfun. The formation limitations allows them to simplify the damage dealing criteria with the multiplier.

I think having formation size limits is a balance issue. You have 6 archers spread out in a line, even on a bad roll you will realistically get one hit, archers add one, for 12 damage. Even on a whiff that is 6. That will cripple most big blocks and flat out kill most anything on an average roll of 2 +1 or higher. That same can be said of a line of infantry.

Or preventing cheese of 3 front 1 second, third, and 4th rows for x3 damage with 3 rerolls. After all the design aesthetic is realistic formation combat, not L or T formations for minmaxing.

I think the strategy the guy is talking about is if it is worth it to go from a 2 x 2 formation with one good upgrade or a 3 x 3 with one or two smaller ones. Or having a small upgraded army or a larger one with few or no upgrades depending on point cost.

I think having formation size limits is a balance issue. You have 6 archers spread out in a line, even on a bad roll you will realistically get one hit, archers add one, for 12 damage. Even on a whiff that is 6. That will cripple most big blocks and flat out kill most anything on an average roll of 2 +1 or higher. That same can be said of a line of infantry.

Or preventing cheese of 3 front 1 second, third, and 4th rows for x3 damage with 3 rerolls. After all the design aesthetic is realistic formation combat, not L or T formations for minmaxing.

I think the strategy the guy is talking about is if it is worth it to go from a 2 x 2 formation with one good upgrade or a 3 x 3 with one or two smaller ones. Or having a small upgraded army or a larger one with few or no upgrades depending on point cost.

Good call, I didn't think about doing that with range units. That would definitely be OP. I hoping the bases will improve with the finally releases.

Hm i was thinking the hole time and understood it that way, within those demo games, that you could change the formation of the units, to gain more damage or rerolls!?

So when i have a regiment with 4 stands i could go 2x2 or maybe 4x1. In that case i would get 2 more damage in the first example and 1 reroll and in the second one just more damage without a reroll!? ...

Maybe i have to watch the demo gameplay vids again, but one FFG demo guy was saying exactly this if i remember it correctly ^^ ...

There also is no action on the reference cards that allows modifying formation. Reform allows you to change facing.

Yeah I'm pretty sure formations will be fixed during list-building and can't be changed during the game. Makes sense considering how Threat works.

It's a definite concern, but I'm not going to think too much on it until we see videos of the final product. It may be that they slide together and slide apart very nicely. If nothing changes from the demo copies, however, then I think your quibble is justified.

Even if they make the final product better, they will eventually wear out, and stop sliding together/apart nicely.

I'll call it that there will be one unit, character, or upgrade that will let you change your formation in the future.

I'll call it that there will be one unit, character, or upgrade that will let you change your formation in the future.

I'll second that and add that there will eventually be upgrade/ability cards that force your opponent to change their troop's formation.

It seems like such an integral part of combat and seems ripe for manipulation.

Yeah I'm pretty sure formations will be fixed during list-building and can't be changed during the game. Makes sense considering how Threat works.

Correct, the only way a units formation will change ingame is from tray removal such as damage or morale cards.

Yeah I'm pretty sure formations will be fixed during list-building and can't be changed during the game. Makes sense considering how Threat works.

Correct, the only way a units formation will change ingame is from tray removal such as damage or morale cards.

Unless theyre undead and some future upgrade allows units to "raise" dead... undead already... killed...

Did that make any sense?

Or somekind of reinforcements... in a scenario/campaign...

Unless theyre undead and some future upgrade allows units to "raise" dead... undead already... killed...

The demo is already ahead of you. If a tray is not fully eliminated (3 out of 4 reanimates dead for example) the undead guys can be raised again with the runes that are flipped at the beginning of every round.

I imagine the Necromancer in wave 2 will have a similar ability but for other trays.