Hasbro had a minis licence through WotC but gave up the Minis and the RPG rights up years ago.

Those who think this is just skirmish mode for IA, have you guys played any miniatures games? Like 40k or Bolt Action or Warmachine? I mean this as a 100% serious question. IA skirmish mode is really nothing at all like a miniatures war game.

29 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Without even considering the loads of support for IA , including FFG talking about putting out digital support for IA (similar to Descent) at GenCon.

Which is probably taking forever because of Electronic Arts' exclusive rights to digital Star Wars products (one of the reasons cited for there being no pdf versions of their Star Wars roleplaying games).

I'm sure a deal was reached to allow for the publication of Rebellion. Undoubtedly the IA debacle opened up some communications channels along the lines of "the next time you want to make a Star Wars board game..."

It's not exactly a new thing for FFG. Netrunner belongs to Hasbro. Arkham Horror is a licensed reworking of a Chaosium game. Merchant of Venus was already announced by Stronghold Games when FFG announced their version. They had the Catan CEO on their stage today announcing an FFG Catan game today, which would have been mind-boggling two years ago if you know anything about the gaming industry. If there's one thing FFG knows how to do, it's make deals.

1 hour ago, Hawkstrike said:

Same here. Battle of Hoth, Battle of Scarif ... those movie moments where you have air & ground units, infantry and vehicles all mixing it up. Such a missed opportunity IMO.

FFG, please fill in the blank: X-Wing: Armada :: Imperial Assault : __________.

I seem to have used up my like allowance so I'll quote you.

I wanted 1/270 scale Hoth, Scarif and whatever battle that is in the last Jedi trailer. Perfect for tanks, walkers and atmospheric craft. Without it stepping on X-Wing toes. Keeping the two separate. Prepainted too.

This just seems daft in light of Imperial Assault. Which, though I'm not interested in, is a cool game.

11 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Those who think this is just skirmish mode for IA, have you guys played any miniatures games? Like 40k or Bolt Action or Warmachine? I mean this as a 100% serious question. IA skirmish mode is really nothing at all like a miniatures war game.

Yes, I have. I don't happen to like any of those games you mention, so I haven't played much (just with other people's stuff). However, they always struck me as being very similar with the core difference being grid vs no-grid. That's probably not a common opinion though. I enjoy IA over those game because the rules feel more solid, it's star wars, and it's got a fun campaign system to go with it. But I get that my opinion on that is only my own.

Again, I'm not trying to knock the game at all. It just won't find space on my shelf because it's main appeal seems to be that it's a star wars minis skirmish game. I already own one of those.

via Sorastro

There different sizes between IA and Legion is likely intentional, and honestly, probably for a good reason. If this is going to be a competitive game, having noticeably different sized figures to avoid people using figures from one in the other is kind of mandatory don't you think?

I'm with some of the other voices here. 10-15mm size is where I was hoping for. Squads of infantry on a single base. The ability to field lots of vehicles. The ability to field larger vehicles.

If Armada is the large scale version of X-Wing, I wanted the Armada version of IA. Instead we got the nearly same scale as IA with Armada dice. Seriously, the game looks like a moderately modified version of IA.

Perhaps this is the X-wing version of ground combat and the Armada version is another year off. We can hope...

8 minutes ago, Willange said:

It just won't find space on my shelf because it's main appeal seems to be that it's a star wars minis skirmish game. I already own one of those.

So of course no one can tell you what you should and shouldn't buy. But I think you - and many others - are using the word "skirmish" too broadly here. Just right off the bat, there is a big difference between miniatures games built around figure-by-figure activation versus unit-based activation. Whether a game is played on a grid or not is also a huge chasm - ask X-Wing and Armada and RW players who are struggling to improve their eye for distances.

7 minutes ago, Manchu said:

So of course no one can tell you what you should and shouldn't buy. But I think you - and many others - are using the word "skirmish" too broadly here. Just right off the bat, there is a big difference between miniatures games built around figure-by-figure activation versus unit-based activation. Whether a game is played on a grid or not is also a huge chasm - ask X-Wing and Armada and RW players who are struggling to improve their eye for distances.

Of course, there are differences. I do understand the difference at least somewhat well. I do play X-wing, Armada, and actually RW (more reasons why I personally shouldn't buy yet another FFG minis game haha). I guess I was just trying to say that for me I don't look at Legion and think "ooooo must have!". I felt that way about their other minis games. This one just doesn't really scratch any new itches for me.

I do hope it does well though! FFG making money on a cool game certainly doesn't hurt anything in my mind.

Oh I don't think we have to worry about this game selling!

2 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Oh I don't think we have to worry about this game selling!

FFG certainly doesnt...

They know its going to sell anyway. And I bet some guys (like me) that buy and play IA will buy and play Legion. Those who dont will be a minority.

23 minutes ago, RogueLieutenant said:

via Sorastro

Nuts. Even bigger models than 28mm. They are going the wrong direction! Oh well. The model looks pretty good.

But it's not like FFG has killed a game in the past by purposefully going with a different larger scale and alienating a lot of consumers, oh wait they did about 10 years ago with Mutant Chronicles.

I just hope they had learned from that and would be more inclusive. As I already have a bunch of figures (from Imperial Assault) I am far more likely to buy this than have to re buy a bunch of stuff. If I can use my IA figures for this game (with stats they can sell to me) to make the new game a better experience it will be a no brainier of a buy in.

I mean, as long as you're willing to glue IA minis to Legion sized bases, not sure what the actual issue is. Proxies and stand-ins are a thing (I've played on many a table with coke-can carnifexes), and as long as you are using regulation sized stuff, whats the issue at the "friendly game" level (obviously in competition, you're going to need to use the models, but that likely would of been an issue even if they were the same scale as IA).

I'm with others though, I would of very much preferred a game that worked on the scale of multiple AT-ATs, more battle of Hoth. Heck, having a format where you have flyers and ground vehicles would of been great. Whats weird to me is what sort of model range can we expect with this then?

22 minutes ago, Willange said:

Of course, there are differences. I do understand the difference at least somewhat well. I do play X-wing, Armada, and actually RW (more reasons why I personally shouldn't buy yet another FFG minis game haha). I guess I was just trying to say that for me I don't look at Legion and think "ooooo must have!". I felt that way about their other minis games. This one just doesn't really scratch any new itches for me.

I do hope it does well though! FFG making money on a cool game certainly doesn't hurt anything in my mind.

You did figure out the dirty little secret of these miniature board games: you take the grid off the map and put a ruler in the player's hand and it's suddenly a miniatures game with no real rules changes. Monopoly is a board game, I have no idea why people (not here, but out in the wilds...) violently support the notion that a game like Imperial Assault is more like Monopoly than it is Warhammer 40K.

But what I was really going to say, there were lots of people back in the day who said Necromunda scratched the itch for them that 40K had been scratching, and so they started to just play Necromunda. Not so for every body else though. It just kind of depends on how you're personally experiencing the game, because there definitely are differences there, they just might not be the ones that matter to you.

Well, again, being on a grid can really dramatically change things. I have not played a lot of RW but I know the pain of being like 2mm off from a successful charge. I know what it feels like to accidentally lose a TIE Fighter to a miscalculated turn. Lord knows I have royally effed up some capital ship deployments in Armada. None of these things would have been possible in a game designed for grid-based distances.

8 minutes ago, Manchu said:

Well, again, being on a grid can really dramatically change things. I have not played a lot of RW but I know the pain of being like 2mm off from a successful charge. I know what it feels like to accidentally lose a TIE Fighter to a miscalculated turn. Lord knows I have royally effed up some capital ship deployments in Armada. None of these things would have been possible in a game designed for grid-based distances.

Point taken, though if you've ever come up a square short from winning a game of Blood Bowl, you'd know it can feel much closer than you'd think.

Sure, games with known, fixed distances have other kinds of risk and tension.

1 hour ago, Guest FrStark said:

If you are right with the scale, that means this game is going to be the most expansive game. Look at the IA prices... they are expansive, and Legions will provide squads, not 3 figs units... Your wallet is gonna blow up man!

I agree with most of you guys : I'm not happy with the scale... I wanted a flames of war style game, 3 or 5 AT-ATs walking to their target, throwing troopers trying to flank the Rebels defensive positions, preparing the AT-ATs arrival... Artillery from space, tanks, turrets, traps...

IA already provides a skirmish game, why would I spend money to this new game, only the rules change, I can make my own small battles with IA figs.

Well you can look at runewars pricing. It's about $25 an expansion. Maybe some of the single hero units will be around $15. So yeah, it will be more expensive than AI on the unit side. I am not sure we will see big expansion boxes outside of a new faction release though. AI sku are big because of the map tiles and campaigns. Now, if they choose to get into the 3D land scaping market, we can see even higher priced minis, like a downed AT-AT.

I am not sure what the correct scale should be since the rebel never really had armor. Seems one sided and even then, just not enough source material for a vehicle based game. FFG likes to recycle their products as much as possible, so a figure based game shouldn't surprise anyone.

For those who want to play Hoth - and I am one of them - I think a board game might in many ways be a better fit.

Mep - great point about the Rebels being hosed at 6mm-15mm scales. I think us SW fans just have those AT-ATs seared into our brains.

should have been smaller, not bigger

6 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

Yeah, I'm firmly in the camp that wanted a game in the 10mm-15mm range. I want AT-AT s (note the plural) to be realistic to field- and I'm not just referring to physical size. My wallet is a consideration too. $40-$50 for an AT-AT would have been just about right, but at this scale I don't see AT-AT's happening for less than $90-$100 a pop, and very unlikely you'd be able to field more than one per battle- if they ever happen. They might end up being like the mythical Super Star Destroyer that has yet to appear in Armada.

Oh well, now I know. I'll probably be skipping this one. In fact, if anything, I'll probably pick up someone's IA collection on eBay instead- I'm sure there will be a few people who want to sell IA in order to dip into Legion. I've played the IA campaign mode with my friends a ton and it's a blast, and I've always wanted to try out the skirmish mode.

I still think that will be the AT-AT price.

It's just Bigger Luke in Legion. Nothing to see here.

Here's the thing. The SW:L figures look to be close enough to the IA figures. I'm going to use whatever the heck I want to use in my casual FLGS matches. The only time it would matter would be if I'm competing in a sanctioned FFG tournament (hint: I never do). So will the slight difference in figure size have ANY bearing on me or how I play? Nope, not a lick. Will I use my 12 IA Stormtroopers that are already painted? Of course. And my two AT-STs too? Yup!

IA to me is a SpecOps / Spec Forces kind of thing. A tiny squad of 6-10 figures moving in to complete a mission. The campaign for IA is the best part of the game for me. The skirmish mode I'm kind of indifferent to. But again for me SW:L will be loads of figures in bigger battles. Running a squad in IA with 6 or 7 activations and 15+ figures seems to take *forever* to do. The faster movement and combat of SW:L looks ideal to me for these bigger battles.

8 hours ago, Tarvalar said:

As far as I know, it hasn't been formally addressed yet- and I'll be thrilled to be proven wrong here!- but all indications are that Legion minis will be incompatible with Imperial Assault minis. I'm honestly really disappointed with this, and it's certainly going to affect whether or not I buy the game. I'm irked for the following reasons:

1. From what we've seen, the minis are just large enough to make the two next to each other look goofy. Exactly why the minis couldn't be the same size isn't at all clear. If they were much larger or smaller, it would be one thing, but it seems almost as if they were specifically designed to be just different enough to be incompatible.
2. Furthermore, I'm a little surprised that the scale of the battles involved looks like they'll be pretty darn close to Imperial Assault skirmishes. In fact, the core box for Imperial Assault included one more miniature than Legion (34 vs. 33). I'd anticipated that FFG would release another SW game focusing on larger battles (a la Hoth, with AT-ATs and air support, but this doesn't seem to be it at all. So if the number of combatants are as similar between games as it looks, why change the scale of the minis?
3. While I suppose the larger Legion size allows for more detail, I'm honestly perfectly happy with the detail of IA miniatures, which are already on the larger side of my preference- though I may be in the minority on this point!.

I don't know whether to ascribe it to poor coordination, or, to be less charitable, to wonder if this is a more cynical move on their part to encourage their customers to buy more of their products. If it's the latter, I'm really disappointed. You'd really hope that they would encourage loyalty from their customers by creating opportunities for crossovers between games, not discouraging them.

Let me know if you guys think this is an overreaction- I'm happy to concede that there's plenty about the game that we don't know. Still, this seems like a decision that they really didn't have to make that hurts their customers more than anything, and doesn't make me excited at the prospect of shelling out $90 just for access to a new game.

Thanks for reading!

i agree completely. its really brutal that buying one of everything for FFGs imperial assault already runs over 500 dollars, and now they want you to buy a second Han, a second bossk, etc. i was just getting into imperial assault, but if this game isnt 28mm I dont think I'll buy any more of either game. ive spent well over grand on FFG star wars stuff and i know people who've spent a lot more. they could have at least enabled some casual proxying for loyal customers. its just greedy. also 28mm is the primary scale for scifi terrain and scenery. I already made a bunch of stuff for I.A., not gonna make it twice