12 hours ago, TylerTT said:

Keep in mind that hoth was the biggest fight shown on screen but that there were many fights Pre ANH and post ROTJ

I would rather FFG make the small scale Star Wars ground game as a boxed game with big boxes expansions. Like tide of iron instead of armada. They are choking the market with Star Wars constructable army Games. A Purpose built scenario game is what I’m after with larger scale battles.

One Core set for hoth

two core sets to play epic hoth

one expansion for scarif

one expansion for Endor

one post ROTJ battles for Jaku and imperial base assaults.

The Rebel Alliance was always a guerrilla force, except arguably after RotJ. However that never happens on screen, so for most people that is not what they are going to want to re-create Star Wars battles as they know them. Aside from the space battle (outside the realms of this game) Scarif is also pretty small scale (as small, if not smaller, than Hoth) It starts with... what? About 12 Rebels on the ground, and by the end there may be... another platoon or so? We only see 2 or 3 U-Wings drop off troops, and they don't exactly have a large capacity. Ok, Imperial forces outnumber them, but they are so scattered they can't concentrate much of a serious force at any one place. Again, a perfect scale for Legion (aside from the walkers... but that is a size issue, not a "scale of battle issue). In fact, Scarif is almost entirely playable out of the door (only thing missing is some heroes and Death Troopers).

Don’t forget scarif had air battles x-wings vs tie strikers.

but your mostly right. The devs said imperial assalt is the fight inside the tower and legion is the fight outside the tower.

scarif is likely best done as a queen’s gambit style board game.

My gaming experience is a few test games of Bolt Action ... totally new to all this ... and just curious/intellectual type in general. During my search for a game to play, as I have always wanted to get into minis, I went to a large, local gaming convention. Austin, Texas little hotbed for this hobby. I saw FoW.

The tiny size and the thought of painting those little guys, which is coming from the perspective of novice/never picking up a brush, beyond daunting. Like, total deal killer. Concept? AWESOME.

This Legion size, though, do-able. Now, in time could it be a gateway for me to get into a smaller scale Star Wars oriented game? 100%. Would I have gotten all frothy for a super small scale version of Legion from D!? Not at all.

The hardcore gamer traffic will come to Legion. Folks in my boat, which based on threads there appear to be a whole bunch of us .... long time gamers be patient with us ... we mean well .... are a new revenue stream. Capture the mind share of new customers, while holding the interest of existing clients. FFG taking a safe approach with the launch, opinion.

In time Legion will go from an intro to a totally into this hobby experience for all those new buyers .... role out the smaller stuff after. Love the concept. Just view it as more 401 gaming and I need some 101-201-301 level courses before.

Why do people always seem to think that painting smaller figures is more difficult? The point of larger figures is to have more details to paint; smaller figures are painted for effect. ****, 6mm Stormtroopers (or 10 or 15mm) are more or less just white drybrushed over a black basecoat with the weapons picked out in charcoal.

41 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:

Why do people always seem to think that painting smaller figures is more difficult? The point of larger figures is to have more details to paint; smaller figures are painted for effect. ****, 6mm Stormtroopers (or 10 or 15mm) are more or less just white drybrushed over a black basecoat with the weapons picked out in charcoal.

Agreed.

Smaller can often be much quicker and easier to achieve good results. I would say you need to be a better painter to paint bigger.

27/32mm all day.

SW: Legion will probably be my go to skirmish game. With that said I think 32mm looks better with fewer models. Plus, I don't expect to like painting 15mm as I am as much a hobby-ist as a I am a gamer.

I want more armor, to decorate and customize that armor, and sideline infantry. For that, I want a smaller scale. Infantry fights are already covered with IA.

Running 42 infantry models with special weapon options, climbing over, around and through buildings, sending speeder bikes zipping around your enemies and fighting over a 6 ft long battlefield are most definitely not covered in Imperial Assault. I don't even understand how you can begin to make the comparison. The scope and approach of the two games is so radically different. I play a lot of heroes of normandie but I am not fooling myself into thinking that it is the same as bolt action.

32mm because that AT-ST is ******* gorgeous.

I'd go 15 and then would hope and pfay for true 25 again.

15 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

32mm because that AT-ST is ******* gorgeous.

Truth.

I prefer the 0.4mm scale. Storm troopers are much easier to paint at that scale and you can fit dozens of AT-ATs on the board. Oh wait, this isn't the Armada forum?

I have seen some 18mm Napolionic models that seemed to have enough detail to paint like you would a larger model, while if you didn't want to make that effort you could paint like a 15mm model as desired.

tactical level versus operational level versus strategic level ... would enjoy a more operational 10mm level game; but this tactical squad will be fun...toobad...

On 1/16/2018 at 9:59 PM, wintermoonwolf said:

tactical level versus operational level versus strategic level ... would enjoy a more operational 10mm level game; but this tactical squad will be fun...toobad...

What's the actual, mechanical game play difference between the 3? You still move n shoot with minis, it just happens one has more vehicles than the other...

I always vote for bigger!

33 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

What's the actual, mechanical game play difference between the 3? You still move n shoot with minis, it just happens one has more vehicles than the other...

Tablespace is a limiting factor.

38 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

What's the actual, mechanical game play difference between the 3? You still move n shoot with minis, it just happens one has more vehicles than the other...

....being a general with stars over an operational is more to my liking vice a squad leader with grunts.... ...want those kompanies of STORMIES und AT-AT swarming the battlefield...

I think they could adapt the battlelore system quite easily to give people their massive ground battles.

1 hour ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

Tablespace is a limiting factor.

1 hour ago, wintermoonwolf said:

....being a general with stars over an operational is more to my liking vice a squad leader with grunts.... ...want those kompanies of STORMIES und AT-AT swarming the battlefield...

Both of these refer to scale. Fundamentally, it doesn't change the strategy of your armies. They just represent bigger forces. Still scoot n shoot.

I'm not understanding the difference between strategic, operational, and tactical component, unless you're referring to the scope of the battle. At which point the comparison between mechanics is the same.

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Both of these refer to scale. Fundamentally, it doesn't change the strategy of your armies. They just represent bigger forces. Still scoot n shoot.

I'm not understanding the difference between strategic, operational, and tactical component, unless you're referring to the scope of the battle. At which point the comparison between mechanics is the same.

The tactics and strategies are different at the different levels. Saying they are all just shoot and scoot is an over simplification. Where you choose to position your troops, the effects and effectiveness of terrain, threat assessment, everything that makes up your battleplan all differ based on the scale of the battle. A platoon commander is worried about the company about to closing in on the left flank if he's on the right, that is the job for the company and battalion level.

6 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

The tactics and strategies are different at the different levels. Saying they are all just shoot and scoot is an over simplification. Where you choose to position your troops, the effects and effectiveness of terrain, threat assessment, everything that makes up your battleplan all differ based on the scale of the battle. A platoon commander is worried about the company about to closing in on the left flank if he's on the right, that is the job for the company and battalion level.

Right but those same concepts scale as well. Whether you're playing FoW and flank tanks, or playing Legion and flank an AT-ST, it's the same thing. It could have been a 10mm game with a bunch of AT-ATs with flanking rules since they can't turn well, and it's literally the same thing for Legion at 32mm.

Nothing is changing between the games. Just the scale and frame of mind when you play.

10 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Both of these refer to scale. Fundamentally, it doesn't change the strategy of your armies. They just represent bigger forces. Still scoot n shoot.

I'm not understanding the difference between strategic, operational, and tactical component, unless you're referring to the scope of the battle. At which point the comparison between mechanics is the same.

The scale is the change in mechanics. When the scale dictates that ever mini matters (because they're big enough where you can only fit five on a table) the game accounts for that in the level of customization that each mini can have.
For example: A star destroyer at X wing scale would have hundreds upon hundreds of upgrade slots, to scale the size of the ship with the size of the average ship (a standard X wing having 2) Meanwhile a fighter in armada has zero upgrade slots because they're so small in comparison.
EDIT: Technically you could play the game at any scale with anysized mini but it's not practical. The game is priced, paced, and built for a certain amount of minis per team.

I'm in the 27/32 camp. The AT-AT seems like the only thing that works well at 10 but not 27/32. Since I'm much more interested in troopers, I like the greater detail 27/32 provides. Gaining the AT-AT for 10mm isn't worth the other things that would be lost.

2 hours ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:

The scale is the change in mechanics. When the scale dictates that ever mini matters (because they're big enough where you can only fit five on a table) the game accounts for that in the level of customization that each mini can have.
For example: A star destroyer at X wing scale would have hundreds upon hundreds of upgrade slots, to scale the size of the ship with the size of the average ship (a standard X wing having 2) Meanwhile a fighter in armada has zero upgrade slots because they're so small in comparison.
EDIT: Technically you could play the game at any scale with anysized mini but it's not practical. The game is priced, paced, and built for a certain amount of minis per team.

So the only true difference between tactical, strategic, and operational "style" games is the scale. They all have different rules, but you could play each game on a different scale simply by adding or removing minis and they would be equivalent. Like IA, Legion, and 40K is just a difference in scale and unique rules. Armada and X-Wing is also scale and unique rules.

I'm just trying to understand the difference because a lot of people seem to think Armada is grand strategy and X-Wing is tactical. Mechanically they are different, but your still trying to get the other guy in your arc and deal damage. Just happens to be on a different scale. Both are more like a tactical style game. Each individual unit matters in it's position and how it contributes to the squad or fleet. The goal is the same in all 5 of these games: destroy the enemy and complete the mission by using each characters strengths.

Contrast this with XCOM and Civilization. XCOM is a true tactical squad based game, and Civilization is a true strategy game. XCOM is tactical because each soldier matters and your trying to kill aliens and complete the mission. Civilization also has that component, but the scope is much broader. You need to manage a lot more resources that do not directly contribute to a tactical advantage.

Maybe this doesn't make any sense. But I just don't understand how a 10mm scale army Star Wars game is strategically different than a 32mm style army Star Wars game, with the exception of available units. You're still using fast units to flank your opponent, soldiers to support tanks, and scoot n shoot style game play.