This replay is awesome for learning about the game and gameplay. But the thing that really blew me away was the last 5-10 minutes when they explained how the game starts. I love the objective based gameplay system they have in place. I think the replayability factor with this system will be great. I think it better than other games I have seen with this style of gameplay.
Edited by Mantose262
For those who cannot watch:
Establish the Battlefield Phase
Great!
do we know any exact examples of battle cards?
At the risk of being lambaste, I personally watched two Gen Con demo videos by General Games and the one above; the game play of SW Legion really didn't appeal to me. I'll probably get a demo of the game with someone at my LGS once it is released to see it first hand though. The sculpts look great and a Star Wars theme game can easily appeal to a lot of folks for interest.
It's not an entirely new mechanic, it was actually used in Warhammer Disk Wars. I wouldn't say it adds more replay value compared to other wargames, because the deployment zones, objectives, etc. are all fairly standard and most games will mix them. However where a lot of games have you roll for these things randomly, the system in Disk Wars and now Legion, makes it an important strategic decision which is better. It also generally encourages people to make a well rounded army, because if you are too specialised, e.g. a static fire base, you're opponent might be able to make it very difficult for you...
1 hour ago, Guest WBrawn said:However where a lot of games have you roll for these things randomly, the system in Disk Wars and now Legion, makes it an important strategic decision which is better.
You could be like a very popular and well-known game that just released a new edition and have rules like "both players roll off to see who gets to roll on the random chart, then whoever didn't roll on the random chart gets to make an actual unrelated decision."
This is far better.
The company that makes that very popular and well-known game is starting to wake up and look around the industry, taking a trick here or there where it can, including using a card-based system for working out scenario features. Glad to see FFG having a positive effect in the industry!
1 hour ago, skotothalamos said:You could be like a very popular and well-known game that just released a new edition and have rules like "both players roll off to see who gets to roll on the random chart, then whoever didn't roll on the random chart gets to make an actual unrelated decision."
This is far better.
If by "actual unrelated decision" you mean choosing deployment zone that is a choice done by the same player that made the roll, not the one who didnt roll.
1 minute ago, Soulless said:If by "actual unrelated decision" you mean choosing deployment zone that is a choice done by the same player that made the roll, not the one who didnt roll.
after the other player determines the deployment zones. don't you skip steps on me!
Just now, skotothalamos said:after the other player determines the deployment zones. don't you skip steps on me!
Yes? The player that "determines deployment zones" rolls a die and then picks one of the two deployment zones.
Just now, Soulless said:Yes? The player that "determines deployment zones" rolls a die and then picks one of the two deployment zones.
You're clearly referring to something else, so I'm going to quote the Only War scenario, which is available in the free rules pdf:
"PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
Before setting up their armies, both players roll off. The player who rolls higher then rolls on the primary objectives table (see right) to determine which are used during the mission.
DEPLOYMENT
Once the victory conditions have been determined, the player who did not roll on the primary objectives table then divides the battlefield into two equal halves. Their opponent then decides which half is their own deployment zone..."
GW should be embarrassed that such a rule exists in a game published in 2017. It sounds like it was written by an intern's 12-year-old nephew. The fact that they chose that scenario to distribute for free to show everyone how modern and aware of modern game sensibilities they are is just the icing on the cake.
1 minute ago, skotothalamos said:You're clearly referring to something else, so I'm going to quote the Only War scenario, which is available in the free rules pdf:
"PRIMARY OBJECTIVES
Before setting up their armies, both players roll off. The player who rolls higher then rolls on the primary objectives table (see right) to determine which are used during the mission.
DEPLOYMENT
Once the victory conditions have been determined, the player who did not roll on the primary objectives table then divides the battlefield into two equal halves. Their opponent then decides which half is their own deployment zone..."
GW should be embarrassed that such a rule exists in a game published in 2017. It sounds like it was written by an intern's 12-year-old nephew. The fact that they chose that scenario to distribute for free to show everyone how modern and aware of modern game sensibilities they are is just the icing on the cake.
Well thats the issue, im referring to the "matched play" scenarios in the core rulebook which is the standard for playing the game and the scenarios that should be used for comparing the game to Legion. "Only War" is pretty much a learn to play scenario. The "real" missions is very different.
To be completely fair, the 12 missions offered for matched play is varied and very interesting. The first 6 is mostely variants of standard "capture and/or control" objectives but the other 6 feature dynamic objectives that change during the course of the game, promoting a well rounded and adaptable army able to meet a wide range of requirements.
That video has me absolutely stoked for this game. I love every single part of those mechanics. THIS IS GONNA BE AWESOME!!!