14 minutes ago, ninclouse2000 said:

At home when playing casually you can do this. I doubt this would be ok in a tournament though.

Again, why not? There are only 3 things to be addressed when playing in any official capacity; WYSIWYG, Modeling for Advantage, and usually a 51-100% ratio in favor of Official parts of model to 3rd Party/custom.

Special precautions could be used to ensure there is no "modeling for advantage", by just replacing its base which would put it on par for height really. If there are any worries about WYSIWYG that can be addressed as well rather easily. The only reason to disallow it as long as it provided ZERO change in actual gameplay is if you want to be a *insert choice word here*. Most Tabletop wargaming communities follow these same rules, so I assume the SW:Legion community will as well.

They're a business and they want you to buy their product so they can make money. That's why

20 hours ago, jrmypdgr said:

They're a business and they want you to buy their product so they can make money. That's why

Which is already covered by the requirement to buy the Legion rules that come with the other models. Again, no reason other than being salty really.

16 minutes ago, Xodis said:

Which is already covered by the requirement to buy the Legion rules that come with the other models. Again, no reason other than being salty really.

It's possible they thought they could make nicer, higher quality models at the larger scale. I'm excited about the larger scale (even though I've got a ton of IA figures).

It's pretty simple really. A product needs to stand on its own two feet. Hitching the exciting new product to an old one is a stupid idea. It hurts sales, reduces anticipation of new products and harms inclusivity by making it very difficult for new players to catch up unit wise. This game is not an imperial assault expansion.

No one ever said it was an IA expansion or that it shouldn't stand on its own feet as a game, that is all a Strawman, but the idea that the models are impossible to convert or use in Legion is ridiculous at best. Im not even arguing that it SHOULD be compatible out of the gate, only that if someone wants to use them and can do so in a way that provide zero change to the game the only thing that would stop them is salty players who disagree.

31 minutes ago, Dr Lucky said:

It's possible they thought they could make nicer, higher quality models at the larger scale. I'm excited about the larger scale (even though I've got a ton of IA figures).

I plan on getting all the Legion models myself, and I am very much a fan of larger scale simply for the amount of detail that can be painted on.

On 11/14/2017 at 6:22 AM, VanorDM said:

There's a ton of IA models out there, and even if they were compatible in terms of size, 98% of them aren't in Legion yet, so you couldn't use them due to there being no unit cards or rules for them.

If you were going to make up your own cards/rules for them, then there's nothing stopping you from using them now because the issue won't be the difference in size, it will be that you're making up your own rules.

I'll probably still buy some of them. I wanna wait and see what the first batch of expansions look like to get an idea of how many unique characters they're going to make. Like are we going to eventually get someone like Jabba? Or Greedo? If not, then I'll probably buy the IA versions just to have them in the collection. And make custom cards and rules.

5 hours ago, Xodis said:

No one ever said it was an IA expansion or that it shouldn't stand on its own feet as a game, that is all a Strawman, but the idea that the models are impossible to convert or use in Legion is ridiculous at best. Im not even arguing that it SHOULD be compatible out of the gate, only that if someone wants to use them and can do so in a way that provide zero change to the game the only thing that would stop them is salty players who disagree.

I plan on getting all the Legion models myself, and I am very much a fan of larger scale simply for the amount of detail that can be painted on.

Not really a strawman if you read the Reddit and FB posts. I have seen plenty of people who are pitching absolute fits that Legion is not built around the existing IA models. Which in my opinion indicates they think of the game as some sort of expansion, alternate play mode or complementary product to IA. As for using proxy models, whatever you want to personally do is fine but I think that if FFG were to allow it for tournaments or release some sort of card pack for the existing models it would only hurt the future of Legion as its own product.

On 11/17/2017 at 0:29 AM, devin.pike.1989 said:

Not really a strawman if you read the Reddit and FB posts. I have seen plenty of people who are pitching absolute fits that Legion is not built around the existing IA models. Which in my opinion indicates they think of the game as some sort of expansion, alternate play mode or complementary product to IA. As for using proxy models, whatever you want to personally do is fine but I think that if FFG were to allow it for tournaments or release some sort of card pack for the existing models it would only hurt the future of Legion as its own product.

Im pretty sure it is a Strawman if you are basing your argument off of different conversations and not this one, but I do see your point. Anyone that is actually complaining or upset that the 2 games are not compatible is just wrong. They are different games, period. That being said my main comment was directed towards those saying it shouldnt be allowed to proxy, wont work, etc... as that is also completely wrong. Itll work as long as people who want to put out effort. As for Tournaments I think FFG would be insane not to allow proxies like that which could enhance the game tremendously, while starting off they need the assistance just like all the major wargames did prior. As for a card pack though, that would be silly, unless it was special characters only but Id rather them just create new sculpts.

Ok. I do see a little better where you are coming from and I actually agree with you mostly. Obviously with games at home or at the game store, no one can tell you what to do (nor should they). However, I do think it is not a terrible idea for FFG to control what appears at a tournament that they put on. When it comes down to it, tournaments are designed to drive sales. They provide an incentive to purchase new units and cards to stay competitive. With that being the case it really is in the best interest of the continuation of the product line to restrict what is allowed in official competition. For me, it really doesnt matter. I don't own any IA or other star wars minis and I don't play in any sort of tournaments. But I know that organized competition helps drive the hobby.

On 11/15/2017 at 8:20 PM, Xodis said:

Say I use a Rebel Saboteur or Alliance Rangers from IA to fill in for a random non-special Rebel Soldier from Legion...does it matter?

Again, feel free to do whatever you want at home or friendly games, but that will most likely not be allowed at an official event. We could debate endlessly if that's fair or not, but the fact is, that it's FFG's event so they can make whatever rules they want. If you don't like it, that's not really my problem. You either play by the rules or you don't, and if you don't you stand the very real chance of being asked to leave.

On 11/15/2017 at 8:38 PM, Marinealver said:

However it does strike me odd as this is going to be the game with AT-ATs are in yet the figure scale is larger than IA?

No one from FFG has ever said there will be AT-AT's in here, and I'd personally be surprised if they do add them for the very reason I quoted. Because it may very well be too big to work on the Legion table. I'm not saying it won't happen, just I don't expect it to happen.

On 11/18/2017 at 9:16 PM, devin.pike.1989 said:

Obviously with games at home or at the game store, no one can tell you what to do (nor should they).

Well that's not completely true... If I don't want to play against someone who's using IA models in their Legion list, there's nothing you can do to make me play. You may think that makes me a prick and you're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't really change the fact I don't have to play you.

I'm not saying I'd refuse to play someone who uses some IA models for a friendly game, but both players have an equal say in what gets played and what doesn't. I mean if I don't want to play against someone who's running list X, then I don't have to play them, provided it isn't a tournament. I mean the whole point is to have fun and if there's something about your list that makes the game unenjoyable for me then why play? Naturally there's the question of if there's anyone else who I could play, and ideally there should be some compromise.

But the idea that no one can tell you what to do isn't really true, since both sides have to agree to play, then both sides can tell the other what to do, and if an agreement can't be reached then no game happens.

44 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

Again, feel free to do whatever you want at home or friendly games, but that will most likely not be allowed at an official event. We could debate endlessly if that's fair or not, but the fact is, that it's FFG's event so they can make whatever rules they want. If you don't like it, that's not really my problem. You either play by the rules or you don't, and if you don't you stand the very real chance of being asked to leave.

No one from FFG has ever said there will be AT-AT's in here, and I'd personally be surprised if they do add them for the very reason I quoted. Because it may very well be too big to work on the Legion table. I'm not saying it won't happen, just I don't expect it to happen.

Then why make a ground combat game with vehicles based upon Star Wars without AT-ATs? I mean the biggest ground battle in Star Wars (not counting the prequel CGI ones of course) was the Battle of Hoth which were AT-ATs vs Snow Speeders . They have one, why would the not put the other?

Come on, asking for an AT-AT isn't much, it is not like I am asking for the World Devastator from Rouge Squadron.

10 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Then why make a ground combat game with vehicles based upon Star Wars without AT-ATs?

There's two pretty simple reasons.

The first is that AT-AT's are omnipolar in the on-screen battles. X-Wings fight TIEs, Rebels fight Stormtroopers. AT-ATs walk around while the rest of the battle doesn't matter, except for the snowspeeders. There isn't a Rebel equivalent, neither in scale nor in firepower.

The second is that the size of AT-ATs would leave you in one of two scenarios: either making a huge, expensive model (think Epic X-Wing but bigger) that few people will buy; or shrinking the scale of your game down to a much less popular level. You're not gonna sell many $100 AT-ATs, and you're not gonna convert the 40k or Warmachine audience with a 15mm scale game.

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

Well that's not completely true... If I don't want to play against someone who's using IA models in their Legion list, there's nothing you can do to make me play. You may think that makes me a prick and you're welcome to your opinion, but that doesn't really change the fact I don't have to play you.

I'm not saying I'd refuse to play someone who uses some IA models for a friendly game, but both players have an equal say in what gets played and what doesn't. I mean if I don't want to play against someone who's running list X, then I don't have to play them, provided it isn't a tournament. I mean the whole point is to have fun and if there's something about your list that makes the game unenjoyable for me then why play? Naturally there's the question of if there's anyone else who I could play, and ideally there should be some compromise.

But the idea that no one can tell you what to do isn't really true, since both sides have to agree to play, then both sides can tell the other what to do, and if an agreement can't be reached then no game happens.

Yeah but you still are not stopping the other player from using ia miniatures, you are just not entering into a voluntary game with that person. I mean this is just a philosophical argument at this point but as long we are talking about it anyways...

1 hour ago, svelok said:

There's two pretty simple reasons.

The first is that AT-AT's are omnipolar in the on-screen battles. X-Wings fight TIEs, Rebels fight Stormtroopers. AT-ATs walk around while the rest of the battle doesn't matter, except for the snowspeeders. There isn't a Rebel equivalent, neither in scale nor in firepower.

The second is that the size of AT-ATs would leave you in one of two scenarios: either making a huge, expensive model (think Epic X-Wing but bigger) that few people will buy; or shrinking the scale of your game down to a much less popular level. You're not gonna sell many $100 AT-ATs, and you're not gonna convert the 40k or Warmachine audience with a 15mm scale game.

So for the 1st point, that doesn't really stop FFG from going into other sources and finding a counter. Just because the movies don't have a counter doesn't mean it can be put into the game and other units can be added to balance it out. Asymmetrical balance is key in games especially with only 2 factions otherwise why have separate factions?

For the second point again this is FFG not setting up legion for success. I mean with the scale being larger than IA but IA having already a larger scale with speeder bikes and air speeders this again makes no sense. Seriously someone in FFG's development department needs to take a step back and look at this game. Why make Imperial Assault Skirmish 2.0 The whole point of legion is to do what Imperial Assault can't do. Imperial Assault can't have speeders and AT-ATs because of the scale and dungeon format. So if they scaled it to where the size of the AT-AT prevents it in game then the game is set up to fail. All FFG did was split the Imperial Assault playerbase and that has been proven a fatal mistake time and time again.

So according to you FFG set themselves up for this game to fail, is it going to fail?

4 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

So according to you FFG set themselves up for this game to fail, is it going to fail?

This is pretty much the opposite of engaging in good faith...

Judging by the interest on all the Facebook groups and UK stores I visit, this game is going to b about as far from failure as is possible, AT-ATs or not.

6 minutes ago, svelok said:

This is pretty much the opposite of engaging in good faith...

2 minutes ago, Extropia said:

Judging by the interest on all the Facebook groups and UK stores I visit, this game is going to b about as far from failure as is possible, AT-ATs or not.

I'm just saying if it doesn't separate itself from Imperial Assault (hence the point of the topic) it doesn't bode well. FFG has a great brand with their Star Wars games and are able to take care of it (unlike a certain video game publisher) so of course with those two brands there is going to be much optimism. But it is not uncommon for a game with the Star Wars brand to fail thanks to missteps from the developer. If they don't make this separate from Imperial Assault, that is a very grave misstep, and a potentially game ending one to say the least.

I don't want this game to fail (imagining all the potential for combined campaigns with Armada), but I am not convinced it is an impossibility.

It already is differentiated. It's a tabletop war game, not a skirmish scale board game. It has bigger armies, freeform 3D terrain on the tables and so on.

Vastly different things, and with quite different audiences (albeit with some crossover because it's going to obviously attract Star Wars fans).

It doesn't need an AT-AT to be very distinct.

They might have split the IA crowd on the subject but that is a minor number of people compared to how many they have brought on board fresh from the wargaming community. I know of at least a dozen people off the top of my head who didn't give a crap about IA but are wargamers salivating at buying some good 28mm SW figs. Me included. I know a couple people that played IA demos but none who actually bought into it and I play in two large gaming areas. This game has some real excitement about it with quality miniatures.

An AT-AT is going to happen. Lets face reality. If it was only $100 it would sell before hitting the shelf for weeks. I am guessing a price tag around $150-$200. You are talking the 40k crowd here. $100 for a model may be slightly higher than average but far from the highest price miniature out there, not even including the really high priced big models from FW. I can see it though in the same respect as I see someone fielding a Reaver titan though. Too big for a normal 2500-3k game but great for scenarios and large games. No one says you cant use a bigger board like we do for our bi-annual 7-10k per side games at 12 'x 4'.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Then why make a ground combat game with vehicles based upon Star Wars without AT-ATs? I mean the biggest ground battle in Star Wars (not counting the prequel CGI ones of course) was the Battle of Hoth which were AT-ATs vs Snow Speeders . They have one, why would the not put the other?

Come on, asking for an AT-AT isn't much, it is not like I am asking for the World Devastator from Rouge Squadron.

I don't find your argument very convincing, and here's an analogy to help show why:

Then why make a fleet combat game with vehicles based upon Star Wars without the Executor? I mean the biggest fleet battle in Star Wars (not counting the prequel CGI ones of course) was the Battle of Endor which was the Executor vs A-wings . They have one, why would the not put the other?

Come on, asking for the Executor isn't much, it is not like I am asking for the Death Star from A New Hope .

Mostly I am being silly here, but in all honesty I don't think AT-ATs are critical to the success of Legion, any more than the Executor is critical to the success of Armada. Is it an iconic Star Wars vehicle? Sure. Will Legion fail without it? I doubt it.

Just now, ShadowKite said:

I don't find your argument very convincing, and here's an analogy to help show why:

Mostly I am being silly here, but in all honesty I don't think AT-ATs are critical to the success of Legion, any more than the Executor is critical to the success of Armada. Is it an iconic Star Wars vehicle? Sure. Will Legion fail without it? I doubt it.

AT-ATs no, but again why is this and this will be the biggest criticism the game has, but why not just stick with Imperial Assault. Now of course grid movement is never popular with a miniatures game. Why not use the full range of movement if you have more than just chits. But again if it doesn't separate from Imperial Assault then it is just splitting the player base. Vehicles are the simplest way to separate them.

As for Executor in Armada, sure that is an epic unit and should not be a part of the competitive core game. Only used in special scenarios. But I don't exactly consider AT-ATs land super weapons like a Warhound Titan in 40K.

4 hours ago, Extropia said:

Judging by the interest on all the Facebook groups and UK stores I visit, this game is going to b about as far from failure as is possible, AT-ATs or not.

I am buying in fully expecting an at at to be released . I know many people that are buying in under this assumption. I will lose my lid if an at at is not part of this game. Just scale it down and charge $75 bucks for it. It’s not that hard.

3 hours ago, ShadowKite said:

I don't find your argument very convincing, and here's an analogy to help show why:

Mostly I am being silly here, but in all honesty I don't think AT-ATs are critical to the success of Legion, any more than the Executor is critical to the success of Armada. Is it an iconic Star Wars vehicle? Sure. Will Legion fail without it? I doubt it.

I am an armada player and fully anticipate the release of an ssd. Again ffg would not design either of these games (legion or armada) without a plan to include the at at and ssd. I will look forward to raising this thread from the grave in a year or two to specifically tell you “I told ya so”