My standby has always been my ISD2, mostly for the defensive retrofit and the longer range guns. But the ISD1 is still a better general purpose ISD than the Kuat or the Cymoon. Like as been mentioned before it is the cheapest ISD and getting it a Defensive retrofit cost the same amount of points as upgrading to one of the new ISDs. So just cost wise it is at least no more expensive or the still the cheapest, depending on what you want to do with it.

I have actually found that and ISD1's black dice can serve a defensive role. If I want a carrier or a flag ship to stay a little back from the battle, those three black dice discourage, MC30's, Raiders, or Demolishers from choosing to attack my ISD1.

Battle carrier. Best in the game.

But with Tua existing, the 112 cost for Kuat and Cymoon was clever. A comparisn of a Tua ISD1 and a Kuat

ISD1: Weapons , Offensive, Offensive, Defensive, Ion, Turbolaser

ISDK: Officer, Weapons, Offensive, Defensive, Ion, Ordnance, 2 less squadron.

So, you can choose between:

Offensive Retrofit, Turbolaser, and 2 more squadron command

OR

Officer and Ordnance

Looking at it that way, I see value to either.

3 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Any thoughts on Legion/Armada campaign? That's what I'm working on right now. I was going to do IA but no one in my area plays it and Legion tailors to the larger battles.

IA has the advantage of having squad based on the inside of ships which makes for great, fast paced boarding parties.

I'm not quite certain yet. One member of my group (@Admiral Theia) is very keen on Legion, though I'm not sure what role for it in the campaign she has in mind.

One of the key things that I feel is important is that the Galactic Civil War is not a case of symmetric warfare, or, at least, I don't think it should be portrayed as such, even though the games we play do tend to stage symmetric situations in order to keep the games fair and balanced (occasionally with the balance seeming to shake out in favor of the Rebels, it seems). Rebellion is the exception. Imperial Assault, at least, portrays situations that we can easily envision in an asymmetric warfare setting. We will be using it to portray strike teams doing things like sabotaging repair yards or discrediting a diplomat (offensive operations), doing a preemptive strike on a base defense, or assisting in a special assault in order to win additional resource points.

Legion is a little tougher in that regard. I don't think its scale should suggest that it represents control over a planet. It's simply too small-scale for that, as well as being something that should not be portrayed in the model of an asymmetric-warfare situation. So, what should it represent in the context of a campaign like the Corellian Conflict? I'm not so sure. What do you think?

9 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Legion is a little tougher in that regard. I don't think its scale should suggest that it represents control over a planet. It's simply too small-scale for that, as well as being something that should not be portrayed in the model of an asymmetric-warfare situation. So, what should it represent in the context of a campaign like the Corellian Conflict? I'm not so sure. What do you think?

I'm portraying control of a planet with passive buffs to combat. If you have a shipyard or base on planet, you'll get a static 100 points to spend on ships and squads, as well as an armed station with some small additions to it. I'll do the same for a Legion base once I get the game. I think it's an effective way to show you are on enemy ground who is calling in support so the battle is initially on the defenders terms. You'll need to bring 100 points extra to have a chance at winning, and even more to demonstrate a full out assault on a system like Thrawn did in season 3 of Rebels.

I'm going to have Legion represent the battles over vital resources on planets. Currently it's just resources, which is equivalent to the CC resource points you generate. Once I see the objectives, I can create a narrative for the battles.

Here's the start of my alternate rule set. Still gathering ideas and incorporating them, but it's mostly done.

28 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

I'm not quite certain yet. One member of my group (@Admiral Theia) is very keen on Legion, though I'm not sure what role for it in the campaign she has in mind.

One of the key things that I feel is important is that the Galactic Civil War is not a case of symmetric warfare, or, at least, I don't think it should be portrayed as such, even though the games we play do tend to stage symmetric situations in order to keep the games fair and balanced (occasionally with the balance seeming to shake out in favor of the Rebels, it seems). Rebellion is the exception. Imperial Assault, at least, portrays situations that we can easily envision in an asymmetric warfare setting. We will be using it to portray strike teams doing things like sabotaging repair yards or discrediting a diplomat (offensive operations), doing a preemptive strike on a base defense, or assisting in a special assault in order to win additional resource points.

Legion is a little tougher in that regard. I don't think its scale should suggest that it represents control over a planet. It's simply too small-scale for that, as well as being something that should not be portrayed in the model of an asymmetric-warfare situation. So, what should it represent in the context of a campaign like the Corellian Conflict? I'm not so sure. What do you think?

In situations where Legion follows the fleet battle, a fun mechanic might be to give the attacker dedicated troop transports, like GR75s, CR90s, VSDs, etc (those would fit lore wise, anyway), with Legion minis “aboard” each. If they go down, your opponent loses those points in the Legion round, and if their total hits zero, you win the Legion game automatically.