Yeah I would prefer if using either snow or storntroopers was encouraged due to stormies working better with stormies and snowies better with snowies than in mixed armies.

In short: Imho they should be quite different but suited to very differing army concepts.

5 minutes ago, LennoxPoodle said:

Yeah I would prefer if using either snow or storntroopers was encouraged due to stormies working better with stormies and snowies better with snowies than in mixed armies.

In short: Imho they should be quite different but suited to very differing army concepts.

They are kinda. Stormies are more for aiming and movement snowies are more slow and Steady.

get it? Steady?

Ah, gotcha. I’d have to disagree in this case, though i see what you are getting at.

The main reason that I don’t think that’d work brilliantly here is the way FFG do games. In 40K for example, you’d get an army book with a ton of unit options all at the same time, so having very different units is fine.

FFG are only going to be releasing 1-2 new units per faction each wave, which sometimes results in large gaps before a faction is even close to being fully fleshed out. They wouldn’t be able to release any “one or the other”yep units for a long time, which would cause all sorts of issues IMO.

I am also quite happy with the way they were released, but I definitely understand the desire for synergy. It is still possible for new commanders or other units in the future to be released that have bonuses for synergies of the existing units. I would think that could be very interesting.

...yes....and I would like to see some fire team and squad and platoon specialty weapons.... ....atleast more of them similar to today's modern contemporary armies.... to augment the squad units.... such as sniper, SAW, hvy mg, grenadier, mk19, .50 cal, ....equivalents.... bwa-ha-ha... merry christmas!

That's true, for snowtroopers be this way they couldn't have been released this early. I'm suprised, that they didn't anounce units for not yet covered slots (like this special forces thing) anyway.

I have a feeling that our first Special Forces slot for the Imps will be Scout Troopers, which I could live with.

9 hours ago, Extropia said:

I have a feeling that our first Special Forces slot for the Imps will be Scout Troopers, which I could live with.

Alex davy did mention them at GenCon

Flame troopers - give a rebel a fire and hes warm for a day. Set a rebel on fire and hes warm for the rest of his life.

God. I hope that they don't head into themes this early. Themes have in many ways broken 40K and WMH. They add another factor to balance on an already complex game system. They're something you add at the end of life span for a game system to get people to buy 3 of everything.

Personally I'd be much happier if they stuck to getting the internal and external balance of each faction right. To the point where there's no obvious choice for which unit in slot is better (something the former mentioned games struggle with). I'd love to see lists with varied composition be more powerful, rather than see spam take hold of the game while themes get added to make spam stronger. It's what's driven me away from most other aging systems honestly.

And the great thing about "fluff" is that it's totally up to you! As it should be. Don't want to run snow troopers with storm troopers. Then don't do it! Don't want to play people who do? Find other people who share your desires! I want FFG to make the best game system possible with awesome models. I don't want them to focus on mandatory story driving rules (there's plenty of games which do this already). Campaign books, unique imbalanced scenarios, etc. All good things. But the core should be polished to perfect, along with 2/3 additional factions, before we start theming the heck out of it.

10 minutes ago, Zeelobby said:

And the great thing about "fluff" is that it's totally up to you! As it should be. Don't want to run snow troopers with storm troopers. Then don't do it! Don't want to play people who do? Find other people who share your desires! I want FFG to make the best game system possible with awesome models. I don't want them to focus on mandatory story driving rules (there's plenty of games which do this already). Campaign books, unique imbalanced scenarios, etc. All good things. But the core should be polished to perfect, along with 2/3 additional factions, before we start theming the heck out of it.

A related factor to this is that each element supports the other. The more fun the game is to play competitively, the more people there'll be to play thematic games against; and vice versa.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

A related factor to this is that each element supports the other. The more fun the game is to play competitively, the more people there'll be to play thematic games against; and vice versa.

Except that the more competitive the FFG Star Wars game, the more likely you are to see min/max list and no thematic play, hopefully this is not the case. It would be cool to see them introduce IA type environment restrictions for units.

6 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Except that the more competitive the FFG Star Wars game, the more likely you are to see min/max list and no thematic play, hopefully this is not the case. It would be cool to see them introduce IA type environment restrictions for units.

This is only true if there's poor internal/external balance. If stormtroopers were simply ALWAYS better than snow troopers than you'd start seeing min/max. If they serve different purposes on the table, you're likely to see both, skewing or in a mix. The real issue is not just power per points, but role on the table. If ion weapons/flamers serve a different role than stormtrooper loadouts, then you'll still see both, even in the competitive scene. Where you start to see min/max issues and no thematic play is when unit X is simply always better in most situations than unit Y. As long as you can make sure unit X and Y are both valuable in different situations, you'll still see both in competitive play. There's really no need to restrict units in a well designed game, but it can be difficult to design a game that favors TAC lists.

5 minutes ago, Cusm said:

Except that the more competitive the FFG Star Wars game, the more likely you are to see min/max list and no thematic play, hopefully this is not the case.

I don't think that's true. But we might be talking about different things.

IA is a game designed from the ground up as a scenario/campaign game. Legion is designed from the ground up for "matched play", so to speak.

So yeah, given those design goals there's a meaningful difference. The mechanics and rules serve different purposes. But there's still lots of room within those silos, and both ends of a spectrum for a given game tie into each other.

Quote

It would be cool to see them introduce IA type environment restrictions for units.

I strongly think that will never, ever be the case, for a simple reason - you would suddenly break everybody's established tables/terrain if they want to use the new unit.

If everybody builds Tatooine tables, and then you announce Snowtroopers exclusive to snowy environments, now everyone has to build new Hoth tables. Then, if you announce Beach Troopers, now everyone has to build a third, Scarif table... and so on.

That's different from IA, where the tile system eliminates the issue - maybe you can't use a given unit that game, but there's no fear you won't be able to use it ever, or unless you dump a lot of time and/or money into making new terrain. As above, that's part of the core game mechanics of IA that are narrative, versus the core game mechanics of Legion that are competitive.

But there are certainly loads of people who want to play Legion that way, and they absolutely can. There's no way to walk into a new store and know for sure that you can strike up that kind of game with a stranger - it'd be impossible, because that FLGS might not have a snowy table and so your Snowtrooper army is unusable. But if you have a group of people you know, you can have whatever kind of fun you want. And conversely, the more competitively balanced the game is, the more possible that becomes - because you know that even though your Snowtrooper force doesn't use some models in the game, the game is balanced enough that you can still field it against min/maxed armies and not get blown out (or at least, not so badly you can't have fun).

2 minutes ago, svelok said:

I don't think that's true. But we might be talking about different things.

IA is a game designed from the ground up as a scenario/campaign game. Legion is designed from the ground up for "matched play", so to speak.

So yeah, given those design goals there's a meaningful difference. The mechanics and rules serve different purposes. But there's still lots of room within those silos, and both ends of a spectrum for a given game tie into each other.

If you look at the most competitive FFG game, you will not find a "recognizable" ship on a table, except for Poe in the new X-Wing. That game has been so far from Thematic for years. There are thematic games (Trench Run or fan made HotAC campaign) but it is from people that have grown tired of the competitive standard 100/3 games.

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

I strongly think that will never, ever be the case, for a simple reason - you would suddenly break everybody's established tables/terrain if they want to use the new unit.

I am not calling for it, but it would be a cool option, but you are right.

2 minutes ago, Cusm said:

If you look at the most competitive FFG game, you will not find a "recognizable" ship on a table, except for Poe in the new X-Wing. That game has been so far from Thematic for years. There are thematic games (Trench Run or fan made HotAC campaign) but it is from people that have grown tired of the competitive standard 100/3 games.

That goes back to my exact point - competitive balance compliments thematic play.

X-Wing has wonky balance, eg; nobody fields the old T-65, the meta favors cookie-cutter builds, every game is a deathmatch rather than objective driven, and the gap between the weakest and strongest lists is ginormous.

Stormtroopers and Snowtroopers in Legion are a good example of the opposite effect - maybe on the table they'll prove to be very differently tuned, but the raw statlines are very similar - they don't do dramatically different things, so there's no reason you wouldn't see both used frequently.

Another element of the X-Wing effect you're describing, though, is the inclusion of ships from the EU, which isn't connected to the idea of "thematic vs competitive play" but a completely different continuum of design choices.

12 minutes ago, svelok said:

That goes back to my exact point - competitive balance compliments thematic play.

X-Wing has wonky balance, eg; nobody fields the old T-65, the meta favors cookie-cutter builds, every game is a deathmatch rather than objective driven, and the gap between the weakest and strongest lists is ginormous.

Stormtroopers and Snowtroopers in Legion are a good example of the opposite effect - maybe on the table they'll prove to be very differently tuned, but the raw statlines are very similar - they don't do dramatically different things, so there's no reason you wouldn't see both used frequently.

Another element of the X-Wing effect you're describing, though, is the inclusion of ships from the EU, which isn't connected to the idea of "thematic vs competitive play" but a completely different continuum of design choices.

X-Wing has no competitive balance, you better bring one of a handful of builds or you lose. I have seen many locals stop because they are bored of the same old min/max meta lists and they don't want to play casual. I have tried to get some to try Armada since there is a objective component and not just a death match, but haven't got anyone to try yet.

The larger problem with the EU ships (I love many of them) has been the massive power creep. The original 3-5 waves do not compare to the newest ships. FFG has learned a lot over the years with X-Wing being their starter set, they have improved game mechanics with each new game and I am hopeful they continue with Legion. I am interested to see what the community is for this game, X-Wing/IA Skirmish type players, Armada players or 40K-type war gamers. Locally I have seen very little combination of these 3.

The problem with X-Wing, that i'm hoping that Legion will avoid, is that there is no design space for anything other than "kill enemy ship", because there is no objective beyond "kill the enemy and lose as little as you can". All new ships that came out/are coming out are just variations on how to kill the enemy, or help your other ships kill them.

This leads to it being extremely one dimensional in both play and design....if ship A kills and/or stays alive more efficiently for it's points than Ship B, then Ship A is flat out superior.

Legion is not just "kill the enemy", and has actual objectives. This means there is room for units that aren't as flat out combat effective, because if those units help you score objectives then they are still valuable.

This is, IMO, something that games like Infinity and Malifaux have got very right, and that sadly X-Wing got very wrong (which is why i havent played X-Wing for a year or two now).

3 hours ago, Extropia said:

The problem with X-Wing, that i'm hoping that Legion will avoid, is that there is no design space for anything other than "kill enemy ship", because there is no objective beyond "kill the enemy and lose as little as you can". All new ships that came out/are coming out are just variations on how to kill the enemy, or help your other ships kill them.

This leads to it being extremely one dimensional in both play and design....if ship A kills and/or stays alive more efficiently for it's points than Ship B, then Ship A is flat out superior.

Legion is not just "kill the enemy", and has actual objectives. This means there is room for units that aren't as flat out combat effective, because if those units help you score objectives then they are still valuable.

This is, IMO, something that games like Infinity and Malifaux have got very right, and that sadly X-Wing got very wrong (which is why i havent played X-Wing for a year or two now).

Exactly. As long as there's multiple roles to fill, there's space to expand. Objective holders, objective takers, vehicle disablers, vehicle destroyers, units that tie things up in combat, etc. There should be enough room.

4 hours ago, Extropia said:

The problem with X-Wing, that i'm hoping that Legion will avoid, is that there is no design space for anything other than "kill enemy ship", because there is no objective beyond "kill the enemy and lose as little as you can". All new ships that came out/are coming out are just variations on how to kill the enemy, or help your other ships kill them.

This leads to it being extremely one dimensional in both play and design....if ship A kills and/or stays alive more efficiently for it's points than Ship B, then Ship A is flat out superior.

Legion is not just "kill the enemy", and has actual objectives. This means there is room for units that aren't as flat out combat effective, because if those units help you score objectives then they are still valuable.

This is, IMO, something that games like Infinity and Malifaux have got very right, and that sadly X-Wing got very wrong (which is why i havent played X-Wing for a year or two now).

Luckily, what I’ve noticed from the demo I played with my Lego is that units are rather had to kill. It was just without aim or dodge tokens or supression and it seems its hard to kill units completely apart from regular troops. Heroes are very tanky. So it would be hard to kill everyone and so objectives are much more important

3 hours ago, Jabby said:

Luckily, what I’ve noticed from the demo I played with my Lego is that units are rather had to kill. It was just without aim or dodge tokens or supression and it seems its hard to kill units completely apart from regular troops. Heroes are very tanky. So it would be hard to kill everyone and so objectives are much more important

I get the impression units are difficult as well, from my single experience with TTS. I drove my speeder bikes almost directly into a AT-RT and a squad of Rebel Troopers on the first turn, and after two turns neither of them had managed to destroy one of the two speeder bikes. I was shocked, to be honest. 2 attempts for the AT-RT and 2 attempts by the Troopers to do damage, and they only did 2 damage because of lucky roles and the Speeder's built in +1 cover.

So yeah, I don't think spending all your energy trying to kill units is the way to win. It's going to be building teams that can capture and hold.

On 12/21/2017 at 8:07 PM, Gadgetron said:

I'm somewhat upset that the snowtroopers weren't just reskins of stormtroopers with different included cards.

They should have come with new weapons and upgrade cards, and the option for a more specialized, more expensive unit choice, what they made the snowtroopers is fine. (The new weapons sprue coming with standard stormtrooper arms in addition to the snowtroopers)

I'm just not sure I want to see snowtroopers on Endor or Tatooine just because they have a different ability.

Snowtropers are just cold weather Hazardous Environment specialists. We only see them in one sequence, on Hoth. As is being posted by other players, These same trooper variants could also fight in areas where there were environmental hazards such as locations with unbreathable atmospheres, extreme heat, poisonous conditions, or extreme radiation.

Between the Clone Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and TLJ we see that this is a specialist hazardous environment unit, not an exclusively cold weather unit and not restricted to single combat theaters except by subtle differences in their equipment.

This good to hear. One fear I have had is this could be Battlefront with Zapp Brannigan as the Commander.

3 minutes ago, Cusm said:

This good to hear. One fear I have had is this could be Battlefront with Zapp Brannigan as the Commander.

When i'm in command son, every mission's a suicide mission!

5 hours ago, Cusm said:

This good to hear. One fear I have had is this could be Battlefront with Zapp Brannigan as the Commander.

I WILL buy and PLAY Zapp Brannigan if he is made a commander!

I'm dead serious, Zapp on his horse Felicity on a hover platform, with Kif, DOOP troops, and maybe a DOOP tank. I'd drop 250 bucks for 800 points worth.