Next gameplay preview is up, this one about battle cards.

Well, that certainly courage’s balanced forces to some degree. You really do have no idea what you’re going to be playing each game, which is excellent.

Yeah I'm a bit surprised that the randomized order in which you deal the cards out is actually really important. It will be impossible for either player to guarantee their preferred set of cards.

32 minutes ago, ShadowKite said:

Yeah I'm a bit surprised that the randomized order in which you deal the cards out is actually really important. It will be impossible for either player to guarantee their preferred set of cards.

I kinda wish it was more like armada where you have to be strategic with what objectives you bring

3 minutes ago, Jabby said:

I kinda wish it was more like armada where you have to be strategic with what objectives you bring

For Armada, that works because the second player is second player every round.

In Legion, there's an entire mechanic dedicated to fighting over the first activation, and other mechanics that tie into that (like the advantage of putting on suppression before a unit can activate).

I much prefer this system tbh. You still have influence over what you’ll be fighting in/for, but ultimately neither player can rely on getting the ideal setup. That absolutely demands booth versatility in your list, and the ability to adapt your play.

I like it.

This is terrible, imo. I like to be able to play with the units I like and I'm not going to be able to take Vader or units with minimal range ability if I might be starting 6 feet from my opponent. With this kind of randomness in setup people will be forced to build liststhat can handle anything and if everyone is forced to build the same type of list there will be less variation in lists.

6 minutes ago, neildw said:

I like to be able to play with the units I like and I'm not going to be able to take Vader or units with minimal range ability if I might be starting 6 feet from my opponent

The table is only six feet long, and even in Long March you can deploy forward 18", at which point the enemy deployment zone will be 36" away.

Even if the opponent deploys all the way in the back, it doesn't matter, because the objectives will be either in the middle or you're playing Breakthrough and just need to step into the closest edge of his zone.

12 minutes ago, neildw said:

This is terrible, imo. I like to be able to play with the units I like and I'm not going to be able to take Vader or units with minimal range ability if I might be starting 6 feet from my opponent. With this kind of randomness in setup people will be forced to build liststhat can handle anything and if everyone is forced to build the same type of list there will be less variation in lists.

I'm not sure when you'd ever be starting 6 feet from your opponent. Most likely you'd be starting 4. And there's no reason that a short-ranged list still couldn't be effective, I'm assuming short ranges are balanced through higher defense? So you won't be able to knock units off objectives at range but have an easier time defending your own (which will be in the middle of the table forcing your opponent to move forward anyway?

I dunno. plenty of systems use randomized scenarios, or varying scenarios, during competitive play, and you still see the entire swathe of balanced lists vs spam and slam. Unless you want to only choose scenarios which benefit your list, in which case I can't see how that's fair to your opponent. I think it's pretty cool that you have the ability to knock out a possible combination that may be **** for you, or get your opponent to fall for a trap. It actually looks a lot like pre-planning that would go into any battle IRL.

Never seen a veto system like that before. I like it!

18 minutes ago, neildw said:

This is terrible, imo. I like to be able to play with the units I like and I'm not going to be able to take Vader or units with minimal range ability if I might be starting 6 feet from my opponent. With this kind of randomness in setup people will be forced to build liststhat can handle anything and if everyone is forced to build the same type of list there will be less variation in lists.

An "All-Round" list probably wouldn't be as effective as you'd think.

Sure, if your list works at all ranges and your opponent goes sniper mad you've got the advantage, but not for the whole game. That range restriction gets removed and your list is suddenly caught out-ranged from all sides.

Equally, there's the chance "all-round" lists could be really popular, but with the system used to pick cards your opponent could use their 2 choices to remove an effect that you both need, just to avoid your "all-round" list from being effective anyway.

Finally, since the range restricting weather card seems to be your big complaint, you could just build a list specialising in operating below range 3. Then your list wouldn't be affected by the range restricting effect.

(On a side note, the deployment zones changing via start-of-game card choice is a nice touch. It would be rather funny to see a game where one player tries to get Long March and the other ditching it before realising they also needed it. It's bound to occur at some point...)

I like the system a lot. And if you really fear to play the long March with a slowly moving army, you can always cancel that.

Of course, you have to look for it and consider which cards you don't want to have in play. It's always going to be a compromise between the two players. But that's what's going to be interesting, because either player has to adapt to the scenario and I find it way better than where you can just play your one size fits all playstyle.

And if you are not in a tournament you and your opponent can always just choose the cards for the scenario you wanna play.

See this going the way of Runewars for tournament season, with three of each card being used each quarter.

I like it, it reflects the uncertainty of the battlefield.

I like it, adds some randomness to the battles .

also did anyone else notice they quoted the wrong movie at the beginning of the article?

I kind of like it too. There's an element of randomness but both players have influence. One thing I enjoy in games is finding ways to adapt and deal with the unexpected turns of fate.

It also seems that being either the blue player or the red player is not hugely important. I like this; I hope this means that bidding for one or the other will be less commonplace than in Armada, where you sometimes find yourself giving up a decent chunk of points just to ensure you get to be first player (or second, as the case may be.)

1 hour ago, neildw said:

This is terrible, imo. I like to be able to play with the units I like and I'm not going to be able to take Vader or units with minimal range ability if I might be starting 6 feet from my opponent. With this kind of randomness in setup people will be forced to build liststhat can handle anything and if everyone is forced to build the same type of list there will be less variation in lists.

If Legion is anything like Armada, 2 people can play the same list and have vastly different games and results. Player skill is more important, where as X-Wing your list is more important.

I still think you can build an army that suites your style because you can still remove the cards that hurt you at the start.

Well then, turn zero just got interesting..... and where being player 2 is extremely important. Having the last choice of which card to knock out may be huge, and force your opponent to leave lines alone for fear you'll take the second one out.....

It's tic tac toe deployments edition!!

54 minutes ago, DragonReborn said:

also did anyone else notice they quoted the wrong movie at the beginning of the article?

.

they gotta keep dem traditions of mistakes......

Giving players an incentive to build well rounded lists is great IMO, when antire armies are or a rock/paper/scissor format it makes for a very boring game that can be decided even before deployment.

I wonder if this "minigame" isnt needless complexity though. Runewars has a similar system, players alternate CHOOSING one card and discarding the other two of that category. Why did they just have to make yet another system for setting up the match?

20 minutes ago, Soulless said:

Giving players an incentive to build well rounded lists is great IMO, when antire armies are or a rock/paper/scissor format it makes for a very boring game that can be decided even before deployment.

I wonder if this "minigame" isnt needless complexity though. Runewars has a similar system, players alternate CHOOSING one card and discarding the other two of that category. Why did they just have to make yet another system for setting up the match?

Maybe it's to prevent people from running the same set up each time? It forces people into random situations.

I like it. It's a great blend of random and strategic elements, before the game even starts.

35 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Maybe it's to prevent people from running the same set up each time? It forces people into random situations.

It would be somewhat random anyway since you only draw 3 of the 5 cards in each category. Idk, i just think Runewars did it perfectly, no need to alter it any further.

Off topic but I about exploded with joy thinking it was a rebel Hoth trooper article. Still cool though.

So basically it's deal out three cards in each category then decide if you can live with the leftmost 2. Interesting...

My least favorite prospect is putting terrain on the board with my opponent for a tournament. I’ve played too many systems were people are crippled with making deployment choices let alone having them figure out where a grove of trees or a house will be most beneficial

setting up terrain before doing the card thing should help eliminate that problem to a degree as they don't know where they will be setting up. As long as there is a good variety of starting set ups.