Rather odd system. Honestly why put a card mini-game into a miniature game? What was wrong with simple old "pick a random card from stack, that's your objective"?

Also, the article left me wondering. If I remove the left objective card, then my opponent removes the middle objective card, can I then remove the sole remaining right objective card resulting in a game without objectives?

1 minute ago, Lord Tareq said:

Rather odd system. Honestly why put a card mini-game into a miniature game? What was wrong with simple old "pick a random card from stack, that's your objective"?

Also, the article left me wondering. If I remove the left objective card, then my opponent removes the middle objective card, can I then remove the sole remaining right objective card resulting in a game without objectives?

If you can live with the other 2 rows untouched with one pick left for your opponent, sure. Only having 2 "discards" makes that risky elsewhere

Okay, I knew this before but the symmetric objectives make me sad. A (maybe randomly allocated) attacker and defender mechanic would be so much more interesting and thematic. I'm just so much into horizontally asymmetrical yet balanced games(both digital and analog).

6 hours ago, Extropia said:

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.

Yes

For someone new that was a little put off with the lack of randomness in X-Wing I really like this mechanic. You now have to account for a few "what if" variables loading out your army. Do you get aggressive ahead of time and attempt to make sure you eliminate a specific card and build that way or build out evenly so there is no easy card selection for your opponent? Becomes a tiny game within the game. The weather/visibility component is awesome.

It makes your ability to play the game with what you have at any given time, as great if not greater, than having the perfect meta list. Total new guy to gaming opinion. View it mitigating perfection and putting an emphasis on in game adaptability and or an all-in aggressive nature, while being confident in your skills to adjust real-time.

4 hours ago, Soulless said:

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.

I don't know the Runewars system, but I do know Armada. I think this is a step up from Armada because it forces armies to prepare for everything, rather than making a fleet to exploit the objectives.

5 hours ago, JBar said:

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

Meeeeee tooooo X-D

I also thought we were getting a cannon expansion

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't know the Runewars system, but I do know Armada. I think this is a step up from Armada because it forces armies to prepare for everything, rather than making a fleet to exploit the objectives.

I really think this would have been a very aw some way to choose objectives in armada. I still love me some armada but this method of choosing how the battle will go is pretty exciting.

I also thought this announcement was going to be echo base troopers based off that article picture.

I imagine this will end up going 40k style with set tables and set missions plated each round. Not only speeds the game up but eliminates the players arguing over terrain placement.

I mist say the way Alex Davy described it in the Team Covenant vid was IMO better. So basically the players take turns eliminating cards. Similar to this but without having the randomness of the ‘leftmost’ card

58 minutes ago, Jabby said:

I mist say the way Alex Davy described it in the Team Covenant vid was IMO better. So basically the players take turns eliminating cards. Similar to this but without having the randomness of the ‘leftmost’ card

It wouldn't be hard to implement if they wanted to change it or you wanted to house rule it.

Everyone seems to be missing the "you only have 2 choices" and the choices and issues it raises though.

You can make sure you get the one card on the one line you want with no other say.

Player 1 can force player 2 to use a choice on a card they may not like.

Player 2 can cancel said choice but then risks advancing his own agenda of choices.

It adds real depth and meaning to which player you are (which in itself flows into list building...) and becomes especially tense if you have terrain down but unknown forces to each other.

17 hours 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 you are playing on an empty table, your short range list is toast, no matter what deployment zones or objectives are chosen. Put enough terrain on the table or tanks will dominate.

I like this highly original system. No platoon commander gets to choose his mission. Well done, FFG!

As some new to this style of game, what’s the process for putting down terrain. Is there a limit to number of pieces? What if my opponent declines to put out a piece can I keep going? Is there a max number?

It’ll be in the rules most likely, or will at least give a suggested amount. Normally we just set up a table we both agree looks cool, and use that.

Tournaments are a bit different, and either have rules or the TO sets it up (usually....there’s endless variations in method really).

9 hours ago, Ralgon said:

It wouldn't be hard to implement if they wanted to change it or you wanted to house rule it.

Everyone seems to be missing the "you only have 2 choices" and the choices and issues it raises though.

You can make sure you get the one card on the one line you want with no other say.

Player 1 can force player 2 to use a choice on a card they may not like.

Player 2 can cancel said choice but then risks advancing his own agenda of choices.

It adds real depth and meaning to which player you are (which in itself flows into list building...) and becomes especially tense if you have terrain down but unknown forces to each other.

More variables added and in-game / real-time adjustments become, opinion, of equal or greater value than the list . Another dimension of gamesmanship and really like it. Forces one to prepare for far more if/then

I really feel like this will help to combat runaway meta. It also means that you have to have multiple strategies for your force.

@Rumar Unless said Platoon Commander is the second most powerful (in terms of political/military power) in the whole state the platoon belongs to and called Darth Vader. This guy can basically pick any mission he wants.

On 6/1/2018 at 4:16 AM, ninclouse2000 said:

I really think this would have been a very aw some way to choose objectives in armada. I still love me some armada but this method of choosing how the battle will go is pretty exciting.

I agree, this would be cool for Armada : the objective cards we have already, but have 'terrain' cards like 'asteroid field', 'planetary body'. 'space station', 'empty space', 'unstable nebula', etc, and add in disruptive cards, like 'sensor disruption', 'scattered exit from hyperspace', 'delayed arrival', 'ship malfunction', etc.

As an aside, in Legion , it would be nice to see scout troopers/vehcles (e.g. probot & AT-RT) given a strategic role that gave advantages in the card setup...to encourage selection of units for more than just their tactical use.

1 hour ago, skirmisher said:

I agree, this would be cool for Armada : the objective cards we have already, but have 'terrain' cards like 'asteroid field', 'planetary body'. 'space station', 'empty space', 'unstable nebula', etc, and add in disruptive cards, like 'sensor disruption', 'scattered exit from hyperspace', 'delayed arrival', 'ship malfunction', etc.

As an aside, in Legion , it would be nice to see scout troopers/vehcles (e.g. probot & AT-RT) given a strategic role that gave advantages in the card setup...to encourage selection of units for more than just their tactical use.

https://swlegioncommand.wordpress.com/missiondeployment/

Read "rapid reinforcements" or "key positions" and tell me that's not a factor already if you can snag the right cards.

1 hour ago, skirmisher said:

As an aside, in Legion , it would be nice to see scout troopers/vehcles (e.g. probot & AT-RT) given a strategic role that gave advantages in the card setup...to encourage selection of units for more than just their tactical use.

Another upside to having some element of randomness in mission setup is that it creates design space to include this sort of thing. You could definitely have a commander or special forces unit with an ability that lets you manipulate the setup a bit more. Maybe you could eliminate any battle card instead of the leftmost card in a category, or perhaps you could alter the order the cards are in after dealing them out. Maybe you could eliminate a third card after your opponent has made their 2 eliminations. I don't expect to see any such abilities in the game for a long time, but the possibility is definitely there.

5 hours ago, skirmisher said:

As an aside, in Legion , it would be nice to see scout troopers/vehcles (e.g. probot & AT-RT) given a strategic role that gave advantages in the card setup...to encourage selection of units for more than just their tactical use.

That scout ability, or just vanguard deployment would be nice.blue actions are generally movement btw.

3 hours ago, ShadowKite said:

Maybe you could eliminate any battle card instead of the leftmost card in a category, or perhaps you could alter the order the cards are in after dealing them out.

you can eliminate any card already. The leftmost uneliminated card at the end is the one that gets used for setup. So maybe a unit that lets you change the order of a row as one of your eliminations.

On 1/5/2018 at 8:50 PM, DarkTrooperZero said:

I imagine this will end up going 40k style with set tables and set missions plated each round. Not only speeds the game up but eliminates the players arguing over terrain placement.

For tournaments I run I am likely to do it that way. I'll set up each table ahead of time so that it's roughly what would have come from the terrain rules, then each round I'll draw the mission cards at random so that everyone plays the same thing. Tournaments should see the same situations for each player in a given round as much as possible, I think.

1 hour ago, Admiral Theia said:

For tournaments I run I am likely to do it that way. I'll set up each table ahead of time so that it's roughly what would have come from the terrain rules, then each round I'll draw the mission cards at random so that everyone plays the same thing. Tournaments should see the same situations for each player in a given round as much as possible, I think.

Definitely. Otherwise individuals will always blame the mission/conditions for their loses and it get's dull to listen to. At least if everyone's on the same missions/conditions then... people will still complain.

2 hours ago, Admiral Theia said:

For tournaments I run I am likely to do it that way. I'll set up each table ahead of time so that it's roughly what would have come from the terrain rules, then each round I'll draw the mission cards at random so that everyone plays the same thing. Tournaments should see the same situations for each player in a given round as much as possible, I think.

I agree with setting up the terrain, but choosing the cards that way takes all control of the players. It's still random, just more random.

And by going through the selection process, if there is one card that absolutely destroys your army you can be sure to get rid of it.