5 minutes ago, Dash Two said:

My temporary foray into Bolt Action ... some test games ... I remember some games being platoon based, which was your squads and some support weapons of choice but no tanks ... and others requiring use of tanks.

I wonder if there are rules within Legion that allow total flexibility with how you spend your points or if you are forced to bring a heavy each time?

There’s basically a force organisation chart that dictates the min/max amount of each unit type. Its

1-2 commander (Vader/Veers/Luke/Leia)

3-6 corp (infantry)

0-3 support (speeders/at-rts)

0-2 special forces (unannounced but alex davy has mentioned scout troopers)

0-2 heavy (at-st/snowspeeders)

23 minutes ago, Jabby said:

There’s basically a force organisation chart that dictates the min/max amount of each unit type. Its

1-2 commander (Vader/Veers/Luke/Leia)

3-6 corp (infantry)

0-3 support (speeders/at-rts)

0-2 special forces (unannounced but alex davy has mentioned scout troopers)

0-2 heavy (at-st/snowspeeders)

So I read that to mean I don't have to take a heavy, if I do not wan to ....

Interesting

1 hour ago, ScummyRebel said:

I thought the ATST is making two separate attacks though, not a single dice pool to roll like the troopers.

To me, blast shouldn’t apply to a laser cannon. Now, the impact keyword on the main gun does help negate the use of cover. So cover cannot cancel that many hits from the laser cannon itself.

Impact doesn't help against cover at all, because cover is applied before Impact changes hit to crits.

1 hour ago, LennoxPoodle said:

Hmm, for many keywords it doesn't really matter. The ones with numbers mostly apply to a given number of hits. For me its no difference if the left or right die can't be blocked its still one point of damage. For Ion the text of the keyword itself states that it doesn't matter how many weapons in a attack have it. If a unit of 100 Ion troopers shoot at an airspeeder it still gets just one Ion token.

The only real difference I can see is for blast and there it's thematic. Everyone not hit by the weapon will be driven out of cover and thus be an easy target for others.

I heartily agree. So far Blast only comes on grenades and flamethrowers, weapons that are more or less designed to flush people out of cover. If a grenade lands right next to me, I will take my chances getting shot while I put some distance (and hopefully some new cover) between me and the imminent explosion. It streamlines the game, makes it simpler to use aim tokens, and means that if you have a heavy weapon trooper with the same color dice as the rest of your squad you don't have to try to keep track of which die belongs to which weapon.

I already have reservations about the HH-12 trooper, as it's very expensive and heavily restricted by Cumbersome and being exhaustible. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes obsolete relatively quickly, as more and more ways of dealing with armor are added to the game. I think applying their Impact keyword to the rest of the unit is easily justified.

Finally, I think this ruling will help to create a balance between quantity of activations and quality of activations. Like several people have noted in other threads, more activations means more tactical flexibility, tempo control, and perhaps most importantly better objective control. By added more weight to quality of activations, you can open up more list building opportunities beyond simply getting the most activations possible.

40 minutes ago, Dash Two said:

My temporary foray into Bolt Action ... some test games ... I remember some games being platoon based, which was your squads and some support weapons of choice but no tanks ... and others requiring use of tanks.

I wonder if there are rules within Legion that allow total flexibility with how you spend your points or if you are forced to bring a heavy each time?

Unless you were using Theater lists, you always have the option in Bolt Action to take a Tank or Armoured car in a Generic Platoon. Tank Wars is a different way to play that requires 3 vehicles. In BA the requirements for a Generic was 1 LT and 2 infantry squads per platoon, similar to the requirements for Legion.

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Unless you were using Theater lists, you always have the option in Bolt Action to take a Tank or Armoured car in a Generic Platoon. Tank Wars is a different way to play that requires 3 vehicles. In BA the requirements for a Generic was 1 LT and 2 infantry squads per platoon, similar to the requirements for Legion.

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

12 hours ago, Funk Fu master said:

So it seems that the single heavy weapon model is a more abstract representation that the squad is armed with several of these weapons. hence why you can only have one in a squad.

I like it. makes everything more deadly and therefore quicker games.

I agree. It makes the squads feel more specialized. That way too, you'll have more options and more need to bring a variety of special weapons. I guess if you split fire though the keywords don't apply to the attacks that hit the unit the specialist isn't firing at?

3 minutes ago, Dash Two said:

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

Tbh I was hoping for a more platoon based game rather than heroes and junk, but I’m excited either way the game goes.

3 minutes ago, Dash Two said:

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

Personally I’m excited just for the ‘feel’ of running an airspeeder around or shredding cover with an ATST.

With these rules I think it’s just going to be extremely important to use troopers to support the heavies rather than putting them out there alone and exposed.

47 minutes ago, Jabby said:

There’s basically a force organisation chart that dictates the min/max amount of each unit type. Its

1-2 commander (Vader/Veers/Luke/Leia)

3-6 corp (infantry)

0-3 support (speeders/at-rts)

0-2 special forces (unannounced but alex davy has mentioned scout troopers)

0-2 heavy (at-st/snowspeeders)

I wonder if this will see any sort of variation. In other rule sets, say Team Yankee, or Flames of War, etc, these kinds of things can vary by either nationality or even type of force (Tank/Mech/Infantry).

I think it also still leaves the door open for other categories to be introduced. Take the rebel turrets on Hoth for instance...

19 minutes ago, Dash Two said:

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

My first list(once wave 2 is released) is gonna be 2 commanders and 6 corp units.

1 minute ago, Dash Two said:

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

I'm sure it will likely be a valid tactic, since many of the objectives check how many of your unit leaders are in a radius, so more leaders potentially equals more points. However, with as cheap as the Corps units are , and the limited options we have for filling points, you will likely have to take at least some support options. Heavy options also seem well suited to taking out other Heavy options, so you'll have to see what the meta is like in your area.

3 minutes ago, Omnustechni said:

I agree. It makes the squads feel more specialized. That way too, you'll have more options and more need to bring a variety of special weapons. I guess if you split fire though the keywords don't apply to the attacks that hit the unit the specialist isn't firing at?

I would assume not, as the weapon is not in the die pool for the keywords to apply. We'll see when the rules are finally released though.

3 hours ago, Dash Two said:

Got it

So in theory ... how do people feel about punting on the heavy and just taking a whole bunch of soldiers?

I hope both types of lists are viable. I would love to see lists with a lot of points tied up in 2 upgraded heavies and lean soldier lists showing up and being competitive at events.

lets say you put concussion grenades on your troopers. its range 1 only but adds blast. do your rifle shots get blast out to range 3?

1 minute ago, willrum said:

lets say you put concussion grenades on your troopers. its range 1 only but adds blast. do your rifle shots get blast out to range 3?

Nope because you can't have range 1 grenades included in your attack pool if you are attacking something with rifles at range 3.

56 minutes ago, ShadowKite said:

Nope because you can't have range 1 grenades included in your attack pool if you are attacking something with rifles at range 3.

Indeed. 5e attack with the keyword would need to be in the attack pool.

My question is if you have 4 troopers attacking an armored vehicle with Impact Grenades, does it become Impact 4? Or are keywords from a single weapon type only counted once?

Suppose I have a squad of Stormtroopers with Impact Grenades and an HH-12 Stormtrooper. If the HH-12 Stormtrooper is at range 2 to the target, but the rest of the Stormtroopers are at range 1, then can I attack with 4 grenades and the HH-12? I think yes, but then does the attack have Impact 4 or Impact 7?

I would guess that keywords don't stack for multiple weapons of the same type, because Impact 4 for only 5 points seems like way too much, even if its limited to range 1.

That is a question we will likely have to wait for either a decent article or the full rules.

49 minutes ago, ShadowKite said:

My question is if you have 4 troopers attacking an armored vehicle with Impact Grenades, does it become Impact 4? Or are keywords from a single weapon type only counted once?

Suppose I have a squad of Stormtroopers with Impact Grenades and an HH-12 Stormtrooper. If the HH-12 Stormtrooper is at range 2 to the target, but the rest of the Stormtroopers are at range 1, then can I attack with 4 grenades and the HH-12? I think yes, but then does the attack have Impact 4 or Impact 7?

I would guess that keywords don't stack for multiple weapons of the same type, because Impact 4 for only 5 points seems like way too much, even if its limited to range 1.

I did ask the author, Didn't get an answer on impact however confirmed the dice does multiply per model. Cheap boost for stormtroppers r1 no matter the nade taken!

I believe for attacking each individual trooper declares what weapon they are attacking with, therefore if attacking an enemy vehicle with impact grenades each individual trooper would be rolling a black die with impact 1. The result is being if you have 5 troopers and a HH-12 trooper, you would roll 6 black die with impact 6 (the HH-12 would not be using the rocket launcher since it is range 2-4)

1 minute ago, garciaj113 said:

I believe for attacking each individual trooper declares what weapon they are attacking with, therefore if attacking an enemy vehicle with impact grenades each individual trooper would be rolling a black die with impact 1. The result is being if you have 5 troopers and a HH-12 trooper, you would roll 6 black die with impact 6 (the HH-12 would not be using the rocket launcher since it is range 2-4)

Yes but the HH-12 can be behind the rest of the squad, so they are individually at Range 2 (depending on size of range bands).

Do we have an instance of measuring distance for each individual trooper, I though range solely depended on the range of the commander. If that were to be the case then you would be rolling 8 black die with impact 8

They don't specify either way in the article about Combat. I'm not sure if anyone has any information from a demo? This is one of those reasons we would like the rule book released.

Didn't Davy say that range would be measured from the unit leader to the closest model of the target unit in the team covenant demo video from gencon?

Afak indeed all measurements is done from the unit commander. Both for movement and shooting.

Hmm you guys are probably right on measuring range just from the unit leader. Much faster that way. The Spanish rulebook in the unboxing video does mention tracing line-of-sight from each mini, but that is not the same as measuring range.