With the new announcement of objective cards being added via the Priority Objectives expansion, it seems there will be some customization to the Battle Card deck. The LtP guide says in setup you simply shuffle the Battle Card deck and draw the top three of each card type (objective, deployment, condition).

I guess this is a question for the OP or FAQ, but at some point they will need to specify if there is a max deck size, a max card limit of a single card, required inclusion cards, etc. Until then (and maybe after), You could conceivably stack a deck for a certain outcome (which I can see as a valid strategy as long as both players have an equal opportunity to contribute cards to the deck).

I suspect it will work like Imperial Assault. In IA, they specify a handful of maps that will be in use for the present "season" of play. It gets updated a few times a year. It wouldn't surprise me if the "legal" battle cards are switched out in the same way, so at any given time there are only four or five legal cards of each type.

Alternatively, you could have the TO just pick the battle cards at the start of each round, so every table plays the same matchup. However, that would eliminate the cool strategic process of picking the cards for the game and it would make it harder to overcome weakness to a particular objective or deployment card.

42 minutes ago, Dr Lucky said:

I suspect it will work like Imperial Assault. In IA, they specify a handful of maps that will be in use for the present "season" of play. It gets updated a few times a year. It wouldn't surprise me if the "legal" battle cards are switched out in the same way, so at any given time there are only four or five legal cards of each type.

Runewars has a similar format for OP. There are 3 deployments and 3 objectives that are legal for the current quarter and they cycle every quarter. With Runewars they drop one of the deployment/objective cards from the legal list and add a new one of each, so you will have 2 deployments & objectives carry over into the next quarter.

For friendly games, there is no deck size limit, you just shuffle them up and deal, then go through the selection process.

49 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

For friendly games, there is no deck size limit, you just shuffle them up and deal, then go through the selection process.

Probably after removing cards that both players hate for some reason or another.

We'll see once the OP rules document gets released at some point.

I am of the opinion that anyone who does not remove/eliminate Clear Conditions is neither a Gentleman, nor a Scholar.

It seems so dull.

6 hours ago, Big Easy said:

With the new announcement of objective cards being added via the Priority Objectives expansion, it seems there will be some customization to the Battle Card deck. The LtP guide says in setup you simply shuffle the Battle Card deck and draw the top three of each card type (objective, deployment, condition).

I guess this is a question for the OP or FAQ, but at some point they will need to specify if there is a max deck size, a max card limit of a single card, required inclusion cards, etc. Until then (and maybe after), You could conceivably stack a deck for a certain outcome (which I can see as a valid strategy as long as both players have an equal opportunity to contribute cards to the deck).

I guess the rules don't forbid it but I don't see multiples of a single card being allowed.

I would like to see the game add up to about 8 of each type of card and keep them all in play.

This mission system is a blast, the random draw and mini-game to see what you end up with makes it all interesting. I have learned that the Battlefield where the blue and red starting zones are the diagonal corners makes a hard game of it for Darth Vader.

50 minutes ago, Amanal said:

I would like to see the game add up to about 8 of each type of card and keep them all in play.

This mission system is a blast, the random draw and mini-game to see what you end up with makes it all interesting. I have learned that the Battlefield where the blue and red starting zones are the diagonal corners makes a hard game of it for Darth Vader.

The objectives selection seems like it makes it feel like real ground-level combat, where your orders are fluid and the boots on the ground have to adapt instantly (as opposed to something like Armada where you literally build your fleet around your selected objectives, which also makes sense). Im looking forward to playing with the objectives and deployment/condition cards, and really hoping they continue to release more.

14 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

The objectives selection seems like it makes it feel like real ground-level combat, where your orders are fluid and the boots on the ground have to adapt instantly (as opposed to something like Armada where you literally build your fleet around your selected objectives, which also makes sense).

You're looking at an artifact of the activation systems.

Both games have alternating activations, but in Armada, the same player is first all game. Since that's an incredibly strong advantage, second player gets to pick objectives that (theoretically) favor them, to compensate. In Legion, first player is determined every turn by the command card mechanic, so there's no need to offset a first player advantage. Instead, you need a system that is roughly equally balanced between both players, but that still allows them to make decisions based on their specific lists.

11 minutes ago, svelok said:

You're looking at an artifact of the activation systems.

Both games have alternating activations, but in Armada, the same player is first all game. Since that's an incredibly strong advantage, second player gets to pick objectives that (theoretically) favor them, to compensate. In Legion, first player is determined every turn by the command card mechanic, so there's no need to offset a first player advantage. Instead, you need a system that is roughly equally balanced between both players, but that still allows them to make decisions based on their specific lists.

True, but the activation system in Armada is influenced by the objective selection and fleet building because of initiative bid. I agree that the system in Legion is an artifact of balance requirements and I think it's a really thoughtful and fun solution.

Which player's deck do you deal from?

1 minute ago, Screwtape said:

Which player's deck do you deal from? 

Blue Player

Just now, Squark said:

Blue Player

The order is, compare army point value, the lower number chooses blue/red, then the blue player shuffles and deals?

19 minutes ago, Screwtape said:

The order is, compare army point value, the lower number chooses blue/red, then the blue player shuffles and deals?

Correct. In the event both players have the same point cost, the choice of player color is given to the winner of a coin flip or die roll (Red defense dice or black attack dice are perfect for this if you count the surge as blank).

14 hours ago, Squark said:

Correct. In the event both players have the same point cost, the choice of player color is given to the winner of a coin flip or die roll (Red defense dice or black attack dice are perfect for this if you count the surge as blank).

Yeah, I think they need to change this up, like in Armada. There is 0 reason to be the red player, ever.

Blue wins on ties, decides the side of the board they deploy from and controls the options for the set up of the game.

Too much advantage to one player. Blue should get everything they get but should have to sacrifice the deck portion and they should choose form red's deck.

6 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Yeah, I think they need to change this up, like in Armada. There is 0 reason to be the red player, ever.

Blue wins on ties, decides the side of the board they deploy from and controls the options for the set up of the game.

Too much advantage to one player. Blue should get everything they get but should have to sacrifice the deck portion and they should choose form red's deck.

Red player gets second deployment and last choice when defining the battlefield. Both are significant advantages.

3 hours ago, Squark said:

Red player gets second deployment and last choice when defining the battlefield. Both are significant advantages.

If Key Positions didn't exist (or was fairer with one token in the centre) I would always go Red.

17 hours ago, Squark said:

Red player gets second deployment and last choice when defining the battlefield. Both are significant advantages.

I do not agree. I mean yes they have their merits but I do not find them to be significant advantages that outweigh what the blue player has available to them.