6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Hardly just as tough. In Armada which arc of your ship you are firing out of changes how many attack dice you get to roll, and each arc has a different amount of shields. The difference between destroying a ship and simply damaging, or losing your own ship can be how much you turned while you maneuvered. Most of the units in Legion do not care to nearly that extent. But yes, Suppression does add an additional consideration to activation order and the capabilities of your units.

True but Armada is determined by damage, this game is determined by who controls what objective points. Supression will be huge because you might not be able to shoot because you need to move to an objective point which means I'm essentially shooting you for nothing and perpetuating the cycle

Damage with objectives often being in lieu or a replacement for damage.

really, in the systems set, Armada is the compromise.

Xwing is just damage.

Legion is just objective control.

Armada is the blend of both.

in each instance there are positives and negatives... but generally the compromise wins out on average - that’s why it’s a compromise... but there are always skew data sets to favour the others ?

15 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Damage with objectives often being in lieu or a replacement for damage.

really, in the systems set, Armada is the compromise.

Xwing is just damage.

Legion is just objective control.

Armada is the blend of both.

in each instance there are positives and negatives... but generally the compromise wins out on average - that’s why it’s a compromise... but there are always skew data sets to favour the others ?

That's really only true for the objectives that contribute points. The ones that don't add points give you an advantage that might yield points by destroying things, which can backfire quickly, like Fleet Ambush.

Most Armada games focus on tabling your opponent quickly, with objectives being more of an annoyance, until you run into the Fish Farm that reaps 300+ objective points while also being difficult to kill.

8 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

That's really only true for the objectives that contribute points. The ones that don't add points give you an advantage that might yield points by destroying things, which can backfire quickly, like Fleet Ambush.

Most Armada games focus on tabling your opponent quickly, with objectives being more of an annoyance, until you run into the Fish Farm that reaps 300+ objective points while also being difficult to kill.

No doubt your anecdotal stance, so no defence.... but certainly that is not my view...

I stand by the compromise.

Having a choice is better than both extremes giving you no choice.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No doubt your anecdotal stance, so no defence.... but certainly that is not my view...

I stand by the compromise.

Having a choice is better than both extremes giving you no choice.

Well I can't wait for Legions objective system. And both players get to pick the battle field. Much better than Armadas system. No more MW, HSA, SC.

Plus, I think there is an objective where you win by destroying more than your opponent. So there's the compromise.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

Well I can't wait for Legions objective system. And both players get to pick the battle field. Much better than Armadas system. No more MW, HSA, SC.

Plus, I think there is an objective where you win by destroying more than your opponent. So there's the compromise.

Eh, picking the battlefield is somewhat like objective placement to me...

and if both players are choosing (or rather vetoing) that conpromisr isn’t really a compromise if it’s never seen ?

Realky, I’m not saying that the legion system is bad at all - I quite like it too... I’m just wary on only having one path to victory. Or rather being FORCED into one path.

Objectives in Armada are still a choice - even if loaded ones ?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Eh, picking the battlefield is somewhat like objective placement to me...

and if both players are choosing (or rather vetoing) that conpromisr isn’t really a compromise if it’s never seen ?

Realky, I’m not saying that the legion system is bad at all - I quite like it too... I’m just wary on only having one path to victory. Or rather being FORCED into one path.

Objectives in Armada are still a choice - even if loaded ones ?

There is always the win condition of tabling your opponent, which time will tell how easy or hard that is.

You can always still win by tabling your opponent.

EDIT: Great minds.

I have to say that the 2nd tie breaker for Legion makes me chuckle, and makes me wonder how much initiative bid will come into the competitive scene. I doubt that the "blue player wins" tie-breaker will come up that often, but with the way the world works I'm sure there will be a big upset somewhere due to it. I played in a Game of Thrones regional a couple years ago where one of the final 4 matches came down to a coin toss because the players were tied on everything else.

I know of at least one game of Warmachine that remained tied through the 4-5 levels of tie breakers before they dropped all the tie breakers for chess clocks.

On 3/12/2018 at 4:47 PM, TylerTT said:

Sure, armada also gets squeezed into competitive events even though it is also an ill suited game.

This game looks to have a core of fun and intresting organized play and competition as a side show.

As an avid Armada tournament player, I would have to disagree with you. Armada is very suited to the format. More so than previous iterations of WH40k and games like it.

So by "tournament" game I meant games where the typical organized play was tournaments rather than leagues or casual.

For example my store runs destiny tournaments every week and they take about 4-6 hours.

I highly doubt the same store and players would be able to play in a day long legion tournament each week.

I dont mean to say the game won't be playable in tournaments just simply that it's not built to be a tournament game.

7 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

So by "tournament" game I meant games where the typical organized play was tournaments rather than leagues or casual.

For example my store runs destiny tournaments every week and they take about 4-6 hours.

I highly doubt the same store and players would be able to play in a day long legion tournament each week.

I dont mean to say the game won't be playable in tournaments just simply that it's not built to be a tournament game.

See I’m hearing you and fundamentally disagreeing. I think it comes down to the mindset of the player. To me when this game was announced all I cared about is how good it would be for a competitive game because that’s what I’m interested in. The campaign elements will be fun sure but if it wasn’t a tournament game I never would have gone balls deep in buying into it.

I think IA is the good comparison in that it was designed primarily as a campaign game but with a skirmish/competitive option for those who are keen. I’ve ended up finding the competitive scene there disappointing because the game is clearly not balanced with that in mind. I suspect that legion is absolutely balanced with competitive play first in mind.

Legion will be balanced to rip the other war gaming people away from their games and spend money on Legion.

Legion will also have the casual scene where people mod n hobby.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Legion will be balanced to rip the other war gaming people away from their games and spend money on Legion.

Legion will also have the casual scene where people mod n hobby.

I’d be surprised if it was both, a) really balanced, because FFG isn’t totally known for that. And b) people will play it for the license more than the balance. People won’t rip away from their other games, but will probably add this to their list to play.

12 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

I’d be surprised if it was both, a) really balanced, because FFG isn’t totally known for that. And b) people will play it for the license more than the balance. People won’t rip away from their other games, but will probably add this to their list to play.

I can't say yet if it will "rip people away" from other games, but with Armada the balance has been astoundingly good, and stayed so over the course of the game (with minor fluctuations that rarely required nerfs or errata to fix). I can't speak to Destiny, but in my experience the sales model for collectible games precludes over-strong balance, else there is nothing valuable to buy packs to shoot for.

I think Legion will be somewhere between X-wing and Armada in balance, in that overall it will be balanced, but new waves (especially with how keen they seem to announce new product) will throw it out of whack a bit until the community learns how to adapt. What I hated about 40k was that I could look across the table and know before a single die roll if I was going to win or lose. I don't see that being a thing in Legion, though I could be wrong.

3 minutes ago, Admiral Theia said:

I don't see that being a thing in Legion, though I could be wrong.

At the very least, I think you'd have to wait until battle cards are dealt and chosen. Even if you're like, running an all-armor squad and the enemy is an anti-armor squad, the right objective, conditions or deployment could still make it so you could reasonably win.