They just need to sell the 3D versions of the 2D terrain on the mat.

No from me, dont want 3d 'images' on my terrain mat.

I do like the ATAT prints though, nice touch.

To be fair they might be aiming at the newer comer to wargames to give them something east to use/store and with agreed rules, a complete terrain 'set'.

28 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Even if you need specific techniques for a 6x3, Armada, Rune Wars and Legion all use that size. The 3x3 is actually a minority at this point. They need to just bite the bullet. More so because Legion and Runewars could use the same mats pretty comfortably.

I'll probably just grab one of these: http://www.tablewar.com/the-f-a-t-mat/6x3-f-a-t-mat/

With shipping these are $75, beats the price of 2 FFG mats.

45 minutes ago, Cusm said:

And again FFG misses on the mats. They need to just make the 6x3 mats if that is what they require for their games. I had to buy a mat for Armada from another company and if I get in on Legion will have to do the same. The seam from the 2 mats does present issues in games like X-Wing and Armada where movement should be pretty precise, it might not matter as much here; but I don't want a damned seam on my game area.

Legion can also be played on a 3x3 at lower points levels. Most people that I know don't have a 3x6 table at home, but they do have a 3x3 or 4x4, which would allow them to use one of the mats at home. Plus if they make more desert themed mats, then people can mix and match to vary the ground underneath. As to Armada mats being 3x3, that's because both Armada and X-wing use space mats, so why produce a seperate line of mats just for Armada when two of the X-wing mats mark out the playing area for Armada? Why limit the market and force stores to carry two different sets of mats if FFG don't have to? Admittedly for Legion there is not a pre-existing FFG game using a 3x3 at the default points level, so that argument isn't as valid here.

That said, I'm in the crowd that doesn't like mats that have 3D elements printed on them in 2D. It's one thing for IA where they then indicate cover/line of site blocking on the tiles, another for a miniature wargame where the image underneath is mixed with actual 3D terrain.

I didn't think FFG could make mats any worse than they did for Armada, ... but they did for Legion. Not only are they still 3x3 (lol what?) but they have terrain imprinted on them? And, the terrain is a jumbled mess of mazes? How does that work for a ground battle game? Super-triple-dog-failure FFG.

Don't expect any 6x3 mats from FFG. 3 years after Armada's release and we still don't have a 6x3 mat. Just buy a 6x3 mat from DeepCutStudio. Great mats with lots of good (basic) terrain options. I just don't get what's going on over at FFG with their mats. They seem completely clueless.

Interesting that they haven't shown anything that works for 6x4 Grand Army.

2 minutes ago, Thraug said:

I didn't think FFG could make mats any worse than they did for Armada, ... but they did for Legion. Not only are they still 3x3 (lol what?) but they have terrain imprinted on them? And, the terrain is a jumbled mess of mazes? How does that work for a ground battle game? Super-triple-dog-failure FFG.

Don't expect any 6x3 mats from FFG. 3 years after Armada's release and we still don't have a 6x3 mat. Just buy a 6x3 mat from DeepCutStudio. Great mats with lots of good (basic) terrain options. I just don't get what's going on over at FFG with their mats. They seem completely clueless.

My favorite was in X-Wing when they made a FAQ for tournaments had to be played on starfield mats, no design (planets, deathstar, etc) and then they stated they had to be FFG mats. But 3 of the 4 FFG mats had planet or a Death Star on them.

2 minutes ago, Cusm said:

My favorite was in X-Wing when they made a FAQ for tournaments had to be played on starfield mats, no design (planets, deathstar, etc) and then they stated they had to be FFG mats. But 3 of the 4 FFG mats had planet or a Death Star on them.

Pretty sure it was third party mats couldnt have designs, but ffg mats could.. t was so that you couldnt bring an obscure mat that no one had played on, but you know the relative difference between points. Vs the ffg official mats anyone had the opportunity to learn these differences if they so wished.

4 minutes ago, taylorcowbell said:

Pretty sure it was third party mats couldnt have designs, but ffg mats could.. t was so that you couldnt bring an obscure mat that no one had played on, but you know the relative difference between points. Vs the ffg official mats anyone had the opportunity to learn these differences if they so wished.

That was later dropped once they released their designs. I think it started with the close up Death Star mat that had almost a grid design. And they dropped the FFG only stipulation as well.

These are an option for people who don't want to play on the kitchen table surface, which is great. But I really see no reason not to make your own mats. It's too easy and cheap for a much better looking mat to ignore. Making a mat is easier than making terrain or even painting minis, and arguably for a better effect on how the game looks.

I honestly prefer having two 3x3 mats to one 6x3 mat. The seam has never been a problem in Armada or Epic X-Wing, I can't imagine why it would be a problem here. I like having the flexibility to use the single mats for smaller battles or other games. However, the printed terrain isn't really my preference.

Why not just use the Runewars grass mat? That's what we used for the demo. Looked really good too.

My sentiments seem pretty common. First the mats are beautiful, and for a non-3d game where the picture on the mat meant something in the game that would be cool. but I would much prefer a more general mat where the terrain features need to be added as terrain features. I also worry that these mats really only work for one kind of terrain. So if I wanted to do Hoth-style snow battles I would need 2 more mats. I like the idea of mats, but I don't think I will buy these.

So lets say we were to use these mats as actual terrain with cover bonuses and such.

At the onset, players would need to define what is cover what, and what is difficult terrain.

If we define the "red rocky bits" as impassable terrain... well.. good ******* luck determining what is "red rocky bits" throughout the game.

If we define the hill looking thing with the tie-fighter wing as cover 1, good ******* luck determining what is touching that hill for cover purposes.

It seems like these mats are either going to be used as just awkward 2d "ground terrain" that you put terrain pieces on top and ignore the mat all together, or they are going to be used to actually define terrain, cover, los, etc, and its just gonna be a maze of **** judge calls.

As nice looking as they are, I think it's a huge misstep for Legion. If it was a basic environment (snow, desert, etc) and you could put on your own terrain, awesome. This feels more like a lazy was of FFG not having to do work for their tournaments by making/bringing boards. Throw down some rubber mats, explain the terrain effects and be done with it.

9 minutes ago, VictoryLeo said:

As nice looking as they are, I think it's a huge misstep for Legion. If it was a basic environment (snow, desert, etc) and you could put on your own terrain, awesome. This feels more like a lazy was of FFG not having to do work for their tournaments by making/bringing boards. Throw down some rubber mats, explain the terrain effects and be done with it.

There's no way these mats are used in their official World tournament events. Which raises the question, why release something that doesn't meet that standard? But look, if FFG is going to mess something up, I'm glad it's the optional mats!

This is what I bought. Pricey but all set for Epic play as well.

This mats are SOOOO pretty and SOOOO not appropriate.

With that said, they need to be viewed in person to really get an idea of how bad the fake 3D effects look to know if it is a usable mat or not. Once real terrain is placed on the mat, it may look flat enough. I've been looking for a good mat and they are either too big, too expensive or just flat out ugly. This mat isn't either of those though it is "too pretty".

Unfortunately I feel this is a bad move, 3D terrain won't feel right on these mats. Printed obstacles don't feel right either. Really just want a 2D generic print of snow or sand etc which I can build 3D terrain for.

2 hours ago, VAYASAN said:

I do like the ATAT prints though, nice touch.

Since there is almost no chance of the AT-AT coming to the game, though, that feels more like taunting than anything else, really...

3 hours ago, steveisbig said:

They just need to sell the 3D versions of the 2D terrain on the mat.

Pm me

27 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Pm me

I have a printer and can make my own. I'm just saying that FFG could make easy sales on matching 3D terrain.

I feel like these are going to be about as successful as the modular X-Wing "boards" they announced but that never made it to market.

3 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

modular X-Wing "boards"

Whats that?

6 minutes ago, imlost19 said:

Whats that?

before they did mats, they advertised a box of four 18"x18" boards (made from boardgame chipboard, I think) to push together to make an X-Wing play area. It did not survive playtesting because of how easy it was to knock everything around. I'll try to find the link.

I'm just saying, their first attempts at play areas are not always good.