1 minute ago, moodswing5537 said:

I think they are aiming more for league play with Legion....It lends itself more toward that I think...

Then what is the better system.

A system good at two styles of play (casual, league) and crappy at the third (competitive tournament)...

or a system that, at s minimum, is at least adequate if not better at all 3?

Really, it’s a biased Apples and Oranges question anyway.

As it is, I do think Legion will be a better casual game.

But that’s at the cost of being truly competitive... and you can’t tell me that Legion at Worlds is going to involve League play...

1 minute ago, Squark said:

I was referencing the staggered release schedule- The mentioned expansions hit before their counterpart in the opposing faction.

I think this will be good for the game. Every game with a release cycle suffers from stagnation at the end of a cycle. Armada, MTG, and Hearthstone all go through this. It's how you end up with crazy high power fleets or decks. Trial and error until people find things that work.

With a monthly release cycle, it will be hard for any form of meta to develop. By the end of a release, new content will drop and shake the meta. The only rough patch Legion will go through is the wait between Veers and Leia, just because it will be 1 vs 2 commanders.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I think this will be good for the game. Every game with a release cycle suffers from stagnation at the end of a cycle. Armada, MTG, and Hearthstone all go through this. It's how you end up with crazy high power fleets or decks. Trial and error until people find things that work.

With a monthly release cycle, it will be hard for any form of meta to develop. By the end of a release, new content will drop and shake the meta. The only rough patch Legion will go through is the wait between Veers and Leia, just because it will be 1 vs 2 commanders.

You don’t think Special Forces and a second cheap Commander unbalances either?

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Again, as a 40k TO, that is not feasible for an event of any size.

Especially when and if you request people bring terrain in to fill and use on tables...

And legion requires a LOT given the rules as they are... 4.5 square feet of it.

The game is built with that in mind, and less or more biases the system, which is inexcusable in a competitive environment.

I hadn't considered people bringing their own terrain. I assumed a venue would gradually settle on accepted values for the terrain they provide, but it is a bit much to expect a TO to vet all the terrain being brought, especially since buildings require a bit more ajudicating.

I'll be interested in how FFG keeps up the monthly cycle as time progresses. I really dont want a third faction, unless we get prequel stuff. They do at least have a vast amount of IA characters to draw from that could become units somehow.

15 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

[...]

The game will largely be balanced once more content is released.

That is what I softly mumble in desperation to myself before every single wave of armada. And guess what... *sigh*

Just now, Squark said:

I hadn't considered people bringing their own terrain. I assumed a venue would gradually settle on accepted values for the terrain they provide, but it is a bit much to expect a TO to vet all the terrain being brought, especially since buildings require a bit more ajudicating.

When every table needs 1/4 covered... that’s a lot for a venue...

I mean, 40k had the same requirement back in 5th when they introduced true LOS, and almost nowhere I knew - even the GW store I worked at - had anywhere enough to legitimately do that on their tables.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

You don’t think Special Forces and a second cheap Commander unbalances either?

Not really. I expect everyone will play the new content, simply because it's new. I also haven't seen all the cards that release with them.

WE GOT A FAQ FOR DESTINY

Just now, TallGiraffe said:

WE GOT A FAQ FOR DESTINY

This was foretold like 3 days ago too

Just now, Drasnighta said:

This was foretold like 3 days ago too

So maybe this week for Armada?

1 minute ago, draco193 said:

So maybe this week for Armada?

We haven’t been foretold yet.

not in the same fashion

Can we take this all to off topics please

12 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Can we take this all to off topics please

It is an FAQ Before worlds technically. Just not the one we want.

31 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Can we take this all to off topics please

We have an "Off Topic" forum?

14 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

We have an "Off Topic" forum?

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/229045-article-predictions-mostly-general-discussion-but-theres-definately-some-predictions-scattered-throughout/

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Can we take this all to off topics please

No. We need to discuss Legion.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

When every table needs 1/4 covered... that’s a lot for a venue...

I mean, 40k had the same requirement back in 5th when they introduced true LOS, and almost nowhere I knew - even the GW store I worked at - had anywhere enough to legitimately do that on their tables.

Gawd "True LoS" is the dumbest ****. Incorporating 3 dimensions into an, effectively, 2 dimensional game is silly. Not to mention the weird trend of squatting down to model height to confirm.

50 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

Gawd "True LoS" is the dumbest ****. Incorporating 3 dimensions into an, effectively, 2 dimensional game is silly. Not to mention the weird trend of squatting down to model height to confirm.

It's not that bad. Just grab a laser pointer, hit the button. If you can paint the target from your model, you have line of sight. Takes less time than checking for range. Roll dice, resolve damage, next attack.

14 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

It's not that bad. Just grab a laser pointer, hit the button. If you can paint the target from your model, you have line of sight. Takes less time than checking for range. Roll dice, resolve damage, next attack.

That seems like a good way to blind people unless you have very good aim.

13 minutes ago, Squark said:

That seems like a good way to blind people unless you have very good aim.

In the land of the laser blinded the one eyed general is King.....

8 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Data influences my opinion because I'm a rational person.

Data only tells you about efficiency, not experience. Rieekan Aces was fairly efficient, but not unbeatable. It was changed because the experience of playing against it was torturous even when you won.

Massive activation advantage has a decided positive effect, enough that FFG is adding ways to fight the activation advantage issues. But since 4th edition, the number of activations has mostly stayed steady or even dropped according to the data. Why add those tools? Because the experience of playing at a severe activation deficit is often excruciating especially for new players.

Demolisher hasn't gotten terribly weakened by its change in relation to Engine Techs (the efficiency has only barely changed), but the inability to actually threaten it before or after its triple-tap attack made defending players feel helpless. That experience is what lead to the change, not so much the data. Demolisher is rarely getting shot by ships now even still, but it feels easier to engage without ending up at close range for the initial shot.

4 hours ago, dominosfleet said:

Gawd "True LoS" is the dumbest ****. Incorporating 3 dimensions into an, effectively, 2 dimensional game is silly. Not to mention the weird trend of squatting down to model height to confirm.

Actually, TLOS was great and really encouraged venues to invest in larger terrain pieces. Besides, nearly all of the larger terrain pieces were usually considered cover-granting area terrain anyway. If you came into most of the stores I played at, you'd see plenty of multi-level terrain features like buildings and rock formations.

The real issue wasn't the TLOS for models, it was the template attack system that made players have to guess at whether or not their attacks hit and if so, how many models were affected. That's where all the arguments tended to really break out so long as you made sure to discuss your cover rules in advance.

20 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Data only tells you about efficiency, not experience. Rieekan Aces was fairly efficient, but not unbeatable. It was changed because the experience of playing against it was torturous even when you won.

Massive activation advantage has a decided positive effect, enough that FFG is adding ways to fight the activation advantage issues. But since 4th edition, the number of activations has mostly stayed steady or even dropped according to the data. Why add those tools? Because the experience of playing at a severe activation deficit is often excruciating especially for new players.

Demolisher hasn't gotten terribly weakened by its change in relation to Engine Techs (the efficiency has only barely changed), but the inability to actually threaten it before or after its triple-tap attack made defending players feel helpless. That experience is what lead to the change, not so much the data. Demolisher is rarely getting shot by ships now even still, but it feels easier to engage without ending up at close range for the initial shot.

90% of the time i take demo down by massed squadron activation. even if i can't kill it I wound it enough that it runs away instead of doing it's attack run. The only aspect of that that makes me sad is that I usually lose first strike with my squadrons but whatever, if they're fielding demo, and an isd their squadrons are usually pretty meh.

10 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Actually, TLOS was great and really encouraged venues to invest in larger terrain pieces. Besides, nearly all of the larger terrain pieces were usually considered cover-granting area terrain anyway. If you came into most of the stores I played at, you'd see plenty of multi-level terrain features like buildings and rock formations.

The real issue wasn't the TLOS for models, it was the template attack system that made players have to guess at whether or not their attacks hit and if so, how many models were affected. That's where all the arguments tended to really break out so long as you made sure to discuss your cover rules in advance.

I'm glad your store didn't have issues, I ran into plenty of neck beards that wanted to tie the game up by slow play and objecting to nonsense. One tried to argue that I couldn't shoot out of my (open top) xport because the front didn't look like it had windows(the necron barges, whatever they're called, it's been forever).

Every game system has "the worst" of something and "people not knowing the rules but wanting to argue them" was generally 40k's. WMH has the worst rules lawyers and X-wing was bad about people wasting time(An armada similar round cap to that game would be great).

19 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

90% of the time i take demo down by massed squadron activation. even if i can't kill it I wound it enough that it runs away instead of doing it's attack run. The only aspect of that that makes me sad is that I usually lose first strike with my squadrons but whatever, if they're fielding demo, and an isd their squadrons are usually pretty meh.

Squadrons are indeed a weakness of Demolisher, if they are flown well and able to engage. That said, you need a very powerful combination of squadrons to reliably take it down in one go if it has both final activation and first player. It is now slightly easier to intercept Demolisher, which has gone a long way towards improving the play experience. But as Green Knight demonstrated in the VWC last month, it is still very potent and confounding even without squadron cover. Heck I took it into the finals even without a crucial upgrade and a 40 point deficit.

19 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

I'm glad your store didn't have issues, I ran into plenty of neck beards that wanted to tie the game up by slow play and objecting to nonsense. One tried to argue that I couldn't shoot out of my (open top) xport because the front didn't look like it had windows(the necron barges, whatever they're called, it's been forever).

Every game system has "the worst" of something and "people not knowing the rules but wanting to argue them" was generally 40k's. WMH has the worst rules lawyers and X-wing was bad about people wasting time(An armada similar round cap to that game would be great).

I was just remarking to someone on Facebook, the issue with this system is never veteran players so much as it is the jerks who can't get a game in because nobody wants to play them.