3 hours ago, kaffis said:

It's not representative of real combat. It's an abstraction. Most miniatures combat game rules are, to varying degrees. Legion opts for a relatively high degree of abstraction, to maintain the pace of the game and keep it accessible to a large market segment.

I disagree. It is representative of real combat. It's about defeating the enemy. And it includes things such as Suppression, Panic, Cover, etc, etc. Combat is the game's whole context, albeit in another galaxy. But that fiction is necessarily based on our reality.

However I do agree that in all games there is abstraction, and I welcome fast, simple rules.

3 hours ago, kaffis said:

If they were going for a higher degree of simulation, yes, the heavy weapon minis wouldn't have the option of not firing their heavy weapon, or maybe of firing a sidearm. But, if they didn't have the option to fire their standard weapon (because, as you later point out, their attention is dedicated to serving their heavy weapon), then the game would permit you to have just that miniature focus on serving their weapon while the rest fire, allowing you to combine the recover and attack actions in the event that the only exhausted card was the heavy weapon. But that's not the way the rules are written in Star Wars Legion, because doing so would not have served the game's purpose of presenting a well-balanced and streamlined ruleset.

You misunderstand me. I don't seek to add complication. The effect could be/should have been acheived by simply applying the exhaust effect to all the figure's weapons. Surely that would not prevent it from being, "a well-balanced and streamlined ruleset."

3 hours ago, kaffis said:

I'm with Undeadguy -- let's talk about the way the rules are actually written in this Rules forum, and save talk about how we feel about the way they're written, and ideas for variant rules to reflect a more or less simulationist experience in non-Organized Play games for the General forum or a future Variants forum.

The description of this subforum says, "Your place to discuss the finer points of the rules ..."

I think you will find in the coming FAQ that some of your much cherished RAW (for example Suppression resulting from all Attacks) is actually wrong, so RAI (for example Targeting Scopes not applying to Melee Weapons) is a perfectly suitable topic for this subforum.

You are entitled to your opinion, please allow me to have mine.

From my point of view the Jedi are evil!

On 2.4.2018 at 9:19 AM, Don Henderson fan club said:

That is true RAW. But as a historical wargamer I don't think it is representative of real combat to allow crewmen to switch weapons backwards and forwards in the timescale of this level of game. The reduced rate of fire represented by exhausting the gun has been included to represent some disadvantage. Allowing the crewman to fire his personal weapon is mitigating that disadvantage.

What timescale`? How long is one turn? How far is speed 1 in meter (or feet if you prefer)? What distance is range 1?
Maybe one turn is 1 hour, and the scale for the battlefield is a several km. In this case a switch of the weapon could be full ok .

Why is it not possible for a heavy trooper to put the special weapon aside and use his E-11 Blaster Rifle if he want? No matter what the timescale is.

This whole rule system is a model. To represent and give a backbone for a gaming on a certain level, packed by some rules to lift the game on the same level for all who want to play it. This is no real world simulation (would be, after all, dificult with these Laser guns...).

If you want the children like games with the own rules for everyone, you can do it.
"My general can fire 1000 bullets per second on a tristillion miles and killing all your aliens while they do not even seem him". "But my Aliens have a shield, that will just deflect your weak bullets". (ohh, this was a fun time, as child, when the only rule was the one in your head).

6 hours ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

The description of this subforum says, "Your place to discuss the finer points of the rules ..."

I think you will find in the coming FAQ that some of your much cherished RAW (for example Suppression resulting from all Attacks) is actually wrong, so RAI (for example Targeting Scopes not applying to Melee Weapons) is a perfectly suitable topic for this subforum.

You are entitled to your opinion, please allow me to have mine.

We are not saying you can't have an opinion. If you want a more realistic version of Legion, by all means write a rule set.

Here is my issue. People are coming here to ask about the rules as written. The rules of right now. Not the rules as intended or the rules of the future. You are purposefully misguiding people by creating an elaborate story for the minis and why they can't do certain things in an attempt to get people to play the game the way you think it should be played. This causes problems down the road when that player goes to a tournament and realizes it's perfectly legal for Luke to have scopes or their heavy weapon mini to fire the unit weapon. We already have enough people who don't understand the rules, and you are making it worse by injecting your own historical gaming experience into Legion.

I also don't care if FFG allows scopes on lightsabers. Yea, the concept is pretty silly, but mechanically, the rules allow it. So quit acting like RAI is the correct way to play because it's not. If you go to a tournament, the TO won't give a **** if you think scopes can't be on a lightsaber because it's not realistic. TOs will follow the RRG, LTP, FAQ, and Tournament Regs. If none of those say scopes can't be on a lightsaber, then guess what? Scopes work on a lightsaber.

That said, it's perfectly fine to hold a tournament where you enforce a more realistic version of the rules, so long as you advertise the tournament as such. If you don't advertise, you're going to piss a lot of people off and FFG may black list the store you play at. FFG takes this stuff seriously. If they get complaints of TOs not enforcing the rules for a FFG event, FFG could pull all their product.

This is why we play RAW, not matter how weird it is, and it's why stores typically don't allow alternate rule sets. This is why we want the rules forum to be RAW interpretations, not RAI. We can discuss the merits of RAI, such as stacking unit keywords or how cover is supposed to work, but at the end of the day, RAW will be enforced.

@Don Henderson fan club .....you know, I've been playing historical war games for years. I see your point. However, I will make one of my own.

You say it's not realistic that a trooper armed with a rocket launcher and having an E11 ( and just to point it out, the model does have said blaster modeled on it) to switch weapons at will.

Hmm. I'm a 21 year veteran of the United States Army. Let go off a real world example, one I've actually done myself. M4 slung on shoulder, LAW rocket about to fire. After firing the rocket, it takes me literally less than two seconds to drop the launcher and ready the rifle. That's real world.

So saying a mini can fire his personal weapon while the rocket launcher is exhausted is actually EXACTLY how it happens in real life.

However....my main point is simply that I don't care about the realism....I just care what the actual rules are. A trooper can fire his squad weapon while the heavy weapon is exhausted. Period.

With that said, however....yeah, scopes on lightsaber does sound silly.......

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

If you want the children like games with the own rules for everyone, you can do it.
"My general can fire 1000 bullets per second on a tristillion miles and killing all your aliens while they do not even seem him". "But my Aliens have a shield, that will just deflect your weak bullets". (ohh, this was a fun time, as child, when the only rule was the one in your head).

There is no need to insult someone just because you disgree with what they think. It is you who is being childish.

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

This whole rule system is a model. To represent and give a backbone for a gaming on a certain level, packed by some rules to lift the game on the same level for all who want to play it. This is no real world simulation (would be, after all, dificult with these Laser guns...).

Do you misquote me on purpsose? I never used the word simulation - you have invented that. I said it was a representation and I mentioned its abstraction. It's the same for all wargames - their theme is war.

As for the rest, okay, you're entitled to your opinion. But please inject a little less venom into you posts.

12 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

This is why we play RAW, not matter how weird it is, and it's why stores typically don't allow alternate rule sets. This is why we want the rules forum to be RAW interpretations, not RAI. We can discuss the merits of RAI, such as stacking unit keywords or how cover is supposed to work, but at the end of the day, RAW will be enforced.

You know this not to be true, at least if your story about the TO with the hot line to FFG is true. Wasn't it you who said you were at a tourney where FAI was used. If so why make such an erroneous statement as that above? And if it wasn't you I apologise in advance.

11 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

You know this not to be true, at least if your story about the TO with the hot line to FFG is true. Wasn't it you who said you were at a tourney where FAI was used. If so why make such an erroneous statement as that above? And if it wasn't you I apologise in advance.

There have been no Legion tournaments, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. But in my experience, TOs will enforce RAW unless everyone at the tournament agrees to RAI, and that only happens if everyone knows each other. And that was only for Armada tournaments. Legion is bigger and includes people from all backgrounds, including 40K.

That said, I have no issue playing games RAI. I stack Precise even though RAW says it doesn't. There's nothing wrong in doing that. But I also disclose to people how the rules are incomplete.

18 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Hmm. I'm a 21 year veteran of the United States Army. Let go off a real world example, one I've actually done myself. M4 slung on shoulder, LAW rocket about to fire. After firing the rocket, it takes me literally less than two seconds to drop the launcher and ready the rifle. That's real world.

I respect your view.

But I must point out you are misrepresenting my point. You are talking about using a single-shot disposable anti-tank weapon. It is easily handled and after it is used it is absolutely useless. The weapon I was referring to is the MPL-57, to which for any one of a number of reasons, the writers chose to attach the exhaust rule mechanic. So, my contention is that if the operater is too preocuppied with whatever the exhast mechanic represents, then he should be too preoccupied to use his personal weapon.

It's just my opinion. If you don't want things to make sense, that's okay - I but I do. And from attaching the exhuast mechanic it would seem that the authors do too.

7 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

It's just my opinion. If you don't want things to make sense, that's okay - I but I do. And from attaching the exhuast mechanic it would seem that the authors do too.

So what is the MPL-57 trooper doing when the rest of the squad fires their E-11's? He's not reloading his MPL-57, because it remains just as exhausted as if his squad hadn't fired, and will still take exactly the same recover action to ready. Why *can't* he drop the weapon as Darth Lupine indicated, fire his E-11, and then pick his still-exhausted MPL-57 back up? Because that's sure what the rules look like he's doing.

Here's another thought -- in order to ready the MPL-57, the entire squad needs to take a recover action. Perhaps the ammunition for the weapon is distributed amongst them, and it's not really a chore or much maintenance to handle the MPL-57, itself, it's just that it takes a coordinated effort to ready it to fire again, by multiple troopers. But stowing it and drawing the E-11 is not a problem at all. This would also answer why the last mini in a squad can never be a heavy weapon.

1 minute ago, kaffis said:

So what is the MPL-57 trooper doing when the rest of the squad fires their E-11's? He's not reloading his MPL-57, because it remains just as exhausted as if his squad hadn't fired, and will still take exactly the same recover action to ready. Why *can't* he drop the weapon as Darth Lupine indicated, fire his E-11, and then pick his still-exhausted MPL-57 back up? Because that's sure what the rules look like he's doing.

I honestly don't know, I'm not that familiar with the MPL-75. All I do know is that he is prevented from using MPL-57, which to me indicates that he is doing something. That's all. You don't like it, that's fine.

19 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

There have been no Legion tournaments, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. But in my experience, TOs will enforce RAW unless everyone at the tournament agrees to RAI, and that only happens if everyone knows each other. And that was only for Armada tournaments. Legion is bigger and includes people from all backgrounds, including 40K.

That said, I have no issue playing games RAI. I stack Precise even though RAW says it doesn't. There's nothing wrong in doing that. But I also disclose to people how the rules are incomplete.

Ah, then I apologise, I must have the wrong guy. All that I can remember is at an Armada Tournament, the female TO ruled in favour of RAI even before the FAQ corrected the RAW. I wish I could remember the poster. Sorry.

59 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

There is no need to insult someone just because you disgree with what they think. It is you who is being childish.

I think you missunderstand me. I never tried to insult you or say that you are childish. I never DID say it.

It was only MY experience as child, playing games with toy figures, where we made up our own rules. There were no writen rules, and they still worked. This is what is said with " children like games". And this was never as an insult in any way.

But this would not work when you are trying to make a game on an equal level with the same rules for everyone. In this case you have to write down rules, and all have to play folling these. But if you are playing with a friend, and want your own rules, you can do whatevery you want! THIS is what i wanted to say with it.

I am sorry when you always think that everything is an insult against you, or when you think that you are personally meant. It never was.

45 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

There have been no Legion tournaments, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. But in my experience, TOs will enforce RAW unless everyone at the tournament agrees to RAI, and that only happens if everyone knows each other. And that was only for Armada tournaments. Legion is bigger and includes people from all backgrounds, including 40K.

That said, I have no issue playing games RAI. I stack Precise even though RAW says it doesn't. There's nothing wrong in doing that. But I also disclose to people how the rules are incomplete.

Could you give the passage from the RRG about the stacking and not stacking? I really found only the Impact X entry that clearly say it stack. But must have missed the part of the Unit keywords (easy to miss when you only read it as slowly as i did ).

3 minutes ago, Tokra said:

Could you give the passage from the RRG about the stacking and not stacking? I really found only the Impact X entry that clearly say it stack. But must have missed the part of the Unit keywords (easy to miss when you only read it as slowly as i did ).

Easy to miss something that doesn’t necessarily exist - which gets us back in the circle.

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I respect your view.

But I must point out you are misrepresenting my point. You are talking about using a single-shot disposable anti-tank weapon. It is easily handled and after it is used it is absolutely useless. The weapon I was referring to is the MPL-57, to which for any one of a number of reasons, the writers chose to attach the exhaust rule mechanic. So, my contention is that if the operater is too preocuppied with whatever the exhast mechanic represents, then he should be too preoccupied to use his personal weapon.

It's just my opinion. If you don't want things to make sense, that's okay - I but I do. And from attaching the exhuast mechanic it would seem that the authors do too.

Ahh, the ion heavy weapon, right? Hmm. In that case I believe the intent (mind you I'm GUESSING) is that exhaust was put on it as a rein on the weapon, because if you could fire it every single turn, without some sort of restraint on it, it would make vehicles useless.

Hmm, hm. Look at it this way. Turn one, trooper fires the ion gun. Turn two, he lets it dangle off the shoulder strap (it's cooling off, recharging, what have you), trooper pulls out blaster and shoots that. Turn three, unit recovers (trooper slings/holsters blaster, pulls around ion gun) and fires the heavy weapon. A bit clunky, I'll give you, but it is how it works right now.

53 minutes ago, Tokra said:

I think you missunderstand me. I never tried to insult you or say that you are childish. I never DID say it.

It was only MY experience as child, playing games with toy figures, where we made up our own rules. There were no writen rules, and they still worked. This is what is said with " children like games". And this was never as an insult in any way.

But this would not work when you are trying to make a game on an equal level with the same rules for everyone. In this case you have to write down rules, and all have to play folling these. But if you are playing with a friend, and want your own rules, you can do whatevery you want! THIS is what i wanted to say with it.

I am sorry when you always think that everything is an insult against you, or when you think that you are personally meant. It never was.

Blimey, it's my day for apologies! I'm sorry I misinterpreted your last paragraph as being aim at me. I just couldn't see how it was otherwise relevant. Maybe it was because yous used "you". Sorry.

4 hours ago, Tokra said:

If you want the children like games with the own rules for everyone, you can do it.
"My general can fire 1000 bullets per second on a tristillion miles and killing all your aliens while they do not even seem him". "But my Aliens have a shield, that will just deflect your weak bullets". (ohh, this was a fun time, as child, when the only rule was the one in your head).

Just my two cents: I use this rules forum as a place to find out what the rules currently are. I really appreciate the folks who take the time to spell it out simply (and repeatedly) for the rest of us. And I would remind everyone that this thread will stay on the site and will show up when people like me search for an answer to this question. So what Undeadguy is doing is very valuable for the common forum-goer to find out what the rules are.

What is not valuable for a rules forum is when opinion (which everyone is entitled to) or house rules (which everyone has the option to implement) are presented as the actual ruleset. So thank you to Undeadguy for sticking up for what the rules actually say. The last thing we want is less experienced players showing up at a tournament and having a bad time because they learned the wrong thing on the forums.

As far as Don's approach to exhausting heavy weapon minis and scopes on lightsabers - you clearly love this game and are passionate about creating a fun and engrossing setting. That's great! But I think there is value to the community (who comes here for answers and clarification) in emphasizing that your approach is a custom house ruleset and not the actual written rules as they currently stand.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

Could you give the passage from the RRG about the stacking and not stacking? I really found only the Impact X entry that clearly say it stack. But must have missed the part of the Unit keywords (easy to miss when you only read it as slowly as i did ).

Yea like Dras said. There is nothing in the RRG that says either keyword stacks, except for Impact. But the LTP does say weapon keywords are cumulative, but does not say if unit keywords are cumulative.

It makes sense for any keyword with a number to stack, otherwise there is no point in taking scopes with Stormtroopers, or Weiss with AT-STs. I play it as stacking, but RAW doesn't allow it.

LTP PG 15

Some weapons have keywords, which are displayed at the bottom of the unit’s card and described on the back. Each weapon keyword modifies any attacks made that include that weapon. Weapon keywords are cumulative; when performing an attack that includes two weapons that have the impact 1 keyword, these two keywords combine to add up to impact 2.

The keywords listed below are used during the learning battle. The remaining keywords are ignored. Each weapon keyword provides an effect, as follows:

LTP PG 17

A unit card can contain a number of unit keywords. Unit keywords are presented on a unit’s card below its name. The keywords listed below are used in the learning battle. The remaining keywords (Climbing Vehicle, Expert Climber, Jump 1, and Master of the Force 1) are ignored during the learning battle, and can be found in the online Rules Reference. Each unit keyword applies an effect to the entire unit, as follows:

RRG PG 31

A keyword is an ability possessed by units or weapons

• There are two types of keywords: unit keywords and weapon keywords.
  • » A unit keyword is an inherent ability of a unit and it is presented on a unit’s card or added to a unit by an upgrade card.
  • » A weapon keyword is an inherent ability of a weapon and is presented as part of a weapon on either a unit’s card or an upgrade card.
• Each unit keyword provides a unit with an ability, including the timing of when the ability is used as well as the effect of the ability.
• Each weapon keyword adds an ability to the attack pool in which it is included.
• The front of each unit card provides reminder text of each of that unit’s keywords. The back of each unit card provides reminder text for each of that unit’s weapon keywords.
  • » The reminder text is not an exhaustive description of the rules for a keyword. Rather, it is there to help players remember how and when to resolve each keyword. If a player has questions about how a keyword works, that player should refer to that keyword’s glossary entry.

I think the one thing we can all definitely agree on, is that the RRG needs an update ASAP.....

I feel like if the recovery action represents reloading. Why would you need to reload your heavy weapons to use your 'sidearms'? It doesn't make much sense.

I also agree with Tokra on the time scale but.

9 hours ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I honestly don't know, I'm not that familiar with the MPL-75. All I do know is that he is prevented from using MPL-57, which to me indicates that he is doing something. That's all. You don't like it, that's fine.

It means that the gun isn’t loaded. The ready action loads the gun.

MPL-57 is a multipurpose launcher. It holds multiple explosives, but fires them all in a burst, hence why the Fleet Trooper version is MPL "Barrage".

"Cumbersome" has a meaning and a purpose. It forces the player to make a hard choice, the choice of anti-infantry or anti-armour and the choice of moving or firing. Letting the trooper fire his rifle makes that choice less meaningful, so it is not good for the game.

46 minutes ago, Rumar said:

"Cumbersome" has a meaning and a purpose. It forces the player to make a hard choice, the choice of anti-infantry or anti-armour and the choice of moving or firing. Letting the trooper fire his rifle makes that choice less meaningful, so it is not good for the game.

Its not less meaningful and its not hurting the game.
You're firing the rifle, that means you're not using the weapon you used points on.