I like winning just as much as the next person, as I'm sure many of you do, but at what cost? Is there a point when the lack of enjoyment of both parties in a game takes away from your gratification?

In a tournament, screw it. You both knew what you were getting into. Feelings be damned, you're both there to win.

But in a local group of friends/acquaintances/regulars where is the line drawn?

I'm not suggesting you curb the quality of your play or strategy for the sake of your opponents' mental state of mind but I have had some interesting situations arise in past games. When one player is clearly leading from the get go, the other player can lose faith (rightfully so or not) resulting in a compromised game state for both players.

Suck it up, quit whining, do better, get 'em next time, etc... Fair enough, all valid points.

Legion is a great game, I love it. I've lost , I've won. It's like any game. You have to find a balance to enjoy it. That said, I do see some issues regarding how the game flows. This is obviously from my own experience so please tell me if this is your experience as well or you have had the opposite experience. It can be unforgiving. If you make a mistake you can - and generally will be - punished for it. Badly. You usually get punished for your mistakes in these games but this seems more acute. If you leave a unit out in the open they'll get hit. If you activate with the wrong unit, you will have that taken advantage of by your opponent. I find it is similar to (though not as acute as in) Armada, if you folks play that game. One mistake can be the difference between you being in contention or you having just more or less lost the match.

That can cause frustration. To the point where your opponent loses faith in their position which can cause them to give up on the games/throw in the towel.

I'll give an anecdotal example to illustrate my point: I knocked out one of my opponent's AT-RTs and destroyed they other's gun on turn one. By the end of turn two the other AT-RT was gone and so was one of his trooper units. I had lost a single Stormtrooper model in the same span, a points loss ratio of 273:11 over two turns. Thats crushing. It ruined his board state, he lost his flank and I began to flank him (negating much of his cover). At that point he lost faith. I'll make a note now that he and I have been playing Games/Wargames with each other for over 15 years, he doesn't throw in the towel. We've played Warhammer (Fantasy and 40K), LotR, D&D, X-wing, Armada, just to name a few and we're both good winners and losers. Maybe it's the nature of the game itself or the "newness" of the game but it seems to illicit a "bleakness" when you're on the back foot. The game we played before, I was getting crushed and he was just moving back and shooting. So I just retreated, knowing I couldn't win and effectively conceding. But there was a sense of hopelessness and a bleakness to the situation.

Do others find the game unforgiving to mistakes (comparatively to other games)? Is there a need to just "suck it up" or is the feeling of despair warranted? Has one found helplessness in their losses? Was it your own mistake? Was it a minor mistake that exploded? Or a major mistake that left you thinking: "Yup, I cocked that one up lads,"?

There's obviously some more learning to be done with the game given its youth, which will improve play over time. But we're playing now. We have to work with that now.

Maybe it's a misplaced sense of altruism that makes me think that despite winning or losing, I expect we should both be enjoying ourselves, and if one party isn't then the other won't be either.

For now, I feel it's a game that's floating in a certain balance, mostly due to a lack of "meta", but a trend emerges: the best way to lose a battle is to lose initiative.

If both players manage to keep each other at bay, you have a tough and challenging match. But if due to bad placement, bad prioritising, you let your opponent suppress your units while you don't suppress his, you're in a world of pain and will not be able to seize back initiative without a stroke of luck or some of the units that are less impacted by suppression: vehicles, force users... Doing the heavy lifting while you recover.

There's quite some misuse of units: most people like to throw 5 black dice with their Starts, I prefer to shoot from afar because I know their armour is terrible. And I have seen some abysmal prioritising of units.

People are learning at the same time, and some learn faster.

To counter your problems, I'd honestly say: add a bit of soft cover to your deployment zones to prevent turn 1 wipes, and sometimes use the bad weather conditions to your advantage.

imo in a friendly setting, avoid things that are curb-stomp kind of stuff (i.e. running triple jm5k's back before they got nerfed) and be more experimental. Often you'll find the most fun game comes from rather unorthodox lists you wouldnt dream of doing in a competitive scene.

Legion lacks this atm, nothing feels ridiculously strong for its cost. Vader/Luke are the closest, but they also incur a heavy penalty if they die so you cant just go berserk with them and even they have weaknesses and can succumb really fast to a bad move.

Hmm. To repeat your point, in a tourney setting, I don't care about my opponents enjoyment; I'm there to crush the opposition as quickly and efficiently as possible. Fair enough, should it happen to me.

In a friendly game, for fun, it's a different matter. At that point to me it's more about trying crazy things, and having fun more than about winning. In a situation like you describe, I'd have just stopped the game, had a talk about better ways to go about it, and restarted from scratch.

Urgh.

They are attitudes in here that, as a TO, really tick me off.

I've treated Legion as a game not meant for tournament play, personally. I much rather take this game as a have a beer or four and stumble through the rules kind of thing. Enjoy the painting side of it. Maybe eventually make some terrain and buy a proper mat.

I honestly don't see myself playing it competitively, and even if I do, it's to go have fun over win at any cost.

44 minutes ago, Crawfskeezen said:

Do others find the game unforgiving to mistakes (comparatively to other games)? Is there a need to just "suck it up" or is the feeling of despair warranted? Has one found helplessness in their losses? Was it your own mistake? Was it a minor mistake that exploded? Or a major mistake that left you thinking: "Yup, I cocked that one up lads,"?

There's obviously some more learning to be done with the game given its youth, which will improve play over time. But we're playing now. We have to work with that now.

Maybe it's a misplaced sense of altruism that makes me think that despite winning or losing, I expect we should both be enjoying ourselves, and if one party isn't then the other won't be either.

First off, I find that by playing with objectives you're able to hang on a lot longer than you might think even if getting outshot. That's a lesson I had to learn, and as you mention the game is new so the first time it happens to a player they might get bent out of shape a little.

"Letting up" on your opponent in casual play is a personal decision with a lot of factors. Is this someone just trying the game out, considering buying it? Definitely give them a taste of victory. Is this someone who you care for personally, and it would really make you happy to put a smile back on their face? Go for it. Is it just a normal opponent, and you feel fairly confident you can still win by playing a bit less than optimally? Could be a good challenge for you.

In my experience when I let up a bit, I always get beaten ( I tend to lack "killer instinct" in head to head games). Conversely, I look at every loss as a learning experience and as such my opponent is doing me no favors by letting up.

If it's more or less a stranger I think you should just play normally and be as sporting and supportive as you can. If the opponent really has a problem with the game after that, then it's not really your fault is it?

The thing to remember while your winning or losing in this game (at least by points or model count) is the end result is about objectives. you may have killed 3 units by the end of turn 2 but only 1 of them was able to grab objectives. i try and remember that my vehicles are there to die. they distract, give suppression, and soak up shots. i won a game last week with Luke and a single unit leader on the board to my friends almost 2 full squads of troopers and Vader. he had 1 objective i had 2. the game ended with me only having 2 models on the board but i still won the game. I dont get discouraged when things turn against me. sometimes the dice gods are just not kind haha

Winning is fun.

Really, though, the nice thing about a tight, well balanced, well considered rule system is that it shouldn't matter what reason you're playing for.

Legion... really doesn't strike me as one of those. I think it's a mistake to treat any game that uses dual-layer attack randomization as a competitive experience.

The simple fact of that matter in Legion is that you can do everything "right" and still be utterly annihilated by a series of random rolls totally beyond your control with no real opportunity for mitigation. I've won games simply because Luke rolled something like 17 blocks in a row. This isn't a meaningful data point that can be planned around, predicted, or controlled. It just happens.

Legion is a solid "beer'n'pretzels'n'Duelofthefatesonrepeat" game. If you're hinging your enjoyment on predictable victory and the player with the best plan consistently coming out on top, I recommend Runewars or Armada.

Is someone paying tvayumat to keep posting how much better game x is than Legion?

2 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Legion is a solid "beer'n'pretzels'n'Duelofthefatesonrepeat" game.

Of course FFG doesn't look at this game in that way, even if the game is lacking in lots of strategic and tactical complexity in its current form. The rapid release schedule for Legion means players will soon be getting more control over the battlefield, and the game will become more competitive and tournament-worthy -- for better or worse.

17 minutes ago, DrunkTarkin said:

Is someone paying tvayumat to keep posting how much better game x is than Legion?

Considering I've only mentioned other games one time in recent history on this forum, and I have at no point claimed that any other game is "better" than Legion, in fact going well out of my way to note that different games appeal for different purposes, I'd say that's a pretty safe "No", but I appreciate your concern.

8 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

Of course FFG doesn't look at this game in that way, even if the game is lacking in lots of strategic and tactical complexity in its current form. The rapid release schedule for Legion means players will soon be getting more control over the battlefield, and the game will become more competitive and tournament-worthy -- for better or worse.

Well, what they look at it as and what it is aren't necessarily going to be the same thing. We'll see.

I want to echo Big Easy - because the game is about objectives instead of just being a death-match, I think it is harder to get to a no-win situation. As far as I am concerned, that is one of the strengths of the game.

I find as with most tabletop games there is always an out. Of course there is always the nail in the coffin too...

I played a game where my Luke was dead on turn two and my support shortly followed. By the end of the game I was outnumbered and down to a few intrepid troop squads but turns out I had the objectives locked up 2-1.

The inherent problem with FFG mini systems is how big the dice can swing. In a game like 40k there are buckets being rolled over the course of turns so things tend to average out on a per game basis. Here you only get one bucket over the course of 6 turns. If it happens that your dice are hot at the start and cold at the end you are probably going to come out on top given the nature of the army sizes.

I have found that if you create situations where you can lose big then it will probably happen. To use your example, AT-RTs are not tanks, yeah they have armor and a few hit points to go along but that white defense dice means you only need 4 or 5 crits to butcher their effectiveness. How you were able to bring that fidelity of fire against two different AT-RTs that early into the game speaks more to user error (we all do it) than it does to anything else, either from poor deployment/activation order or poor terrain setup.

Actually, as counter intuitive it is, it's generally the opposite that goes: In games with a single dice that's rolled, people generally don't try their luck that much. I myself play a "historical" game and we only ever throw 1d6 facing an other D6 for defense for each fight and it rarely ever swings wildly. And we don't even have rerolls, ever.

In games where you can throw more dice, you will feel a perception of weirder results, because averages work like that: Sometimes you will throw a bucket and all of them will be ones, the next time they may all be sixes. Sometimes you will throw a handful of white dice and they will all be crits, sometimes you will throw a dozen red dice and most will be misses.

Saying this isn't a competitive tabletop game is ridiculous: By that definition, any game with dice is not competitive, and chess isn't either with the coin toss to determine who starts with whites.
And games where all actions will have certain results are "meh".

This game is actually more competitive than many other games for one reason: Suppression (if you shoot at something, it's fairly probable they will get suppression. I only ever saw a half squad not apply suppression once. This will have an impact on the response from that squad, etc... It also has command cards instead of "one player starts and that's it" or "steal initiative" and similar ways to determines who plays. Mind games.

7 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

Winning is fun.

Really, though, the nice thing about a tight, well balanced, well considered rule system is that it shouldn't matter what reason you're playing for.

Legion... really doesn't strike me as one of those. I think it's a mistake to treat any game that uses dual-layer attack randomization as a competitive experience.

The simple fact of that matter in Legion is that you can do everything "right" and still be utterly annihilated by a series of random rolls totally beyond your control with no real opportunity for mitigation. I've won games simply because Luke rolled something like 17 blocks in a row. This isn't a meaningful data point that can be planned around, predicted, or controlled. It just happens.

Legion is a solid "beer'n'pretzels'n'Duelofthefatesonrepeat" game. If you're hinging your enjoyment on predictable victory and the player with the best plan consistently coming out on top, I recommend Runewars or Armada.

Armada is a much worse offender for dice than this game in my opinion.

There is no recovery or “plan b” in Armada, your play either works or it doesn’t and the dice can either cripple your ships or leave them without a scratch.

Here you can stack a lot in your favor to mitigate dice.

Personally, my approach to gaming is that I want to win, but I also want everyone to have a fun time. How much I prioritize one over the other depends on the seriousness of the game. Fortunately, FFG has created a system for determining exactly how serious a game is:

Not even on the list is Casual: I'm just playing with friends. We are there to have fun, so I will point out rules we are missing, remind them of upgrades and keywords they might be forgetting, let people walk back blatantly boneheaded plays, etc. I want them to learn, and I want to learn myself, so I'm probably running something sub-optimal to see if I can "make it work". If there's something we can't decide on, like if a unit is or isn't in range, I'll defer to my opponent.

Relaxed: I'm playing a local level tournament, either a seasonal kit or a Store Championship level game. This is again supposed to be an entry point into the game. I'll remind other players of the rules, let them fix mistakes if they happened early enough ("I am going to just shoot at this guy... ::rolls dice:: oh wait, no I should aim first!"). If I forget something, I might ask if I can do it anyway, but I don't complain if the opponent says "No". If they player is blatantly new, and I know that, I will help them as though it is a casual game, but if the player should know better than I will expect them to have a passing knowledge of the rules. If there's something that could go either way, I'll defer to my opponent.

Formal: Regionals. FFG defines this as that each player should be familiar with the rules, and judges should be well acquainted. I expect players to know what they are doing. I will give time for the other player to fix mistakes, but if they tell me they are done, they are done. If there is a contested measurement, I'm offering to roll off or calling a judge. If I forget something (and I do) I mention that I did, but insist that the opportunity has passed.

Premier: Nationals / Continentals / Worlds. Players should be well versed and Judges should be experts. I expect you to know exactly what you are doing. I am in it to win it. No taksies backsies. No help. I will call a judge for any disagreements. I'll shake your hand and tell you what a great game you played if you win.

8 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

The simple fact of that matter in Legion is that you can do everything "right" and still be utterly annihilated by a series of random rolls totally beyond your control with no real opportunity for mitigation. I've won games simply because Luke rolled something like 17 blocks in a row. This isn't a meaningful data point that can be planned around, predicted, or controlled. It just happens.

Like Picard said: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."

I get annoyed at myself for silly mistakes, but if the dice aren't playing nicely it's not my fault. It can be annoying, but why stress?

From that point of view, Legion is a bit more relaxed than Armada where it's almost always my fault for my activation order or not getting ships in the right positions.

1 hour ago, Katarn said:

Like Picard said: "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."

I get annoyed at myself for silly mistakes, but if the dice aren't playing nicely it's not my fault. It can be annoying, but why stress?

From that point of view, Legion is a bit more relaxed than Armada where it's almost always my fault for my activation order or not getting ships in the right positions.

I feel like what I wrote reads very negative, but I honestly meant it as more of a positive.

I'm looking forward to Legion OP, and won't stress myself out about the precision of my play like I do in RWM.

One thing I've learned from several decades of wargaming is that you should never approach a tournament differently than you would a casual game. There's no serious money attached to these wins, no real prize support apart from some plastic and cardboard. No prestige or fame outside of our little niche. No reason, in short, to do anything differently than if you were playing a casual game. If you'd remind someone of a rule they forgot in a casual match, then do it in a tournament. I'm sure there's a clip of Paul Heaver in the finals at Worlds, allowing an opponent to add a focus token they forgot, or flip a turn they obviously mistakenly set or something like that. Be like Paul. Don't have a different tournament hat you wear.

EDIT: Obviously there's different categories of casual games. I'm not talking about learning games or handicap games where you might be playing someone in their first game, or playing against a young kid or a long-suffering, non-gaming SO who is indulging you, it's normal to pull some punches and allow lots of take-backs. I'm talking about just a regular casual game with a regular, casual opponent.

While you might choose to run some odd or soft lists in casual games, that's not because you think casual=soft or casual=odd ball. It's because you're trying to match lists with what you are expecting, and trying to match your opponents expectations for the game. Don't change that behaviour for a tournament, if they're expecting killer lists then take a killer list. Just don't suddenly start cracking down on things you'd allow in a casual game, don't start letting your opponent forget things you'd remind them of in a casual game, don't argue about things you'd let slide in a casual game.

Be like Jack:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/hopman-cup-crowds-delight-at-show-of-sportsmanship-at-perth-arena-20160106-gm0ekl.html

13 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Urgh.

They are attitudes in here that, as a TO, really tick me off.

I can understand your point, friend Dras. Let me clarify my position.

When it comes to rules (a subject dear to you, I know) I will always point out errors, regardless of setting. After all, you have to follow the rules! And I'm never an *** about it. Heck, I've been told I'm rather polite and pleasant to converse with, even when telling you you're wrong....lol. I also expect, should I make a rules error, to have it pointed out to me.

Now, let's say we are at the store, playing all casual, no rules errors...but my opponent makes a grievous tactical error. In all likelihood, I'll point it out (hmm, are you really sure you want to move those troopers whithin charge range of Vader?) and even allow him to take it back, because I don't want a silly mistake to ruin the game for him. It's all about trying new things and enjoying a great game togheter.

Now, we are at a formal, sanctioned tourney. Money was paid, in my case at least I drove at least an hour to get there. There's probably official swag at stake.

Several things here. If you're at a tourney, I expect you to have some idea what you're doing. I go to tourneys to compete with other players and to see who comes out on top. With all the above on the line, casual is out the window. No, I'm never going to be 'unsportsmanlike'. I'll shake your hand, I'll be polite and friendly. But if my opponent makes an error in tactics (not rules, as stated above rules errors should always be corrected), I'm not going to point it out. Mind you, FFG has some guidelines here. If you forget to use your ain token, I'm not saying a word, but if you remember, I'll most certainly allow the use of it; this is covered by FFG pointers for tourney play (missed opportunity, I believe).

But if you start moving your troops to what is going to obviously be their doom, and make a silly move that guarantees me the win, I'll gladly take advantage of it, because all the above is at stake. And I'm not there at an organized tourney to make sure the opponent has fun; I'm there to do my best to win.

Two modes of play, two different approaches. I have never had any issues at any event I've ever been, regardless of game.

Of course, this is just my opinion...?

6 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

I feel like what I wrote reads very negative, but I honestly meant it as more of a positive.

I'm looking forward to Legion OP, and won't stress myself out about the precision of my play like I do in RWM.

This is exactly how I read your original comment. I absolutely think FFG made a fun game with a low barrier of entry to get as many people as possible involved (which is good for our community and of course good business for them). Rules will be less demanding and the feel will be more "casual" than other wargames. That doesn't mean there won't be fierce (but friendly) competition at elite levels, or that the game is lacking in some way--it's just a bit different experience than other wargames, and I personally see that as a good thing.

Armor/Block/Defense dice always amuse me. They don't actually aren't dramatically different than any other dice curve, but they divide the dice so strongly into "my luck vs your luck" that they massively inflate the issues people have with perceived probability. There are mathematical quirks with how they interact with the dice curve, but for the most part they're not significantly more random than any other dice curve. It's important to look at the whole attack when looking at how many resources you need to commit to something and far too often people grossly underestimate that when the opponent rolls part of the equation. I mean, sure, can theoretically block 17 attacks in a row; but I don't judge a game's competitiveness on events that happen 0.00076% of the time.

Whether a game is competitive really focuses on the decisions you get to make and Legion has a good number of them. Not all of them are super intuitive though and I think its a game that can teach some hard lessons. Alternating activation games always are always a little punishing to long term plans. If ever you need to set up a 1-2 punch you have to deal with an unpredictable opposing action in between. Legion can be particularly punishing, particularly with the ability to use suppression to shut down a unit, but that's also where its interesting decisions lie. A lot of the urgency of alternating activation games is sidelined because everything is kind of urgent. You don't need to be able to kill something to cripple it and that can lead to a constant feeling of being thwarted against an opponent that is thinking ahead of you.

The game absolutely has room for winning beyond attrition though. I saw a game recently where an Imperial player was pretty heavily outmatched for the last 2 turns of the game, but pulled it off by spreading fire around to keep the opponent suppressed and unable to reach the objectives. It IS possible to lose something early that costs you the game (I got to shoot Luke off the table early turn 1 recently and ride that advantage pretty unopposed) but there's a lot to learn in playing from behind and making gains with less. I'll probably post some thoughts on that later, but I'm getting pretty TL:DR as is.

21 hours ago, Crawfskeezen said:

I like winning just as much as the next person, as I'm sure many of you do, but at what cost? Is there a point when the lack of enjoyment of both parties in a game takes away from your gratification?

In a tournament, screw it. You both knew what you were getting into. Feelings be damned, you're both there to win.

But in a local group of friends/acquaintances/regulars where is the line drawn?

I'm not suggesting you curb the quality of your play or strategy for the sake of your opponents' mental state of mind but I have had some interesting situations arise in past games. When one player is clearly leading from the get go, the other player can lose faith (rightfully so or not) resulting in a compromised game state for both players.

Suck it up, quit whining, do better, get 'em next time, etc... Fair enough, all valid points.

Legion is a great game, I love it. I've lost , I've won. It's like any game. You have to find a balance to enjoy it. That said, I do see some issues regarding how the game flows. This is obviously from my own experience so please tell me if this is your experience as well or you have had the opposite experience. It can be unforgiving. If you make a mistake you can - and generally will be - punished for it. Badly. You usually get punished for your mistakes in these games but this seems more acute. If you leave a unit out in the open they'll get hit. If you activate with the wrong unit, you will have that taken advantage of by your opponent. I find it is similar to (though not as acute as in) Armada, if you folks play that game. One mistake can be the difference between you being in contention or you having just more or less lost the match.

That can cause frustration. To the point where your opponent loses faith in their position which can cause them to give up on the games/throw in the towel.

I'll give an anecdotal example to illustrate my point: I knocked out one of my opponent's AT-RTs and destroyed they other's gun on turn one. By the end of turn two the other AT-RT was gone and so was one of his trooper units. I had lost a single Stormtrooper model in the same span, a points loss ratio of 273:11 over two turns. Thats crushing. It ruined his board state, he lost his flank and I began to flank him (negating much of his cover). At that point he lost faith. I'll make a note now that he and I have been playing Games/Wargames with each other for over 15 years, he doesn't throw in the towel. We've played Warhammer (Fantasy and 40K), LotR, D&D, X-wing, Armada, just to name a few and we're both good winners and losers. Maybe it's the nature of the game itself or the "newness" of the game but it seems to illicit a "bleakness" when you're on the back foot. The game we played before, I was getting crushed and he was just moving back and shooting. So I just retreated, knowing I couldn't win and effectively conceding. But there was a sense of hopelessness and a bleakness to the situation.

Do others find the game unforgiving to mistakes (comparatively to other games)? Is there a need to just "suck it up" or is the feeling of despair warranted? Has one found helplessness in their losses? Was it your own mistake? Was it a minor mistake that exploded? Or a major mistake that left you thinking: "Yup, I cocked that one up lads,"?

There's obviously some more learning to be done with the game given its youth, which will improve play over time. But we're playing now. We have to work with that now.

Maybe it's a misplaced sense of altruism that makes me think that despite winning or losing, I expect we should both be enjoying ourselves, and if one party isn't then the other won't be either.

Nope, Tournament or not I’m bringin Double ST’s or speeder spam .

Casual, I know the quirks of the players. They curse my 'airborne' dice, but will admit they roll average over the long run.

Tournament is more competitive and some players are far too serious at times. I had a guy claim I was using loaded dice, but later said I rolled average (great at first, poorly later). If one plays competitively, then expect opponents to value winning over having fun, not that you can't both have enjoy the game.