8 hours ago, Ophion said:

Do we have an answer on wysywyg?

Ie if my atst model has the mortar glued on do i have to have the mortar in my list?

I dunno, people are saying there isn't a clear answer, but in the modification section they state:

"They cannot modify a mini or official terrain in any way that would create significant confusion about which unit or terrain type the mini or terrain product represents."

and

"Cards must remain unaltered, though they may be sleeved for protection."

In my mind, the cards are what determine clearly what upgrades your units have, not the figures. They want cards to be easy to understand, and if I have laid out the cards I am using then I assume that there is not "significant confusion". It doesn't even say "any confusion" it says "significant" and the upgrade cards make it crystal clear what is in play.

I am convinced this game is not WYSIWYG.

1 hour ago, AndyNichols said:

The part that stood out to me was in the PLAYER MATERIALS section

What does this actually mean? Do you need enough that you can cover any eventuality in a single roll? Or is noting down the results and rolling multiple times OK, in which case you would just need the dice in the core set.

If you need enough for defence rolls in a single roll that seems unreasonable to me as you don't know how many that will be. There are units released soon (e.g. scout troopers) which have 2 dice per weapon so can generate large numbers of hits. Or an AT-RT with a flamethrower can get up to 12 hits if you have 6 man squads. Or an AT-ST with Weiss firing multiple weapons. It wouldn't seem so bad if FFG were less stingy about the number of dice in a core set.

This, along with most of the document, is just boilerplate that they use with every game. All it means is that you should show up with more than one die of each color to avoid slowing the game down.

1 hour ago, DekoPuma said:

This, along with most of the document, is just boilerplate that they use with every game. All it means is that you should show up with more than one die of each color to avoid slowing the game down.

Yep. At the worst ask your opponent to borrow some extras if they get into the 7+ hit territory.

14 hours ago, Tokra said:

But the strength of schedule (SoS) is the only one you cannot affect. It is totally random.

This is by far the most stupid think i ever saw (this TR). A pure win-loss system (1-0). Without any MOV or extra value.
Time and Rounds from Armada without the 1-10 point system.

A tournament with 24 players should have 3 rounds. And a cut for top 2. After this 3 rounds you will have 3 Player with 3-0 and with a SoS that they cannot influence at all.
Sorry to say, but this is the biggest bull i ever saw for tournaments.
I knew that this game was not meant to be a tournament game, but this is really below all my expectations.

Legion should have at least the same rounds as X-Wing has. With the same cut. But i do understand that this is not working with the time for each round. This is why i was interested to see how they solve it (i was hopping for point system like Armada).

And don't even let me start with Basic Structure. 32 Player and 3 rounds with no cut? Really? There are 4 player with 3 wins after this 3 rounds. With a total random SoS.

I agree. The scoring system should have allowed for more granularity.

Primary indicator: Amount of victory points you earn, but each objective is weighted differently. So 4 points on Intercept Transmissions gives a "weaker win" than 4 points for Breakthrough. This can be done by tallying up the total amount of points earned per objective, and finding some ratio that balances them.

Secondary indicator: Points destroyed. Even thought the game does not emphasize total destruction, a player who destroys 75% of their opponents army and scores 6 victory points should be at a higher standing than the player who destroys 50% and scores 2 victory points.

Tertiary indicator: SoS

This would align more to Armada, which has a great tournament structure.

To quote the great enlightened one:

"All tournament scoring sucks"- Mahatma Ghandi, 2018

If you make your tournament system about farming points, you get a scenario where the least interesting games are the most desirable and the most interesting games are the least desirable. You don't want that game where you narrowly eek out a hard earned win against a skilled opponent, you want some chump you can beat on like a piñata until victory points come out. This is also where submarining comes from where you narrowly lose round 1 to club baby seals in the losers bracket.

Conversely SoS feels very random to most people with the lower brackets sometimes having kingmaker games and players sometimes getting boned by round 1 drops.

I have yet to see a single scoring system that I like I.e. That gives players positive senses of agency over their fate while encouraging the breed of close and interesting games that are fun to watch and play.

EDIT:

As an aside, it would be hard to weight the Vps across all current missions. If your capping terrain, you can only get 3, up to 5 with getting supplies, going up to 12 if your intercepting transmissions, but max vps in Breakthrough is based on how many unit leaders you brought (between 6-10 currently, but that could change with releases). I don't see a good way to weight all 3 of those because any number you put for Breakthrough is st best a mean number of activations and transmissions has a crazy amount of variance compared to all the others which likely means narrow wins in the terrain capping mission will be more valuable than even considerable blowouts in other missions because getting 2 terrain pieces is 66% of available points.

@MasterShake2

I think the key is not the tiebreaker you use, but how often and to what degree the tiebreaker is utilized.

So for small events having the tiebreaker determine the winner is always bad. It just doesn't yield a sense of completeness to the event.

In a bigger event using it to determine who makes the elimination cut leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. Especially when you have comical situations where like 4 X-1 players make it and 10 don't. But if your tiebreakers are only used for seeding/bye purposes and not elimination no one will care if they are out of your control (SoS) and they won't skew the way people play (VPs).

I think FFG would be best served trying to find ways to apply tiebreakers less regardless of what they decide as a tiebreaker.

There are 2 different tie-breakers commonly used in tabletop wargames, and both suck.

SoS sucks, because if a very good player gives a beat down to a rather bad player in round one (which is paired randomly) both players' SoSs don't represent their respective skills. The good player may not make it to the cut, the bad one may earn a rank he does not deserve.

MoV sucks, because if a rather good player gives a beat down to a rather bad player in round one (which is paired randomly) both players' MoVs don't represent their respective skills. The good player may end up higher than he deserves, the worse one may end up worse than he deserves.

Both options have in common, that the random round one can result in standings that don't represent the players' actual skills.

In chess this problem has been mitigated by pairing the first round according to the players' ELO scores. It would be easy to apply that to Legion by creating a world ranking, and then all tournament results have to be reported to FFG. And then the first round can be paired accordingly.

AND this would give us a world ranking!

Yah right A world ranking. SOS is just fine. It wont be perfect, but games that only have 3 rounds to decide a winner will never be perfect like those that can have many games like xwing and faster games. Legion, Armada, 40k, Flames of War , Dust Warfare are more like events than real tourneys and are still alot of fun. We cant get all bent out of shape if you lose 1 game or dont finish first cause someone has a better SOS. It works both ways, easy opponent first game means an easy win. Better opponent first round means a chance at a loss anyway. You get what you get.

3 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

To quote the great enlightened one:

"All tournament scoring sucks"- Mahatma Ghandi, 2018

If you make your tournament system about farming points, you get a scenario where the least interesting games are the most desirable and the most interesting games are the least desirable. You don't want that game where you narrowly eek out a hard earned win against a skilled opponent, you want some chump you can beat on like a piñata until victory points come out. This is also where submarining comes from where you narrowly lose round 1 to club baby seals in the losers bracket.

Conversely SoS feels very random to most people with the lower brackets sometimes having kingmaker games and players sometimes getting boned by round 1 drops.

I have yet to see a single scoring system that I like I.e. That gives players positive senses of agency over their fate while encouraging the breed of close and interesting games that are fun to watch and play.

EDIT:

As an aside, it would be hard to weight the Vps across all current missions. If your capping terrain, you can only get 3, up to 5 with getting supplies, going up to 12 if your intercepting transmissions, but max vps in Breakthrough is based on how many unit leaders you brought (between 6-10 currently, but that could change with releases). I don't see a good way to weight all 3 of those because any number you put for Breakthrough is st best a mean number of activations and transmissions has a crazy amount of variance compared to all the others which likely means narrow wins in the terrain capping mission will be more valuable than even considerable blowouts in other missions because getting 2 terrain pieces is 66% of available points.

And how is this different than Armada? You have a point bracket, MOV, and SoS. Anything you just said can also apply to Armada and it's a good system when you get enough players.

There are lists that farm points to contribute to MOV in order to win.

First pairings are random, so you can get a guy with an easy 10-1 going into round 2.

At least half the objectives in Armada aren't used because they generate no points, or they are hard to exploit.

I never said my idea was perfect, but it's a whole lot better than win/lose and SoS.

On 5/16/2018 at 5:05 PM, azavander said:

• Players cannot modify minis or use bases to significantly alter their size, height, or shape. The marshal is responsible for determining the legality of any miniature modifications. Players that have made more than minor alterations should check with the marshal before an event to determine if their mini or official terrain is legal. The marshal at a Relaxed event will likely be more flexible than at a Formal event when determining a mini’s legality, while the marshal may allow the least flexibility at Premier events.

• Players may modify or replace individual bases, but the modified or new base must work with official movement tools, have generally the same diameter and size as the original, and clearly and accurately delineate any firing arcs that miniature has.

So is my always on heavy cover force field base legal? EDIT: Not my pic used with permission.

15 minutes ago, Ken on Cape said:

So is my always on heavy cover force field base legal?

Seems legit ... in certain parts of the universe, very small part of the universe, probably between your ears.

I'm disappointed in the tournament format of Swiss. I really think that there should have been at least 4 tiers of tournament points.

Major defeat: 0 points

Minor defeat: 1 point

Minor victory: 2 points

Major victory: 3 points

You still determine victory or defeat by the objective, but then you look at losses if you won, but had "heavy casualties" it's only a minor victory. Then in like manner if you lose but have "acceptable casualties" it's only a minor defeat.

All play testing aside we could say an army that lost 50% or more of it's list points has taken haevy casualties, how to determine heavy casualties would need play testing but just throwing the first idea that comes to mind.

With this system objectives are still importian as they are how you win, but I feel awarding smart play in a tournament setting is important.

I would also argue that this system is more thematic as it makes you as a general decided what you are willing to sacrifice for the win, and gives players tough choices and that is a good thing.

I'm not saying this system is perfect, it has it's faults, but it makes tournaments much more interesting and dynamic.

The current tournament system seams like they didn't put much thought into it, and with all the effort FFG has put into this game I'm sad to say I'm disappointed.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

And how is this different than Armada? You have a point bracket, MOV, and SoS. Anything you just said can also apply to Armada and it's a good system when you get enough players.

There are lists that farm points to contribute to MOV in order to win.

First pairings are random, so you can get a guy with an easy 10-1 going into round 2.

At least half the objectives in Armada aren't used because they generate no points, or they are hard to exploit.

I never said my idea was perfect, but it's a whole lot better than win/lose and SoS.

Be careful citing armadas tourney rules. I innocently mentioned how they work at my first legion tourney when all this was being discussed in a forum of ia and xwing guys. The hysterics were quite amazing.

25 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Be careful citing armadas tourney rules. I innocently mentioned how they work at my first legion tourney when all this was being discussed in a forum of ia and xwing guys. The hysterics were quite amazing.

I dislike Armada tournament scoring to the point I stopped playing Armada. When I went 3-1 at a Regionals and was out-placed by people with 2-2 records but higher scores, I realized a system that rewards matchups not play is not encouraging a healthy game.

'M not crazy about Strength of Schedule as a tiebreaker, but otherwise I'm happy with the Legion tournament document.

1 hour ago, Ophion said:

Be careful citing armadas tourney rules. I innocently mentioned how they work at my first legion tourney when all this was being discussed in a forum of ia and xwing guys. The hysterics were quite amazing.

This may also be a failing if the Audience rather than the subject.

As noted, there are benefits - and drawbacks - to any one system. Some prefer outright wins, some prefer non phyrric vuctories to be rewarded.

The inportancevis overall balance to competitiveness.

If you want a game to be ultra competitive, reward winning at all costs.

if you want a game to be more casual or story driven, then nuance victories.

We may have our preferences, but it’s the designers who set the tone if the game, and I personally feel Legion I on the casual end (as us Armada) and should be considered as such.

7 hours ago, ScottieATF said:

@MasterShake2

I think the key is not the tiebreaker you use, but how often and to what degree the tiebreaker is utilized.

So for small events having the tiebreaker determine the winner is always bad. It just doesn't yield a sense of completeness to the event.

In a bigger event using it to determine who makes the elimination cut leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. Especially when you have comical situations where like 4 X-1 players make it and 10 don't. But if your tiebreakers are only used for seeding/bye purposes and not elimination no one will care if they are out of your control (SoS) and they won't skew the way people play (VPs).

I think FFG would be best served trying to find ways to apply tiebreakers less regardless of what they decide as a tiebreaker.

(Emphasis mine)

I think this is obvious, but the core issue is simple: tournament rounds are 2 hours, and FFG is trying to keep its more casual events accessible. Demanding that 8 players play for 7 hours (including administrative time but probably not a lunch/dinner break) so you can have a sole victor at a monthly tournament is sort of absurd if your goal is to make those types of events inviting enough that almost everybody who plays feels like they can fit it into their lives monthly.

Edit to add: Citing Armada tournament rules here kind of makes me laugh, because clearly that has yielded a thriving and vibrant local play community in stores. It's what I would call the epitome of a grognardy game, with long game times (compared to things like Netrunner, X-Wing, Destiny, or other companies' tournament CCGs), game-able margins of victory, and long events. I've certainly never heard of casual Armada play (or, ****, competitive league play) in any of the stores nearby. I feel like that's what FFG is trying to promote with Legion, and the tournament rules reflect that.

I have a true way for the tiebreaker to reflect skill: play a five minute game of hive, winner take all

3 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

I dislike Armada tournament scoring to the point I stopped playing Armada. When I went 3-1 at a Regionals and was out-placed by people with 2-2 records but higher scores, I realized a system that rewards matchups not play is not encouraging a healthy game.

'M not crazy about Strength of Schedule as a tiebreaker, but otherwise I'm happy with the Legion tournament document.

You should have won harder. You shouldn't be rewarded for winning 6-5s when someone goes 10-1.

Using victory points as a tiebreaker is a mistake unless everyone is playing identical scenarios in the tournament.

In the highly unlikely event of a tie, where no play off is possible, you’re down to three options: 1) Random chance (roll a red die, flip a coin, draw straws); 2) Static choice (who has the lower cost army; 3) Performance based metric: Who has the tougher fight to get that same stat layout?

schedule is going to give better outcomes than pretty much any other metric choice, and not require resorting to random chance or a static metric which has a high probability of being another tie (like army cost)

Soooo

I put an Aurebesh number on each base of a unit and then match it with an Aurebesh number on the card . . .

NOW I find out cards may be sleeved, but not alterered -.-

I'll post a picture when I can, but do you think that counts?

I would like to see more granularity in scoring as well. I don't know if there is a foolproof way to always find a clear winner because there are always those who have a different opinion on how to break ties. In Swiss, there can be one player who never lost if enough rounds are played. The problems arise when it becomes random. This could be a whole long thread in itself.

1 hour ago, HanScottFirst said:

I put an Aurebesh number on each base of a unit and then match it with an Aurebesh number on the card . . .

NOW I find out cards may be sleeved, but not alterered -.-

Great idea, I may copy. I have no problem with it. By the rules I would say that may not be allowed. I hope the intend was to not alter the cards to get an unfair advantage, which it does not appear you are doing. I may have to mark my sleeves to stay within guidelines. It depends on how much leeway is given as you are only 'marking' your troops/cards to distinguish them from another.

6 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

You should have won harder. You shouldn't be rewarded for winning 6-5s when someone goes 10-1.

No you should not

Unless all missions and tables are exactly the same. As soon as different scenarios are played just having luck to get the not so skilled opponent in the mission were you can get most points is not the way to do it

And there is no sport out there (as the biggest database for tournament results) were achieved points is rated than games won (imagine a soccer or hockey league were number of goals is rated first)

Rate scoring higher is an option without random scenarios, minimum of 5 games and without random pairing for first round, to reduce the wining of players who rate themselves better as they really are (the usual "why i am not rewarded for winning 10:1 against the noob in game one while I lost the other games just 4:7, I should be rated higher than the guy winning 3 games 6:5" stuff)

5 hours ago, HanScottFirst said:

Soooo

I put an Aurebesh number on each base of a unit and then match it with an Aurebesh number on the card . . .

NOW I find out cards may be sleeved, but not alterered -.-

put the number on the sleve or using different coloured sleves should do it

38 minutes ago, Kodos said:

No you should not

Unless all missions and tables are exactly the same. As soon as different scenarios are played just having luck to get the not so skilled opponent in the mission were you can get most points is not the way to do it

And there is no sport out there (as the biggest database for tournament results) were achieved points is rated than games won (imagine a soccer or hockey league were number of goals is rated first)

Rate scoring higher is an option without random scenarios, minimum of 5 games and without random pairing for first round, to reduce the wining of players who rate themselves better as they really are (the usual "why i am not rewarded for winning 10:1 against the noob in game one while I lost the other games just 4:7, I should be rated higher than the guy winning 3 games 6:5" stuff)

It it can be argued - as a WARgame, the scoring emphasis can be as War: in which case, Victory IS preferred, but Victory over the enemy with preservation of your force is the goal.