Any Hoth rebel commander and any plausible sandtrooper commander (either a sandtrooper officer, or just any old imperial officer in a cloth uniform) would be my preferences.

But knowing my luck it'll be like Lobot or Nien Nunb for rebels. Yak Face or Imperial Dignitary for the badguys.

20 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

i think theyre dividing the resources for RWM and Legion, cause i noticed now that Legion is released suddenly RWM is getting a ton of articles.

Bit late though, my entire local group for that one abandoned it months ago after not even a peep about any of the boxes they announced, but didnt talk about. MONTHS ago. Uthuk players didnt even get the standalone boxes for their units yet

Monopoly hasn't had any major support for decades and it's the best selling boardgame. Why would you not play a beloved game due to lack of news from the publisher?

It would be thematically weird to have Thrawn or Piett in the game. They're both navy leadership, they don't really have a place commanding ground troops in battle. Of course, there are a finite number of recognizable characters, so I wouldn't be surprised...but slightly disappointed.

38 minutes ago, Turan said:

It would be thematically weird to have Thrawn or Piett in the game. They're both navy leadership, they don't really have a place commanding ground troops in battle. Of course, there are a finite number of recognizable characters, so I wouldn't be surprised...but slightly disappointed.

Thrawn leads ground assualt in Rebels, so no need to be disappointed there

1 hour ago, Turan said:

It would be thematically weird to have Thrawn or Piett in the game. They're both navy leadership, they don't really have a place commanding ground troops in battle. Of course, there are a finite number of recognizable characters, so I wouldn't be surprised...but slightly disappointed.

No weirder than having Darth & Luke show up to every piddly skirmish in the galaxy. I'm not a fan of "named" characters for minis games in general. Since that seems to be their modus operandi, I'd settle for Piett or Thrawn or anyone else I can paint up as Officer John Doe. Which is what I like about Veers, he could be any given Imperial leader.

... then why wait for Piett or Thrawn when you can paint Veers up as them?

?

28 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

... then why wait for Piett or Thrawn when you can paint Veers up as them?

?

Because it's about having multiple command figures fielded simultaneously. Or command figures to fit different themed armies (sandtrooper officer).

I want generic commanders who have customization options. Rebel and Stormtrooper captains and such.

1 hour ago, BadMotivator said:

I want generic commanders who have customization options. Rebel and Stormtrooper captains and such.

That would be the ideal, yes. But I am not holding my breath

5 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

That would be the ideal, yes. But I am not holding my breath

I don’t know if there’s design space for generic commanders. As command cards need to be unique. If you field two generic commanders, your command deck is going to be rather limited. So named commanders and operatives seem to make sense. That said, FFG could, you know, MAKE STUFF UP. The EU has plenty of space to play in.

2 minutes ago, player2801864 said:

I don’t know if there’s design space for generic commanders. As command cards need to be unique. If you field two generic commanders, your command deck is going to be rather limited. So named commanders and operatives seem to make sense. That said, FFG could, you know, MAKE STUFF UP. The EU has plenty of space to play in.

You could have two or more KINDS of generic commanders. Rebel lieutenant. Rebel captain. Rebel captain on a tauntaun. Rebel artillery lieutenant. One of those ideas sounds awesome.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

No weirder than having Darth & Luke show up to every piddly skirmish in the galaxy

...then why would you choose your games to represent piddly skirmishes? ?

I'm always fighting for control of a vital production hub or to gain access to a Death Star research lab or something. And I would argue that using fleet commanders on the ground is weirder than that, personally.

4 hours ago, Lukez said:

Thrawn leads ground assualt in Rebels, so no need to be disappointed there

Yeah, you got me disappointed at the mention of Rebels ?

Rebels need Major Bren Derlin as a commander. At the very least so we can get space Bar diorama going. Bonus if you can also get Tobias Becket in.

6 hours ago, player2801864 said:

I don’t know if there’s design space for generic commanders. As command cards need to be unique. If you field two generic commanders, your command deck is going to be rather limited. So named commanders and operatives seem to make sense. That said, FFG could, you know, MAKE STUFF UP. The EU has plenty of space to play in.

I wouldn’t expect anything beyond the OT until well after Chewbacca and Lando.

8 hours ago, Derrault said:

I wouldn’t expect anything beyond the OT until well after Chewbacca and Lando.

I kinda expect FFG's own characters like Kayn Somos to appear before too long.

Am I the only person that really doesn’t want generic commanders?

There are so many different unique characters, and getting them in the game creates all sorts of story options.

Unique commanders help create a shared narrative for your games. If you plop down a generic commander, the narrative becomes “just a generic battle” for your opponent. You might have thought of names and backstory for your army, but unless you’re playing casually with friends your opponent won’t be aware of it. However, putting Luke and Vader on the field instantly creates a shared story and ups the stakes. There’s that personal and mythological connection, and it makes the experience much more immersive for me.

If you’re playing casually, nothing is stopping you from playing with generic commanders. And among friends you can really take the time to craft a narrative that fully immerses both of you in the action. But from an organized play perspective, unique commanders really give Legion a thematic, Star Wars feel (in my opinion).

Quote

Unique commanders help create a shared narrative for your games. If you plop down a generic commander, the narrative becomes “just a generic battle” for your opponent. You might have thought of names and backstory for your army, but unless you’re playing casually with friends your opponent won’t be aware of it. However, putting Luke and Vader on the field instantly creates a shared story and ups the stakes. There’s that personal and mythological connection, and it makes the experience much more immersive for me.

If you’re playing casually, nothing is stopping you from playing with generic commanders. And among friends you can really take the time to craft a narrative that fully immerses both of you in the action. But from an organized play perspective, unique commanders really give Legion a thematic, Star Wars feel (in my opinion).

This whole casual/serious dichotomy is not constructive I think. There is nothing casual about a table full of painted miniatures on a model field.

The reason I want generic models is also for immersion. Vader vs Vader destroys immersion pretty fast. I get that people want to collect their favorite movie characters but they shouldn't be required.

Also, for my purposes, I consider Veers generic enough. Major Derlin and General Rieekan would work just fine for my purposes too. My dislike of named characters has a lot to do with publishers feeling a compulsion to "stat out" everything they did on screen. It tends to have an imbalancing and/or over-complicating effect in the long run.

4 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

This whole casual/serious dichotomy is not constructive I think. There is nothing casual about a table full of painted miniatures on a model field.

The reason I want generic models is also for immersion. Vader vs Vader destroys immersion pretty fast. I get that people want to collect their favorite movie characters but they shouldn't be required.

Also, for my purposes, I consider Veers generic enough. Major Derlin and General Rieekan would work just fine for my purposes too. My dislike of named characters has a lot to do with publishers feeling a compulsion to "stat out" everything they did on screen. It tends to have an imbalancing and/or over-complicating effect in the long run.

I totally agree about the false dichotomy, I regret using that language. To clarify, I’m trying to distinguish between what FFG officially supports in organized play and what guides their production of models, versus how those models get used in practice at the community level. Especially with a game like Legion, there can exist a lot of diversity and forms of play at the community level that are far from casual, but don’t necessarily need to be supported by FFG officially.

Like you said, I feel like Veers (and probably plenty of future commanders) should be generic enough, especially with some alternate paint schemes/modding, that I don’t see the need for FFG to produce official generic commanders. However, I definitely respect the points you made.

I really wouldn't mind if the released generic "Rebel Commander" or "Imperial Commander" or "Storm trooper commander" as models. think lower points cost to fill the slot and then gives ou more points for other units. down side = special command cards are pretty blah.

The main reason I want Rebel Commander Smith instead of General Rieekan for example, is the statting out problem. I don't like it when games devolve into trying to create overlapping zones around characters, in order to make it all about the special rules. Particularly when they just plain don't make sense. Having proximity to Darth Vader improving the stormtroopers morale makes sense. Having everyone suddenly able to shoot straighter, do more damage, ignore being shot, etc. because a certain character is next to them feels weird to me. My concern is that with named characters there is a history of doing a lot of that stuff, which some people might like. But ultimately it gets next to impossible to properly balance all the exceptions to exceptions of the rules that start floating around. Many publishers including FFG have a history of including special rules for units based on either one quick movie scene, or a weird extrapolation of their job title. Example, imperial guards making nearby models bulletproof, without having to actually take the bullet for them.

Of course there's no guarantee they won't do that stuff with generic commanders too. It just seems less likely. Hopefully. Maybe.

Power/complexity creep is certainly an issue, and you may be right that there’s more of a temptation to engage in it with unique characters in order to model what they’ve done across all sorts of different stories. Mechanics should always take predence over fluff. I have just a few random thoughts. Again, this is all just my opinion and thanks for talking about this respectfully online! I hate to be in the position of arguing that you shouldn’t get a thing you want from the game, since I’m usually a “let a million flowers bloom” type... I just feel like it would change the nature of the game for me.

1) Counterexample: the most broken ship in X-wing 1.0 was a generic pilot in Dengar’s obscure ship that appeared in very little media. I’m not sure how much opening the door to generic commanders would actually keep power/complexity creep from happening.

2) FFG created a nice space to include fluffy abilities for unique characters and still keep those things balanced through Command Cards. Han’s command cards are a great example. Han gets to shoot first, but only on one turn and there are trade offs. They introduce a ton of decision points and counterplay into thematic abilities, to avoid the negative play experience that can come with overly complex thematic abilities that are “always on.”

3) I really love what Alex Davy says about Legion and unique commanders in this video. And it’s formed my thinking on what I want out of Legion: a character-driven mythological narrative more so than a battle simulation. I just worry that the inclusion of officially licensed cheap generic commanders would dilute this aspect of the game for me. Especially since more activations have ruled supreme so far, so a commander cheaper than Veers/Leia is likely to be a commonly taken, highly competitive option.

Generic commanders don't have to mean cheap commanders. Unlike IA Skirmish, which was always apparently an afterthought to IA campaign play, this is meant to be head to head first and foremost and might be balanced better as a result.

I understand the concern from the X-Wing experience but X-Wing is known for that stuff, to outsiders. I never got into it beyond an intro game and even I know it lost all semblance of being about actual X-Wings. Hopefully they learned how to balance new and old units from that... even if not, generic commanders got a LOT of screentime in the OT compared to things like Dengar or his ship.

Veers is 80 points

I don't think even a generic commander would be less than lets say 65-75 points naked.

when your talking 10 to 15 points, how many more activations can you throw in there? maybe 1 if you tweek a unit or 2. but what will you get?

1 or 2 units that are now less effective to add a naked unit? maybe?

I don't think having generic commanders would do more than free up those few points you need to add 1 more storm trooper to fill a squad, or give that AT-ST a commlink, or a squad without a heavy can now have grenades or scopes, or both.

5 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

The main reason I want Rebel Commander Smith instead of General Rieekan for example, is the statting out problem. I don't like it when games devolve into trying to create overlapping zones around characters, in order to make it all about the special rules. Particularly when they just plain don't make sense. Having proximity to Darth Vader improving the stormtroopers morale makes sense. Having everyone suddenly able to shoot straighter, do more damage, ignore being shot, etc. because a certain character is next to them feels weird to me. My concern is that with named characters there is a history of doing a lot of that stuff, which some people might like. But ultimately it gets next to impossible to properly balance all the exceptions to exceptions of the rules that start floating around. Many publishers including FFG have a history of including special rules for units based on either one quick movie scene, or a weird extrapolation of their job title. Example, imperial guards making nearby models bulletproof, without having to actually take the bullet for them.

Of course there's no guarantee they won't do that stuff with generic commanders too. It just seems less likely. Hopefully. Maybe.

All of that is fair, but I wouldn't hold my breath and I'd keep doing paint/conversion work to personalize your commanders (I'm doing the same thing from the Rebel side). Alex Davy is the designer of Legion, so if he says it's character driven, then it's (probably) going to be character driven. To be fair, the named commanders are roughly equivalent to the Admirals in Armada, and hopefully we start seeing more lesser known characters, or more characters with a Veers/Leia type design: not super expensive, and more about leading troops than being combat beasts.

I agree that Imperial Guards should be using something like the Guardian keyword, which is hopefully how Legion would represent that capability.

Besides the Morale boost (which I view as a reflection of the abilities of the commander/fear of them the troops have), the major multi-turn effects require an action on the part of the commander, to reflect the commander ordering the troops to take cover or aim at certain targets. I have yet to see any "all units in range X automatically gain Attack Surge = Crit" style abilities, and I don't count Inspire as anything too out of the ordinary, more that the commander has given some form of inspirational words/speech/threat to get the unit back in the fight, unlike your listed examples from other games.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Generic commanders don't have to mean cheap commanders. Unlike IA Skirmish, which was always apparently an afterthought to IA campaign play, this is meant to be head to head first and foremost and might be balanced better as a result.

Why should ____ Commander cost more points than Leia or Veers? Or cost the same? Anything less than them I would considered "cheap." If the cost the same or more, then they need to have abilities to justify that point cost, at which point FFG could probably find a named character that would fit those effects and slap their name and likeness on the model/card. A Rebel Commander focused on Comandos? Crix Madine, Saw Gerrera, or Captain Cassian Andor. An Imperial Commander focused on Stormtroopers? Offhand, Sergeant Kreel could work, I'm sure there are others. The named commanders are more likely to attract people to the game than "Rebel Commander." Which box on the shelf is going to attract more attention from someone outside of the game: "Rebel Commander" or "Leia Organa"? I think we might see named commanders whose names we otherwise wouldn't know, such as Colonel Dyer or Major Hewex, the "generic" commanders on Endor.

13 minutes ago, KILODEN said:

I don't think having generic commanders would do more than free up those few points you need to add 1 more storm trooper to fill a squad, or give that AT-ST a commlink, or a squad without a heavy can now have grenades or scopes, or both.

It would provide a cheap second commander that provides for a second bubble of morale boost, and a second model for issuing orders for split deployments at the very least. Plus there is the problem of what orders cards to give them. If they are only allowed to use the generics, then a list running a generic commander is at a huge disadvantage. If they have special cards for them, then as I indicate above, those are cards that can't be used for another named commander. Creating new generic cards that actually have an effect then make the original ones obsolete, why run Assault, when I can use this other 3 pip card that activates 3 units and also does ____?