5 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

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 ____?

This is exactly what I was thinking. why not have that option?

why not have the generic command cards with a slight boost?

why not give players more options with which to build and play their army?

if you run Vader and Veers you can throw out all but the 4 pip command card and use their 6 cards. what difference is it if its better basic cards?

example:

generic ground assault commander could have Ambush: 1 unit (unit receives an aim token), Push: 2 units (each unit given an order during the command phase recovers), Assault: 3 units (choose 1 unit that has been issued an order. that unit may use both actions to attack this turn)

but just like the commanders we have, they are bound to the generic commander.

56 minutes ago, KILODEN said:

This is exactly what I was thinking. why not have that option?

Because it messes with the game balance, and not in a positive way. One of the benefits to having a second commander is access to more command cards that have an additional effect, but require the commander on the card to still be on the battlefield. So if you don't want your opponent to be able to give units say a Dodge token during the Orders phase, focus on removing the commander that is required for the card. If a generic gives that benefit, then there is no way to prevent your opponent from playing that card. Right now, losing a commander can massively hurt depending on the cards that have been played, as now you are restricted to just the generic orders left in your hand. Generics with a bonus don't have that limitation, and like I said, render the old generics entirely obsolete. Only the "best" of a commander's cards would be played.

The main limitation as far as army building options right now is the game is still new, so there aren't as many options for units. Unlike historical wargames, or other long running games, the miniatures do not already exist. Any miniatures that Legion needs, FFG has to produce. So they can't just dump "here's all the options for army building" on day one, because all that does is encourage third parties to print "good enough" models, beating FFG to the market.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

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

We do not agree. I usually dislike how keywords such as that are used in IA. We'll see how it actually plays out in Legion. Sometimes stuff looks weirder on cards than it ends up feeling in the action of a game. Here's hoping!

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Why should ____ Commander cost more points than Leia or Veers? Or cost the same?

Depends purely on their stats.

1 minute ago, TauntaunScout said:

We do not agree. I usually dislike how keywords such as that are used in IA. We'll see how it actually plays out in Legion. Sometimes stuff looks weirder on cards than it ends up feeling in the action of a game. Here's hoping!

Depends purely on their stats.

Guardian actually transfers the hit, indicating the a model from other unit got in the way. This feel more like a bodyguard to me anyway than the hit just disappearing into the aether.

I understand it depends on their stats, I discussed the issue with having a generic cost more or the same than a named character, and subsequently justifying the cost in the post you partially quoted. Veers and Leia are named characters, and supposed to be renowned commanders in their respective armies. What would be your in universe explanation for a generic, nameless officer having better stats than Leia or Veers? Why doesn't this nameless commander, who is more competent/capable than a Renowned General have a name?

21 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Guardian actually transfers the hit, indicating the a model from other unit got in the way. This feel more like a bodyguard to me anyway than the hit just disappearing into the aether.

I understand it depends on their stats, I discussed the issue with having a generic cost more or the same than a named character, and subsequently justifying the cost in the post you partially quoted. Veers and Leia are named characters, and supposed to be renowned commanders in their respective armies. What would be your in universe explanation for a generic, nameless officer having better stats than Leia or Veers? Why doesn't this nameless commander, who is more competent/capable than a Renowned General have a name?

Why? That character could be better at specific things, or just lacked the political connections.

I’m sure a rebel commando veteran is more capable in combat than Leia, and maybe better than her at small unit tactics too. He just isn’t “the Princess”. Hence why he isn’t famous.

likewise, Veers is a capable leader. I’m sure there are a lot of others similarly capable. It is a galaxy spanning Empire.

Just now, BadMotivator said:

Why? That character could be better at specific things, or just lacked the political connections.

I’m sure a rebel commando veteran is more capable in combat than Leia, and maybe better than her at small unit tactics too. He just isn’t “the Princess”. Hence why he isn’t famous.

likewise, Veers is a capable leader. I’m sure there are a lot of others similarly capable. It is a galaxy spanning Empire.

Yes, and all of them have names. There is already a commando veteran in Star Wars Lore, his name is Crix Madine.

That Imperial Commander? He or she also has a name. The fact that we, who are only given limited glimpses into the greater galaxy don't know it it because we haven't been told.

A truly "generic" commander is supposed to represent any random person in the organization, not the specifically good ones.

I desperately want Rogue One content. I had hoped for a box that was just the Rogue One team, but post-Boba Fett operative reveal, I now just accept that Jyn & company would be milked in ones or maybe twos over months and months. ? But Cassian could be a commander, probably Saw as well. I hoped that we would see a commander Jyn, but she may be easier to portray as an operative?

But I don’t have much realistic hope for them. *Probably* getting that Chewbacca operative next. After that I’ll hope for generic Imperial/Rebel captains with a couple upgrade slots if it’s not going to be R1.

On 7/1/2018 at 8:00 AM, TauntaunScout said:

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

Perhaps in the long term, but not before mainstays.

4 hours ago, KILODEN said:

This is exactly what I was thinking. why not have that option?

why not have the generic command cards with a slight boost?

why not give players more options with which to build and play their army?

if you run Vader and Veers you can throw out all but the 4 pip command card and use their 6 cards. what difference is it if its better basic cards?

example:

generic ground assault commander could have Ambush: 1 unit (unit receives an aim token), Push: 2 units (each unit given an order during the command phase recovers), Assault: 3 units (choose 1 unit that has been issued an order. that unit may use both actions to attack this turn)

but just like the commanders we have, they are bound to the generic commander.

For one thing, those better than genetics retain the flexibility of the generics and gain a special power. Most of the command cards actually give up flex in order to get a bonus (ie the commander who is nominated plus two troopers or two vehicles), also they are totally useless once the commander they are attached to is dead.

If you really want to have a nonspecific commander, just use the generic orders only and promote a trooper unit at the start.

Their special power is that they have a retinue of up to 5 minions to take hits for them.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Guardian actually transfers the hit, indicating the a model from other unit got in the way. This feel more like a bodyguard to me anyway than the hit just disappearing into the aether.

I would hope so but sometimes keywords don't shake out in such a logical way in modern games.

Quote

Veers and Leia are named characters, and supposed to be renowned commanders in their respective armies. What would be your in universe explanation for a generic, nameless officer having better stats than Leia or Veers? Why doesn't this nameless commander, who is more competent/capable than a Renowned General have a name?

None so far is a renowned infantry commander, in a genre of game which sorta revolves around infantry. Luke's a pilot and wizard in training. Leia's a logistical organizer. A lot of background people probably knew way more about infantry tactics than Luke or Leia do. Darth Vader is a pilot and evil wizard. Veers is an officer from an armored cavalry background, not infantry.

Put Luke into a snowspeeder and he'd probably be far more effective (to the point of being cost prohibitive and/or unbalancing) in this game than he is running around with a lightsaber.

Madine or Reiikan or someone could easily be worth more points in this sort of game than Leia.

29 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Madine or Reiikan or someone could easily be worth more points in this sort of game than Leia.

I think we might be using different definitions of "generic." I have no problem with a commander unit named Madine costing more than Leia, for the reasons you outlined. What I was attempting to argue against was a unit named "Rebel General" or "Imperial Colonel." That's what I mean by "generic."

I agree that both sides could use more commanders who aren't film stars, but I understand why FFG started with the characters with the most brand recognition, rather than obscure comic, book, video game, etc named characters.

1 minute ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I think we might be using different definitions of "generic." I have no problem with a commander unit named Madine costing more than Leia, for the reasons you outlined. What I was attempting to argue against was a unit named "Rebel General" or "Imperial Colonel." That's what I mean by "generic."

I agree that both sides could use more commanders who aren't film stars, but I understand why FFG started with the characters with the most brand recognition, rather than obscure comic, book, video game, etc named characters.

No. Imperial Captain 7 would not in my opinion likely cost more than Leia. But it would still be good to have them. But even more likeVeers is a lot MORE generic looking than Leia.

1 minute ago, TauntaunScout said:

No. Imperial Captain 7 would not in my opinion likely cost more than Leia. But it would still be good to have them. But even more likeVeers is a lot MORE generic looking than Leia.

Depends on how you paint her/if you do a head swap. The only characters that are truly non-generic looking in my opinion are any force users. Everyone else is just a matter of paint and/or cliping.

Good to have them or not, the issue still become balancing them, and making them such that they don't become an auto-include, or are used predominantly instead of Leia and Veers. Also there is still the problem of command cards as I've discussed previously. Besides, this is basically a moot point since the designer of Legion has strongly indicated all commanders will have names.

Meant to post the following earlier and forgot:

46 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I would hope so but sometimes keywords don't shake out in such a logical way in modern games.

Guardian, along with other keywords which are only just starting to see print have been in the RRG since launch Page 28:

Quote

"While a friendly trooper unit at range 1 and in line of sight is defending against a ranged attack, a unit that has the guardian x keyword may cancel up to x hit (?) results. For each hit (?) result canceled, the unit with the guardian x keyword rolls a defense die matching its defense. After converting defense surge (�) results according to its surge chart, the unit with the guardian x keyword suffers 1 wound for each blank result."

24 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Depends on how you paint her/if you do a head swap. The only characters that are truly non-generic looking in my opinion are any force users. Everyone else is just a matter of paint and/or cliping.

Since they use these new "bigatures", I don't have any heads that would fit. It takes a lot more than a head swap for Darth Vader, anyways.
Luke I can repaint as a random Jedi in hiding though.

24 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Meant to post the following earlier and forgot:

Guardian, along with other keywords which are only just starting to see print have been in the RRG since launch Page 28:

Yeah and that is good but a not uncommon feature of IA Skirmish was the ability for working stiffs to make their boss bulletproof without ever actually taking a bullet for him. Proximity to them added blocks, without transferring any damage. But I'm also talking about a the broader past 10 years of games, not just FFG and not just the past couple Star Wars games. There's been a lot of weird special rules.

I don't expect it to happen (never say never), but generic commanders that can be tailored for a build would be nice instead of waiting for some 3-4 future named characters, which I expect we will see at some point.

1 hour ago, Bohemian73 said:

I don't expect it to happen (never say never), but generic commanders that can be tailored for a build would be nice instead of waiting for some 3-4 future named characters, which I expect we will see at some point.

Well, when the designer litterally says "Star Wars is character driven," and "Commanders provide that flavor," odds are pretty good there won't be a customizable commander. Plus, the models aren't designed for easy customization, hence why so many third party sellers have started selling conversion parts.

@Caimheul1313

I still don't see how you still have a problem with the command cards?

I explained it in detail that you tie them to the generic commander just as cards are now. so you cant just take the one you want and when the commander dies they go the way of the dodo too.

some people just like to use Joe Shmoe as a character to portray maybe.....themselves leading their army. I almost never took named characters in 40K, too many points for what you get from Orks. but im sure your have an issue with that too,

waiting for your reason its wrong........................................

One of the most enjoyable parts of being a star wars fan for 40 years has been being able to play in this universe.

I have played the West End Games Star Wars RPG, still have all my books and looking forward to getting the FFG release if only to see what they did art wise to the books. I still have some of the Wizards of the Coast RPG books (I preferred the D6 rule). also still have over 1000 Wotc star wars miniatures including AT-AT. I play x-wing and armada. played every star wars video game they made, even the bad ones.(original battlefront 2 was the best-galactic conquest made that game)

but most importantly, yes the iconic characters are cool and we all love them. But to be able to make something feel more........I want to say down to earth but in a galaxy far, far, away, that just doesn't seem right.......but to use characters that are not super powers and the threat of failure because of that brings an element all its own. don't get me wrong, I do want to see all the cool named commanders they come up with, but the rebels have way more than the imperials, and that was I big issue I had with x-wing. the rebels and scum had a huge number of unique crew compared to the empire so they released generic officers and stuff like that. it worked ok, but it also gave that feel that the empire is full of throw away heroes because they are a huge war machine and not every commander is going to be the best.

I guess I went off on a tangent because I didn't write anything to the point I was going to make, which is:

this is a game first.

yes balance is good, but fun is more important to me. yes I play on the tourney scene, took 2nd in a legion tournament, finished as good as 3rd in an armada tourney, I have won several x-wing tourneys including a store championship then finished 2nd the following year. so I get the importance of balance in any game. ask me about my 40k Orks and balance. I can go on for hours on that one, but I just sold my entire 40k collection after 30 years of playing that game. I put things on these boards because I think that they would add to the fun of the game. that's what I'm after. you can pick apart my ideas for what ever reason you want, but please do not just look at things from a competitive standpoint, or your going to miss out on the point I'm trying to make.

46 minutes ago, KILODEN said:

One of the most enjoyable parts of being a star wars fan for 40 years has been being able to play in this universe.

I have played the West End Games Star Wars RPG, still have all my books and looking forward to getting the FFG release if only to see what they did art wise to the books. I still have some of the Wizards of the Coast RPG books (I preferred the D6 rule). also still have over 1000 Wotc star wars miniatures including AT-AT. I play x-wing and armada. played every star wars video game they made, even the bad ones.(original battlefront 2 was the best-galactic conquest made that game)

but most importantly, yes the iconic characters are cool and we all love them. But to be able to make something feel more........I want to say down to earth but in a galaxy far, far, away, that just doesn't seem right.......but to use characters that are not super powers and the threat of failure because of that brings an element all its own. don't get me wrong, I do want to see all the cool named commanders they come up with, but the rebels have way more than the imperials, and that was I big issue I had with x-wing. the rebels and scum had a huge number of unique crew compared to the empire so they released generic officers and stuff like that. it worked ok, but it also gave that feel that the empire is full of throw away heroes because they are a huge war machine and not every commander is going to be the best.

I guess I went off on a tangent because I didn't write anything to the point I was going to make, which is:

this is a game first.

yes balance is good, but fun is more important to me. yes I play on the tourney scene, took 2nd in a legion tournament, finished as good as 3rd in an armada tourney, I have won several x-wing tourneys including a store championship then finished 2nd the following year. so I get the importance of balance in any game. ask me about my 40k Orks and balance. I can go on for hours on that one, but I just sold my entire 40k collection after 30 years of playing that game. I put things on these boards because I think that they would add to the fun of the game. that's what I'm after. you can pick apart my ideas for what ever reason you want, but please do not just look at things from a competitive standpoint, or your going to miss out on the point I'm trying to make.

Perhaps I can suggest a little proactive means?

I mean, a lot of people default to the competitive, tournament play because, first and foremost, the rules and units are KNOWN and CONSISTENT.

In that light, perhaps it would be - as I said / proactive (?) to mark topics and/or replies with {Casual} or {Custom} or {Homebrew} so people understand before they hit a treatise ? ?

i mean, I’d suggest a {Tournament} tag instead, butbit just seems that isvthe “international default” rather than not, AT LEAST for forum discussions - it may be different for actual play in the works...

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Perhaps I can suggest a little proactive means?

I mean, a lot of people default to the competitive, tournament play because, first and foremost, the rules and units are KNOWN and CONSISTENT.

In that light, perhaps it would be - as I said / proactive (?) to mark topics and/or replies with {Casual} or {Custom} or {Homebrew} so people understand before they hit a treatise ? ?

i mean, I’d suggest a {Tournament} tag instead, butbit just seems that isvthe “international default” rather than not, AT LEAST for forum discussions - it may be different for actual play in the works...

valid points

2 hours ago, KILODEN said:

One of the most enjoyable parts of being a star wars fan for 40 years has been being able to play in this universe.

Yes. This. This is what Star Wars fandom is all about.

We may disagree about the direction of future products but I hope we can all agree on this!

A thought about the “tournament” default mode for conversations. Part of the reason it is default in this particular conversation is that it is the style of play where the actual products that FFG puts out matter the most. In non-tournament play, generic commanders can be homebrewed using either official FFG minis or custom-made ones. While you can certainly make the argument that this is less than ideal, the question “should FFG produce X?” is often going to be read with regard to tournament play.

Again, I feel tournament play specifically stands to lose the thematic core of Legion if FFG produces official generic commanders, whereas non-tournament play would not gain very much over what is possible currently. Tournament play would “feel less Star Wars” to me (which I realize is “vague and unconvincing”). But I respect that others feel differently.

Two more random thoughts:

1) Maybe to put one of your comments in a different perspective, just because characters are “super powered” heroes doesn’t mean the threat of failure is any less. TLJ really drove this theme home but it is a major lesson of the entire Star Wars saga.

2) The new canon stories have done a decent job of filling out the Empire’s ranks. Even looking at the X-wing 2.0 contents shows (I think) a greater parity of unique crew than before. Empire may always need to dig a little deeper for their characters, but there are still plenty of interesting Imperials to go around.

@KILODEN tying them to the Commander is fine. When I say "generic command cards" I mean "command cards that are universally available." I think I confused your ideas with those of other people who have advocated for this in the past, misreading that you wanted more common Command cards, and not ones tied to "Rebel Commander."

I think balance is important in casual play as well, although then the players have more agency for ensuring it than in tournaments. If you want to house rule or home brew rules, by all means! I'd be interested to see what comes out of it. In a casual game setting, where you are just as likely to build lists based on a particular scenario, and maybe even purposely have one sided lists (I've played casual Bolt Action games with one side built using 1/3 the points) making rules for a nameless or custom commander could be interesting. Right now, the easiest way to do a bog common Commander in casual play is just make one of your unit leaders a Commander with the command chit, and maybe change their stats a bit.

This particular set of posts is supposed to be about what commanders we hope to see FFG release in future, not what we want to homebrew though. Anything released by FFG should provide a balanced tournament scene, and that is why I responded the way I did.

Again, I get the desire for custom commanders, I've never run a special commander in any game I didn't have to, and I love kitbashing and converting. But FFG has decided not to go that route, and it has been stated in interviews that a core part of the game is characters in the Commander slot. They have also decided to release single pose models, so I've been buying third party 3D printed heads and using spare 28mm WW2 bits for conversions (a LOT of props were made from WW2 surplus, so they fit the aesthetic nicely). Right now, neither side has a lot of releaaed options. What I want to see is more commanders based around making the troops better, since that to me is more the role of a commander than to be a beatstick.

I agree that the Empire does not have as many named characters, although the comics, video games, cartoons, and books have begun to change that. One of the issues with Imperial "heroes" is that the Empire tends to be portrayed as not caring about individuals, just the Empire as a whole. So everyone who isn't the Emperor is considered disposable (mess up once and Vader chokes you to death). Also, generally the have to lose to the Rebels when it really counts, so they have some fatal flaw, or are just doomed to have bad luck. Otherwise, the Rebellion ends up crushed before ESB ?.

2 hours ago, WAC47 said:

Again, I feel tournament play specifically stands to lose the thematic core of Legion if FFG produces official generic commanders, whereas non-tournament play would not gain very much over what is possible currently. Tournament play would “feel less Star Wars” to me (which I realize is “vague and unconvincing”). But I respect that others feel differently.

I think it's weird that for FFG the core rules pretty much are the tournament rules. So given my 30 year background of playing Star Wars miniatures games, I default to not-tournament for any conversation. In most games, official tournament rules are separate, change each season, and put a restrictions or specific interpretations on the core rules, and the core rules are designed for the fun of local groups and people who play at home. Which is who makes up most of the customer base.

Saying "they shouldn't release this character at all because tournament players MIGHT overuse it" is a disservice to the majority of players who will never go to tournaments or even frequent these boards.

In most other games, heroes are the first thing to get restricted at tournaments. No named characters allowed was common in the Herohammer phase of the mid 90's for both Warhammers. Letting opponents see each other's lists and pay victory points before the battle to force each other to discard specific upgrade cards was also common and cut down on list hacky, loopholey things. I'm not saying these would work for FFG tournaments. But I am suggesting that FFG put forth tournament rules designed to work for their games. If the concern is people taking too many commanders, you could change it from "a minimum of 3 corps" to "a minimum of 3 corps per commander" or something.

14 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I think it's weird that for FFG the core rules pretty much are the tournament rules. So given my 30 year background of playing Star Wars miniatures games, I default to not-tournament for any conversation. In most games, official tournament rules are separate, change each season, and put a restrictions or specific interpretations on the core rules, and the core rules are designed for the fun of local groups and people who play at home. Which is who makes up most of the customer base.

Saying "they shouldn't release this character at all because tournament players MIGHT overuse it" is a disservice to the majority of players who will never go to tournaments or even frequent these boards.

Really? Every game I've played the Core rules are the main aspect of the tournament rules with some added restrictions on top, mostly pertaining to customization, representation, and the use of third party models. Magic the Gathering, all of FFG's LCGs, Warhammer 40k, Imperial Assault, X-Wing, etc etc all (as far as I am aware) use the core rules with additional Tournament supplements. Having two completely separate sets of rules creates a schism in the playerbase, so tournament players wanting to practice can't play with a casual only player since they are playing different games that happen to have the same pieces. Most large wargames are played at local clubs or stores in my experience, partly to find other people interested in playing the game, and partly to avoid inviting people you barely know into your home. Also the issue of space, as many people in my area do not have space for a 4'x6' table in their home.

I assume you are referring to the West End Games "Star Wars Miniature Battles" which was intended to be compatible with the West End Games "Star Wars Roleplaying Game, Second Edition." Which is a major reason for the customizability of the characters, to allow you to port over your characters and use them in the Miniature Battles game. West End games has also been bankrupt since 1998, so there was only"official" support for the game for the first 5 years of printing. This also means that gaming stores aren't as likely to hold events or widely advertise play of the game since they won't be able to sell models and books. As for the Wizards of the Coast miniatures games, it is my understanding that they wanted to produce miniatures for the RPG, but were told by LucasFilm that the minis HAD to have a stand alone game. I know the starship miniature game was not very well designed, and never really played the infantry based one, but it seems it was more closely related to Imperial Assault than Legion.

Legion, unlike the previous Star Wars battle games, is designed from the ground up as a stand alone miniatures game, not tied to the FFG RPGs in any way except by virtue of being set in the same universe. The design of the game has unique character commanders as a core tenet of the game so the addition of non-unique commanders would require a fair amount of tinkering to the rules to prevent unintended rules interactions/vaguarities. The game is also not designed with customizability in mind, given the models are all single pose plastics, and no official conversion pieces exist (but today's world of 3D printers means the secondary market can supply unofficial conversion pieces). It also currently has ongoing corporate support, so game stores are incentivized to make space available for playing the game, hold events, and stock the product on their shelves thereby advertising the game.

Do you have demographic studies to back up your claim that most will never go to a tournament? I think many people will go to local events or tournaments, just as way to get multiple games of Legion in a single day. Tournament players are typically more likely to spend more money on the game, since the serious players are also willing to pay for interstate travel to participate in events.

Regardless, this whole discussion is fairly moot, as it is more of a case of "they WON'T release nameless commanders because the Designer said so," and he didn't design the game to allow for nameless, non-unique commanders.

Back on topic: I am in the camp that the next Operative/Commander release for the Rebels is likely to be Chewbacca Operative. I'm not sure who the released (again assuming) Commander for the Empire would be, but I am personally hoping for Governor Pryce for at least a touch of variety, or even Doctor Aphra Operative, who would probably work best if they release any Droid troops for the Empire. Following the next set of releases, I hope they start looking more at characters from other canon sources that AREN'T the OT, just because as much as I like the OT's main characters, I would like some variety on the tabletop.

21 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Really? Every game I've played the Core rules are the main aspect of the tournament rules with some added restrictions on top, mostly pertaining to customization, representation, and the use of third party models.

Obviously tournaments used the core rules for game mechanics. But the tournament rules for 40k et al placed further restrictions back when I still followed them. In tournaments, unpainted models were illegal even though the rulebook didn't say so. In tournaments, special characters were banned even though they were legal according to the rule books. Etc. Hence if generic commanders ruin tournaments, no prob. Limit them somehow within tournaments.

But we'll see about nameless commanders. We're all probably reading way too much from way too few tea leaves. I'm taking it slow with this game, not gonna buy anything faster than I can paint the last thing. Thus I will stay a couple release waves behind, and have more to models to pick from.

A lesson I learned the hard way is to let each game be itself. To varying degrees I learned this with different games but by far the biggest teacher was with Star Wars D20 minis. I had SO many. I was collecting 40 snowtroopers, 20 Tusken Raiders, 4 AT-ST's, multiple copies of uniques to proxy for other things cause I liked their look. Etc. etc. I basically was hoarding armies of D20 minis that were big enough to play the ultimate D6 campaign. But no matter how many I got it wasn't enough for me, because that's not what the game was about. D20 minis were meant for games of around 12 figures per side, so normal collections were about (n)12 minis big where "n" is the number of army themes you are into. Whereas D6 games were meant for games of around 40 figures per side, ergo (n)40 minis was reasonable for that game. At the end of the day, I finally figured out that no amount of D20 minis could fill my desire for (n)40 of D6 minis. So, I sold off untold billions of D20 minis, only keeping those which I might actually use to play D20... and then set about painting scores of old D6 minis. I almost started to trip on the same hazard with Imperial Assault, trying to collect it as if it were something other than what it is. It is a RPG, with apparently the battle rules as an afterthought. Once I changed my collecting to reflect that I liked it a lot more.

So with Legion I am trying to not try to force it to be something that it isn't. It's a game for about 25 models per side. It's not really designed for points sizes other than multiples of 800. Like Warhammer or some others but unlike SWD6 or D20 it's designed to always take at least one "hero" unit, whether that ultimately means one proper noun from the rolling credits of a movie, we'll see. It requires 3 squads of grunts per army. That's all I need to think about for now, being as that the game is so young and has so few products.

Guess I'll paint my whole core box and then worry about it. I've got a lot of decisions to make as a painter for that. Which is a whole other ball of wax. Will we get generic commanders? I'm trying not to get too wrapped up in that as long as I get commanders I want to paint and play. Still waiting for a rebel commander model I actually want. Veers is generic enough for me. As a bigger philosophical project about human happiness, I'm trying to focus on what I (or in this case, the game) already has, not on what I (or the game) want but don't have. Though I will say for Warmahordes, lack of generic commanders was eventually a deal breaker, donated my painted army to a club for a loaner. Because I just couldn't get psyched about any of the special character models.