For the most part, I love the Legion rules as streamlined, yet strategically interesting.

However, the one part of the rulebook that most often has me feeling like there was a missed opportunity is Height and Vertical movement. In my opinion, there should be an advantage to taking high ground, given that objective play provides a strong disadvantage to spending time getting into and out of an elevated position (unless you put a supply token there for RtS objective). As a result, there is a disadvantage to creating and using tall terrain with climbing surfaces.

Climb/Clamber - this was an opportunity to make grappling hooks useful, to make climbing vehicles more useful, and to make action economy more intriguing. I do love the risk element of climb (more actions, but safe) versus clamber (risk of death), but the rules that require unit leader base contact AND THEN finishing the climb/clamber at the edge of the higher position means you're burning four actions to safely get from a position on the ground to a position you want at the higher height (one move to get into base contact, two moves to climb up to height 1, and one move to move away from the edge). While many people get around this by using stairs/ladders/elevators to grant free vertical movement, I think that goes too far the other direction and makes climbing a useless rule. Stairs/ladders/elevators also seem lightly supported by firm rules--I'm for granting flexibility to players, but there is a lot of room for fudging considering that the rules go out of their way to detail how restrictive the actual climb/clamber rules that must be adhered to are.

Proposed solution: I think ladders/stairs/elevators should be handled as regular move actions similar to the RAW climbing procedure--if your unit leader is in base contact with them at the beginning of the move, he can move to the other end of that conveyance with a single move action (or two moves if higher than height 1)--and end that action at the upper end of that conveyance. If you're climbing/clambering, you should be able to start your move on the ground not adjacent to the building, and move up to the building and then climb/clamber to the edge (or vice versa and start in contact with the building and move according to your template at the top). If you have grappling hooks, you should be able to treat anything under Height 2 as reducing your speed by 1 (the reduced speed simulating the time to use the hooks, and not considered 'difficult terrain' to avoid stacking with environmental gear).

Attacking with height advantage - This is another one that many people find counterintuitive. There is no inherent advantage to attacking from above. There are the ancillary advantages of having a slightly better chance of ignoring cover based on your LoS, and avoiding melee on the ground (though Luke can Jump and Vader saber-throws). In exchange you have to spend multiple actions to get up (away from most objectives), and heaven forbid you need to get them back down again.

Proposed solution: I don't necessarily think there should be an attack bonus, but perhaps automatic light cover up to Height 1 and maybe even heavy cover beyond Height 1 granted to the attackers.

Summary: I think the game should encourage 3D play as much as possible. Height-varied combat makes for a more interesting game and a more visually appealing and dynamic board. I don't think these changes would negatively impact game balance because the game rightly remains objective-based. Making the climb/clamber rules less onerous provides a new strategic option that players must balance as a part of action and turn economy.

6 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

I don't necessarily think there should be an attack bonus, but perhaps automatic light cover up to Height 1 and maybe even heavy cover beyond Height 1 granted to the attackers.

If you're using the revised Cover rules, found in the pinned thread at the top of this forum, this exists.

So long as you are above the head of someone trying to shoot up at you, your unit's bases will be obscured by the terrain you're standing on, thus you'll be granted the cover that piece of terrain was decided to give.

18 hours ago, Turan said:

If you're using the revised Cover rules, found in the pinned thread at the top of this forum, this exists.

So long as you are above the head of someone trying to shoot up at you, your unit's bases will be obscured by the terrain you're standing on, thus you'll be granted the cover that piece of terrain was decided to give.

Was this ever confirmed by FFG, or just the conclusion people came to by doing the actual geometry?

2 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Was this ever confirmed by FFG, or just the conclusion people came to by doing the actual geometry?

I haven’t seen any confirmation, so I think it’s the latter. When the bottom of the defender’s base is above the tallest point of the attacker, then there are parts of the mini that are occluded that otherwise would not have been.

Would be good to have confirmation either way. Sometimes convincing someone via geometry is not so easy. I’ve had countless discussions about geometry in Infinity...

17 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

I haven’t seen any confirmation, so I think it’s the latter. When the bottom of the defender’s base is above the tallest point of the attacker, then there are parts of the mini that are occluded that otherwise would not have been.

Would be good to have confirmation either way. Sometimes convincing someone via geometry is not so easy. I’ve had countless discussions about geometry in Infinity...

This.

It explicitly says the fact that part of your base is hidden counts for cover.

If you are on a flat, elevated position higher than the head of the attacker, it is geometrically impossible for the attacker to have LOS to all of your base without drawing line of sight through whatever it is you're standing on. Hence, cover.

12 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

This.

It explicitly says the fact that part of your base is hidden counts for cover.

If you are on a flat, elevated position higher than the head of the attacker, it is geometrically impossible for the attacker to have LOS to all of your base without drawing line of sight through whatever it is you're standing on. Hence, cover.

Yes, this is something they would need to clarify only if FFG didn't want it to be played this way. RAW, height gives cover.

2 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Was this ever confirmed by FFG, or just the conclusion people came to by doing the actual geometry?

I'm not sure why it needs further confirmation by FFG...if the two models are looking at each other on a flat surface, I can see all of the opposing base except what's occluded by the opposing model itself. If I'm looking up at it on a piece of terrain, I can not see those parts of the base because of the terrain. Why does FFG need to chime in?

On 7/3/2018 at 9:05 AM, Turan said:

I'm not sure why it needs further confirmation by FFG...if the two models are looking at each other on a flat surface, I can see all of the opposing base except what's occluded by the opposing model itself. If I'm looking up at it on a piece of terrain, I can not see those parts of the base because of the terrain. Why does FFG need to chime in?

I went over it in another topic. The technical aspect of a mini only a few inches higher than the attacking mini getting auto cover may not be apparent to many players. Whether the rule application seems ovious to people or not, these are the types of things that generally get a clarification in the rules.

Also, the rules could just flat out say if the defending mini is above the attacking mini, it gains cover. But they don't.

Rules are made to be broken. In a recent game, we had a large level one height landing pad in the centre as an objective. I disallowed any firing at unit that was standing in the middle area of the pad from any unit on the floor due to the angle of deflection. However, there was a small hill close by which allowed units to fire at another unit in the centre of the pad. Also, the pad has stairs, so I allowed free movement up and down them, but any other way of getting up there required clambering (which got Vader a wound incidentally). Feel free to shift rules around to suit your house style.

Going bak to the other half of the OP's assertion, vertical movement is too expensive given the action economy, I tend to agree.

IMO It should be less efficient, but more like 2x not 4x, and clambering should be a risk reward way of making it just as efficient as normal movement.

My proposal would be:

• If you change elevation more than 1/2 your model height, then reduce your speed by 1.
• If your speed is already 1, then stop moving right after you change elevation.
• If you 'clamber' (down only) you can move your full distance but run the risk of damage.
• Ladders and stairs and grappling hooks let you move your full distance.

Yes it's not quite geometrically accurate, but given that the benefit of elevation is small, it seems like a good and simple degree of abstraction to encourage dimensional battle fields.

Keep in mind, with battle card building you can choose missions that allow you place objectives on the map. You can take climbers (ATRT) or gear (grappling hooks) along with these missions and if these missions are picked you can place objective token(s) on tall terrain (buildings, giving you some advantage. Seems like good play.

Smart play