With the announcement of generic commanders, there's been a pretty good discussion about the types of storytelling opportunities Legion provides. Each of us brings our own set of parameters and assumptions to storytelling within the Star Wars universe using the ruleset Legion provides. So I was curious... which of these best captures your ideal approach to the narrative component of Legion?

1) Each game represents a separate, specific conflict within the canon or Legends continuity. All of my games are consistent with the source material and with each other.

2) Similar to 1, I like my games to be consistent with the canon or Legends continuity. However, each game is independent and do not have to form a coherent story with each other.

3) Each game is a "what if" story, similar to the old Star Wars Tales. I'm not concerned about fitting into the broader continuity. Often tone can vary freely from serious to silly.

4) Storytelling? This is a war game! I'm just here to win.

5) Other (please specify).

Mix of 1 and 2, and I structure my collection and army fiction to support that. My Rebels are a mobile cell based on a ship who can pop up wherever I want them to, every model is unique and many are characters in their own right, outside of occasional "ally" units that don't fit the core theme their roster is fixed. My Imperials are almost entirely generic and interchangeable save for the Commander who is an ISB officer, and her personal guard(an Inferno Squad-style Navy Special Forces unit), which represents her being the one who travels around hunting Rebels or rooting out traitors and dissidents with her troops being appropriated from local or ISD-based garrisons as needed. I try and avoid the "big name" screen conflicts, characters, and planets most of the time. Having both forces also allows me to avoid "mirror matches" most of the time, but both forces' background does allow for them on occasion if I fancy a change of pace gameplay wise.

I would be 3 and 4. I like to win but i do enjoy the stories that can arise from these types of games even if they are silly or miles away from canon. I never set out to keep it canon or anything. i just play the game and let the stories kind of come out of our play.

So, I personally think I fall into the (5) camp, for basically any wargame I play, including the historicals.

For me, unless there is some greater campaign, the primary storytelling elements in the game are in my army building. I like to research the force I am interested in and at least figure out a plausible, in universe explanation for taking the units that I find interesting, even if they aren't always the most effective (although sometimes I get lucky and there is an overlap). In rare cases I might even make up a one to two sentence story about the commander, or a specific converted model. This backstory is just for me, and is used to guide modelling decision, since I LOVE kitbashing miniatures.

So, for Legion I have come up the basic framework of a world that is the origin of both my Stormtrooper squads and my Rebel troopers. I am tackling my Rebels first, since I think they will be more interesting to paint and that's what army I'm playing with primarily (LOTS of interest in Empire at my FLGS, at most people only want to play Empire Vs Rebels ?) Since I am planning to colors from WW2 uniform schemes, and to have no humans (plenty of near humans with different colours of skin though) in the army (besides Luke, who I am not planning on fielding often). In my mind they are the non-human elements of one or more (I haven't decided yet if I am painting each squad up in a different uniform pallet, or semi-randomizing) planetary militia units, disbanded while many of the human members were absorbed into the Imperial Army. I'm tempted to get a second "Leia model" to headswap, but I think I'll just stick with a Pantoran who idolizes the Princess of Alderaan so emulates her hair style.

I'm all for 3. I live for the story and for me the movies and "canon" are a jumping off point, not a bible!

I an 3, plus or minus a bit (part of me could be in 2 or 4)

I'm a 1 mostly with a little bit of 2.

4

I always think I'd like 2 but ... 4.

Theres no story to tell here, just your imperial heroes protecting the peace from terrorists.

Move along, citizen.

22 hours ago, WAC47 said:

2) Similar to 1, I like my games to be consistent with the canon or Legends continuity. However, each game is independent and do not have to form a coherent story with each other.

2: Because I'm the only one I know committed enough for 1. Note that in my case, nothing released after 1998 is canon except Rogue One.

20 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So, I personally think I fall into the (5) camp, for basically any wargame I play, including the historicals.

For me, unless there is some greater campaign, the primary storytelling elements in the game are in my army building. I like to research the force I am interested in and at least figure out a plausible, in universe explanation for taking the units that I find interesting, even if they aren't always the most effective (although sometimes I get lucky and there is an overlap). In rare cases I might even make up a one to two sentence story about the commander, or a specific converted model. This backstory is just for me, and is used to guide modelling decision, since I LOVE kitbashing miniatures.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. There's no telling what type of opponent/ game I'll end up playing so I do the best I can with my army. If all goes well a story will naturally evolve from the confrontation. Sometimes it works well- I'm covered with Armada with my privateer squadron (nothing's named apart from the commander and Jaina's Light, of which there were several) as they could fight pretty much anyone.

Sometimes it doesn't work so well- I have a hard time explaining why my IJA company, based as accurately as possible on the 21st Division is fighting a German force.

#2 for me, unless I’m playing a lengthy campaign (which of course slips into #1 territory). I treat both my Rebel and Imperial forces rather like ‘actors’ who can stand in as whatever groups are necessary for the situation, rather than giving them a specific backstory of their own.

For instance, if I wanted to do a narrative campaign recreating the story of Kyle Katarn (which I very much do, particularly once those generic specialists come out and I’ve re-painted a few more appropriate WotC Legends figures!), I’d start out with Kyle represented by a stormtrooper model played as an Imperial Officer, accompanied by a few squads of stormtroopers working to take out the Rebel comm station on their hidden asteroid base. In future games, I’d switch to representing Kyle with a WotC Kyle Katarn miniature, proxied into the game as whatever then-available named character seems the best fit. The stormtrooper miniatures he first led now stand in for the opposing forces he encounters as a Rebel agent and fledgling Jedi.

(Note: these shennanigans work in my case since I’m in the perhaps unusual case of being 1. the only person among my regular gaming buddies who has yet invested in Legion, yet 2. being surrounded by enthusiastically willing opponents in the form of my wife, brother-in-law, and several of the aforesaid other gaming buddies)

3 for me.

This is a game about the fantasy of star wars battles to me.

I would live to recreate battles from the movies but that would be special scenarios and not point games.

3 trending 4. It's a game.

Most of my games so far have been on Tabletop Simulator, and have really just been experimental #4 games. Ideally, I would aim for 1 & 2. Although, in truth, #5 might suit me better.

5. I have next to no interest in the Expanded Universe, and I have never seen the prequels. My vision of the setting comes primarily from ANH and ESB, so, given the option, I would tend to play games which represent battles which happened 'off-screen' in those movies, between forces involving none of the major characters.