It seems to me that activation count wins games. To that end competitive lists have been leaning towards trooper spam and containing around 9 activations. I think that the introduction of snipers at this time has really hurt list variety. Snipers are good against troopers, most competitive lists are trooper spam, and snipers are a cheap activation so most players are taking multiple sniper squads. Snipers have huge range so they can sit really far back and often the only thing that can counter them is snipers of your own. So at the moment it seems to me that all competitive lists one of two variations:

1 commander

6 corps

2 snipers

2 special

or

2 commanders / 1 commander + 1 operative

6 corps

3 snipers

for a stunning 11 activations in both cases

I am wondering if there is another approach to list building that will work well against these types of lists?

I also believe that imperials are much better off in the current meta. The only thing rebels have to deal with bikes before they get into a flanking position and ruin your day are snipers, but if the opponent has snipers you have to choose between dealing with bikes or snipers and leaving the other unchecked.

Furthermore storm troopers are better than rebel troopers. Yes, on paper in a straight up firefight rebel troopers and storm troopers are roughly equivalent on a point by point basis but legion is an objective game that requires pushing for and holding objectives. For rebel troopers to be survivable they need to take the dodge token, which costs an action. This means they are then picking between moving or shooting. Storms on the other hand get their red defense without requiring an action so they can move and shoot on their turn. "But storms need to aim to get a reasonable amount of hits" I hear you say, well you only need 1 hit to suppress a rebel squad and then they don't even get two actions on its turn: now rebels have to choose between moving for an objective, trying to kill off some storms so less rebels get suppressed or killed next turn, or dodging just to try and stay alive. Things get worse when you look at heavy weapon options. The z6 is a great upgrade but it is range 3. The DLT produces more hits on average, costs about the same number of points, and is range 4 so now rebels are getting suppressed before they can even return fire (it even has impact giving it utility against other unit types).

I don't like trooper spam either and I wish we had more vehicle releases because Star Wars has the best vehicles. Bikes are obsolete to me because they cannot survive Leia's Obrital plus 2-3 sniper teams. But I also think we'll see some weird list win at Michigan GT. Weird lists can win especially with a good player at the helm. Even bad lists have done well because of a good player. Rebels are winning more in the current meta on invader league.

I would agree on troop only lists being the current meta. Of the top 24 in TTS league only 4 had any armor in them so 5/6 of the top squads didn’t have any armor whatsoever. I’m not sure what a good ratio is to have though. Is it 1/2 with 1/2 without I don’t know? 1/3 and 2/3 it depends on what you want really and your preference. I was in a tourney this past weekend. I ran Imps, only used trooper units and took 2nd 3-0 so it’s definitely a strong move in the current status of the game to take only troops.

I was wondering the same exact thing today. I also play Armada, and it's amazing to see the kind of variety of lists that can rise to the top in that game. I hope the meta for Legion will become more varied soon as people experiment with different kinds of lists and find them to be workable.

I had a 11 act rebel with a atrt in it. Also seen a dual speeder 11 act list today as well. I might even try to fly it. Im seeing alot of 9 activation lost and they are holding up well to list with 10 or 11 activations. Local meta here still see a fair use of the atrt and the atst is just about unplayed unless you my kid.

The game’s objective set heavily favors troops. Untill that changes I don’t think we will see much of a change in list building.

6 hours ago, Qark said:

It seems to me that activation count wins games. To that end competitive lists have been leaning towards trooper spam and containing around 9 activations. I think that the introduction of snipers at this time has really hurt list variety. Snipers are good against troopers, most competitive lists are trooper spam, and snipers are a cheap activation so most players are taking multiple sniper squads. Snipers have huge range so they can sit really far back and often the only thing that can counter them is snipers of your own. So at the moment it seems to me that all competitive lists one of two variations:

1 commander

6 corps

2 snipers

2 special

or

2 commanders / 1 commander + 1 operative

6 corps

3 snipers

for a stunning 11 activations in both cases

I am wondering if there is another approach to list building that will work well against these types of lists?

I also believe that imperials are much better off in the current meta. The only thing rebels have to deal with bikes before they get into a flanking position and ruin your day are snipers, but if the opponent has snipers you have to choose between dealing with bikes or snipers and leaving the other unchecked.

Furthermore storm troopers are better than rebel troopers. Yes, on paper in a straight up firefight rebel troopers and storm troopers are roughly equivalent on a point by point basis but legion is an objective game that requires pushing for and holding objectives. For rebel troopers to be survivable they need to take the dodge token, which costs an action. This means they are then picking between moving or shooting. Storms on the other hand get their red defense without requiring an action so they can move and shoot on their turn. "But storms need to aim to get a reasonable amount of hits" I hear you say, well you only need 1 hit to suppress a rebel squad and then they don't even get two actions on its turn: now rebels have to choose between moving for an objective, trying to kill off some storms so less rebels get suppressed or killed next turn, or dodging just to try and stay alive. Things get worse when you look at heavy weapon options. The z6 is a great upgrade but it is range 3. The DLT produces more hits on average, costs about the same number of points, and is range 4 so now rebels are getting suppressed before they can even return fire (it even has impact giving it utility against other unit types).

I’m toying with a heavy cavalry list:

Leia w/Esteemed Leader, Improvised Orders, Environment Gear (108 points)

2x T-47 w/Ground Buzzer, Comms Jammer (Wedge Antilles on one) (215/210 points)

1x AT-RT w/AT-RT laser cannon (90 points)

1x Rebel Commando Strike Team (Sniper) w/Duck and Cover (52 points)

3x Rebel Troopers (120 points)

total: 795, 8 activations.

Order of attack is Leia bombarding any enemy strike teams followed by sniping on the same. AT-RT gets out ahead of troopers and troopers are just there to soak hits through Guardian, focusing on a single objective. T-47s fly in formation focusing the same target. If there’s an AT-ST that’s priority for them and the AT-RT until it’s dead.

Provided sufficient terrain cover is available, the 47s fly sorties from behind that to avoid return fire, only pressing in during the last 2 rounds after opposing trooper units have been sufficiently weakened.

I think people are overly negative about trooper spam, competitively speaking its not going to change unless we get a set of objectives that don't favour infantry so much. I do feel like FFG missed an opportunity with the first batch of bonus objectives which really didn't add anything new to the objective set, hopefully they'll do better with the next.

It's specifically advertised as an infantry game so it's not that surprising that infantry is the most important thing in the game. It's not "trooper spam" it's the game being exactly what it was advertised as.

That being said there is always a choice in list building. It strikes me as a bad thing that people are so scared to lose by taking "worse" units. If you want to win a zero sum game that bad, go get real good at the stock market and win in real life instead. That's the way I see it.

15 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

It strikes me as a bad thing that people are so scared to lose by taking "worse" units.

That's a good point. But I do hope that list-building options will mature and diversify, and we'll be able to take support and heavy units without guaranteeing a loss against a list with only troops (while keeping the game in its proper life context!)

I’m going out to my first game that wasn’t just friends at someone’s house next week with something pretty mixed in capability.

Hopefully I can still do some good despite taking an ATST and only 4x corps (the sum total of the ones I own).

Looking at 8 activations total with it.

56 minutes ago, Dauerv said:

That's a good point. But I do hope that list-building options will mature and diversify, and we'll be able to take support and heavy units without guaranteeing a loss against a list with only troops (while keeping the game in its proper life context!)

As others have said, if that happens, it will probably be through mission and condition decks not minis. Of course what's been left unsaid in that discussion, is my position, which is that points bidding won't work anymore for that to really take effect. I think you'd need to just have everyone shoot for as close to 800 as they can get and have a coin toss for blue player.

1 hour ago, Dauerv said:

That's a good point. But I do hope that list-building options will mature and diversify, and we'll be able to take support and heavy units without guaranteeing a loss against a list with only troops (while keeping the game in its proper life context!)

Well, the new Support units are also troops, so it allows for taking supports AND having lots of troops. At some point in the future, FFG may even release a heavy option that is a trooper.

For me, list diversity means that I can play with whatever I want to play with as allowed by the game design and remain capable of engaging with the game. Sure, I'll try to win, but victory matters less than the simple aspect of playing.

Simply put, I want to know that I made my opponent actually have to work for his victory. Its not that I necessarily need to have a chance at winning. I do, however, want to see my opponent have to work for his objectives, and face a challenge trying to survive. Some of that, I'm sure, is the result of playing GM for roleplaying groups for a long time- as a GM, you want your players to succeed and live, but you also want them to face enough challenges, maybe even lose characters from their party periodically, rather than just scripting out new scenarios to show how amazing their heroes are.

Then again, when I started my hobby of wargaming, I cut my teeth on SPI's War of the Ring, and I loved playing the three player variant, aligning myself as the comparatively VERY disadvantaged Isengard. (For those who never played SPI's game, in the three player variant, the players are Isengard, Mordor and the Free Peoples, and Isengard holds the weakest position tactically and has far fewer armies after the people of Rohan and Gondor mobilize...)

Maybe I just really like uphill battles?

In any case, we definitely still have choices- if you can use 3 corps, a commander, support and an AT-ST, and you can play a fun game, win or lose, that list is perfectly viable. And, for all you know, as you play a less advantageous list more often, you might start to find ways it can be far nastier to your opponents than you expected, and turn what was just a fun thematic list into a competitive one through no more than repetition and insight.

34 minutes ago, MarekMandalore said:

In any case, we definitely still have choices- if you can use 3 corps, a commander, support and an AT-ST, and you can play a fun game, win or lose, that list is perfectly viable. And, for all you know, as you play a less advantageous list more often, you might start to find ways it can be far nastier to your opponents than you expected, and turn what was just a fun thematic list into a competitive one through no more than repetition and insight.

I just tried Veers, 5 snowtrooper squads, an AT-ST, and speeder bikes, against a rebel infantry army that had Han, Leia, and snipers. I lost but it was close. If I played even slightly more often I'd have won. I made some weird erroneous rules assumptions and stuff.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Well, the new Support units are also troops, so it allows for taking supports AND having lots of troops. At some point in the future, FFG may even release a heavy option that is a trooper.

After reading this I'm wondering what would classify as a "Heavy Trooper" unit.

Maybe this?

This is so interesting to read as locally Luke is the monster on the table that no one wants to see. We don't really feel like there's a good imp answer to Luke and so you have to split your game between mitigating his effectiveness and going for objectives. I agree that troopers and bikes favor the imperials but is the dreaded whiny teen not making an appearance?

Activations seem to be key regardless and that's not super surprising as it holds true across a bunch of game systems. I'll agree too that slapping dual snipers in just about every lists is almost required - that's two activations and decent ones too that seem to do work regardless of the setup.

It's in that scenario that I can't seem to justify a AT-ST - at 200+ points, I can take 2 bikes or 3 separate trooper units, both of whom do more work and grant more activation control on the field than the AT-ST can in it's single activation.

Can anyone justify the high-point cost units in their games?

12 minutes ago, Simonsays3 said:

Can anyone justify the high-point cost units in their games?

Because it’s fun?

And the suppression control is nice with the mortar?

Or maybe just because my opponents are bringing t47s and thus we both need something to crack the tough nut on the other side?

6 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

If you want to win a zero sum game that bad, go get real good at the stock market and win in real life instead. That's the way I see it.

4 hours ago, MarekMandalore said:

Its not that I necessarily need to have a chance at winning.

This is a competitive game. Sometimes I play casually and stick whatever I like on the table and have a good time. Sometimes I play in a tournament and try to win. Both are fun and both are valid ways to enjoy the game. For the competitive side of things I think a set meta hurts the overall enjoyment. Variety gives new things to think about and new challenges from game to game but that isn't going to occur when people are trying to win and so they take the most competitive thing they can and that ends up being roughly the same as what everyone else has.

I started this tread specifically because I haven't been enjoying competitive play lately and I think that is a sad thing because I like the general mechanics and love the setting and style of the game.

17 hours ago, TylerTT said:

The game’s objective set heavily favors troops. Untill that changes I don’t think we will see much of a change in list building. 

12 hours ago, beefcake4000 said:

competitively speaking its not going to change unless we get a set of objectives that don't favour infantry so much

I think this is true and a new objective set will bring substantially more diversity than releasing new units. A pass mechanic could also make a big difference I think.

9 minutes ago, Qark said:

This is a competitive game. Sometimes I play casually and stick whatever I like on the table and have a good time. Sometimes I play in a tournament and try to win. Both are fun and both are valid ways to enjoy the game. For the competitive side of things I think a set meta hurts the overall enjoyment. Variety gives new things to think about and new challenges from game to game but that isn't going to occur when people are trying to win and so they take the most competitive thing they can and that ends up being roughly the same as what everyone else has.

I started this tread specifically because I haven't been enjoying competitive play lately and I think that is a sad thing because I like the general mechanics and love the setting and style of the game.

I think this is true and a new objective set will bring substantially more diversity than releasing new units. A pass mechanic could also make a big difference I think.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "pass mechanic?" Just want to make sure I fully understand what you mean before commenting.

As to the meta, I'd imagine that the upcoming introduction of additional factions has the greatest potential of shaking things up more than single unit releases.

37 minutes ago, Qark said:

A pass mechanic could also make a big difference I think.

Now that's a very interesting idea.

3 hours ago, Simonsays3 said:

It's in that scenario that I can't seem to justify a AT-ST - at 200+ points, I can take 2 bikes or 3 separate trooper units, both of whom do more work and grant more activation control on the field than the AT-ST can in it's single activation.

Can anyone justify the high-point cost units in their games?

I used the AT-ST as a portable wall to mess with enemy troops units. I found a terrain bottleneck near an objective and used the AT-ST for the cork. It was very good like that. You can't really quantify everything in hobby wargames with the damage and points and stuff.

27 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "pass mechanic?"

16 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Now that's a very interesting idea.

Something along the lines of "if you have no face up order tokens and your opponent has more tokens in their random stack then you instead of drawing a token from your stack and activating a unit you may instead pass your turn" or "if the total number of your faceup order tokens and order tokens in your random stack is smaller than the total of your opponents total number of faceup order tokens and order tokens in their random stack instead of activating a unit you may pass your turn."

I think it needs to be worded in such a way that whoever would be going last still gets to go last. I just think more list variety would occur is lists with smaller numbers of activations weren't forced to move up into an army that still has 2-4 more activations to go allowing them to focus down your units unopposed.

5 minutes ago, Qark said:

Something along the lines of "if you have no face up order tokens and your opponent has more tokens in their random stack then you instead of drawing a token from your stack and activating a unit you may instead pass your turn" or "if the total number of your faceup order tokens and order tokens in your random stack is larger than the total of your opponents total number of faceup order tokens and order tokens in their random stack instead of activating a unit you may pass your turn."

I think it needs to be worded in such a way that whoever would be going last still gets to go last. I just think more list variety would occur is lists with smaller numbers of activations weren't forced to move up into an army that still has 2-4 more activations to go allowing them to focus down your units unopposed.

That's about what I thought you'd mean. Personally I wish games would move away from the "I go, you go" thing, and get back into simultaneous actions. Units should be able to shoot each other dead. But that's a whole other subject.

7 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Personally I wish games would move away from the "I go, you go" thing

I agree but I am much happier with legion than warhammer where an entire army moves and shoots, then the other etc. (disclaimer been ages since I have played warhammer so I don't know if things have changed).