@WillKill

Quote

Question: How much terrain should be on a battlefield when playing Star Wars: Legion?

Answer: While players can use however much or however little terrain they would like when playing Star Wars: Legion, the Rules Reference suggests that players fill at least a quarter of the battlefield with pieces of terrain, as densely packed as possible, and then spread that terrain out over the entire battlefield. It is recommended that players follow this suggestion for the best Star Wars: Legion experience. In addition, including a variety of terrain types adds interesting tactical decisions to a game. A mix of terrain that includes several pieces of height, 1 or 2 line of sight blocking terrain, a few pieces of area terrain that provide light cover, one or two pieces of difficult terrain, and 8 to 12 barricades is a great starting point that players can add to with their own custom made terrain or other favorite terrain types.

I believe the comma between "height" and "1 or 2 line of sight" is a typo as it does not make sense as written.

I interpreted it to read "include several pieces of height 1 or 2 line of sight blocking terrain,". You think there should only be 1-2 LoS blocking pieces of terrain on a table?

Now I am even more curious as to what you think a table looks like that is "conducive to a competitive Legion experience".

48 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

@WillKill

Now I am even more curious as to what you think a table looks like that is "conducive to a competitive Legion experience".

You don't even have a barricade on the table.

7 minutes ago, WillKill said:

You don't even have a barricade on the table.

Sooo....every Legion table has to have a barricade to be "conducive to a competitive Legion experience"?

Is that why people think Key Positions is "broken"? They only play with barricades and then choose two barricades as the objectives? is that what you're telling me?

?

18 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Is that why people think Key Positions is "broken"? They only play with barricades and then choose two barricades as the objectives? is that what you're telling me?

?

Yes. Boards are not supposed to be only area terrain and LOS blocking cover. There are supposed to be scatter terrain of which blue player will obviously use for KP. Your board only has large objects so it ends up playing more empty than it should with entire squads having to hide around corners since there are 0 barricade objects.

1 hour ago, NeonWolf said:

@WillKill and @syrath

Since you both seem to think that this table is "lacking" would you care to share images of tables that you feel are not?

actually i may take what ive said back I tend to work with terrain where the base is set by the terrain feature itself but forgive me for not paying attention to the "fabric" underneath which is defining its area, essentially making it appear smaller to me at first.. i think slightly more variety may or may not be be necessary depending how it was defined,but probably not, so forgive me on that point.

1 hour ago, WillKill said:

Yes. Boards are not supposed to be only area terrain and LOS blocking cover. There are supposed to be scatter terrain of which blue player will obviously use for KP. Your board only has large objects so it ends up playing more empty than it should with entire squads having to hide around corners since there are 0 barricade objects.

Uh-huh...

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. "

Time to start a new thread....

@syrath

No worries, not everyone is used to using fabric to define area terrain so I get it.

As I said, the areas with trees were defined as "swamps" so they were light cover, height of the tallest tree on the area, and difficult terrain for troopers and ground vehicles. We play (as I expect most do) were the trees on the area terrain do not block LoS and are movable, they are just there to show what the area is and define the height of the area.

The River was shallow water, as defined in the RRG.

All of the other terrain pieces were LoS blocking and provided hard cover.

So, there was difficult terrain, LoS blocking terrain (technically over height 2), heavy cover, and light cover.

32 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

@syrath

No worries, not everyone is used to using fabric to define area terrain so I get it.

As I said, the areas with trees were defined as "swamps" so they were light cover, height of the tallest tree on the area, and difficult terrain for troopers and ground vehicles. We play (as I expect most do) were the trees on the area terrain do not block LoS and are movable, they are just there to show what the area is and define the height of the area.

The River was shallow water, as defined in the RRG.

All of the other terrain pieces were LoS blocking and provided hard cover.

So, there was difficult terrain, LoS blocking terrain (technically over height 2), heavy cover, and light cover.

Id still say though you should stil have won easily unless your opponent was significantly better than you , or has been mentioned if you misplaced an objective. Ive seen blue lose once on key positions where a played a much more casual game against a friend but this was because he positioned his objective pretty close to my deployment zone. Im 7 for 9 against him, and to be honest he is still learning basic tactics , being new to war games and having played 9 times in total, so most of what he knows he learned from me in the first place. I try and coach him when I see obvious mistakes like that, but he is thw type who feels its better to learn from the mistakes than correct them first. The game wasnt worth playing it was that easy. (in case you cant figure it out he essentially took the blue advantage of being able to place 2 objectives and placed one in a position advantageous to me, essentially giving me early contol over 2 of the three objectives, this is enough to win)

The solution to playing KP is to take 6 or 7 objects for terrain and make sure a portion of them is sticking in the deployment zone so they cannot be used. Then put nothing else on the table. Problem solved.

22 minutes ago, WillKill said:

The solution to playing KP is to take 6 or 7 objects for terrain and make sure a portion of them is sticking in the deployment zone so they cannot be used. Then put nothing else on the table. Problem solved.

So you're solution is to invalidate the objective by terrain placement?

Man, I'd really love to see the table you play on now.

On 11/12/2018 at 11:44 AM, NeonWolf said:

@WillKill and @syrath

Since you both seem to think that this table is "lacking" would you care to share images of tables that you feel are not?

Here's my collection as of a couple weeks ago. It's grown slightly. I have just over two tables worth of terrain (note it is arranged on a 3x3 x-wing Fantasy Flight Bespin Mat

Here's from a couple games I played recently, sorry I don't have the whole board shown in the picture but you can draw comclusions from the density.

On 11/12/2018 at 12:12 PM, NeonWolf said:

@WillKill

I believe the comma between "height" and "1 or 2 line of sight" is a typo as it does not make sense as written.

It makes perfect sense with the final clause of the statement: "is a great starting point"

21 hours ago, WillKill said:

The solution to playing KP is to take 6 or 7 objects for terrain and make sure a portion of them is sticking in the deployment zone so they cannot be used. Then put nothing else on the table. Problem solved.

Terrain is set before bids are announced, before blue player is selected, before table side is declared and before battle cards come out.

Also, I can use up to 85 pieces of terrain to make a 25% coverage board (including scatter), your idea is not a solution.

4 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

It makes perfect sense with the final clause of the statement: "is a great starting point"

‘A mix of terrain that includes several pieces of height is a great starting point’ is an incomplete thought. And if that whole section after the first comma was an aside then it’s missing the closing comma which should be placed before ‘is’.

Also, that’s plainly an Oxford comma list where the first comma (which follows the first item in the list) is misplaced.

I’d also suggest they changed style between measurements (height 1 or 2) and number (one or two pieces) and then, in compliance with Strunk and White, back to using numbers when they reference a number larger than 10), which is usually the easier way to refer to a large number.

On 10/26/2018 at 11:52 PM, SirCormac said:

So it is becoming clear to me that "Key Positions" is causing players to go down the rabbit hole of bigger and bigger bids, just so they can win this objective, which to me seems like a not entirely healthy thing.

I agree, the Big Bid + Key Positions can kill a lot of the fun.

But it's pretty par the course for FFG. In both X-Wing and Armada, bidding-big has always been a thing for the lists/sqauds that wanted the advantage for controlling initiative. In Armada, it's pretty common to encounter lists only spending ~380/400 points in order to control objectives. In X-Wing 1.0, there was a time when spending 84/100 pts with TIE Phantoms was in fashion, and to have a confident bid for initiative at any point in the game's history you couldn't spend more than 95 points. In 2.0 X-Wing, there are already Imperial lists doing well that are making huge bids, spending only like 187/200 points.

9 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I agree, the Big Bid + Key Positions can kill a lot of the fun.

But it's pretty par the course for FFG. In both X-Wing and Armada, bidding-big has always been a thing for the lists/sqauds that wanted the advantage for controlling initiative. In Armada, it's pretty common to encounter lists only spending ~380/400 points in order to control objectives. In X-Wing 1.0, there was a time when spending 84/100 pts with TIE Phantoms was in fashion, and to have a confident bid for initiative at any point in the game's history you couldn't spend more than 95 points. In 2.0 X-Wing, there are already Imperial lists doing well that are making huge bids, spending only like 187/200 points.

I have no problem with bidding to control objectives, it's the problematic nature of KP that has me worried. If KP was reigned in some, that the fight for blue would be more interesting (as in, you don't NEED to do it, but it might be a good idea). Right now, you pretty much have to fight for that bid. I'm in a casual league and the last two games I won the bid (the other players aren't really thinking of it in those terms yet) and in both games KP fell in the third position. I intentionally did not go for it because I didn't want an NPE for newer players just getting into the game. It'd be nice if the objective was more balanced.

3 hours ago, SirCormac said:

I have no problem with bidding to control objectives, it's the problematic nature of KP that has me worried. If KP was reigned in some, that the fight for blue would be more interesting (as in, you don't NEED to do it, but it might be a good idea). Right now, you pretty much have to fight for that bid. I'm in a casual league and the last two games I won the bid (the other players aren't really thinking of it in those terms yet) and in both games KP fell in the third position. I intentionally did not go for it because I didn't want an NPE for newer players just getting into the game. It'd be nice if the objective was more balanced.

This is how I feel about it, in a casual game Id rather not even have it in the deck, but against casual friends id like to play against them as red player on it, done right it should be a loss for me then, a more serious game Id rather not see it at all.

After playing a few games on a couple of tables with @Zrob314's collection of scatter terrain above, and getting to be Red Player in a Key Positions game, I have a proposed solution that, I think, maintains the intent of the Key Positions objective card while resolving the issue of the Blue Player having an insurmountable advantage. It's mind-blowing, so sit down...ready?

Barricades and scatter terrain are not eligible pieces to be declared as objectives.

That's it, simple really. Take away the ability to make objects on the battlefield that have a minimal footprint be a "key position" and you drastically reduce the choices the Blue Player has when selecting their objectives that create an "unfair" scenario. Blue player still has an advantage, but most likely not one that the Red Player has no hope of overcoming.

I'm sure most, if not all, of you will disagree with me and tell me I'm wrong, but that's okay. I'm going to implement this at the store I T.O. at and see how it goes

1 hour ago, NeonWolf said:

After playing a few games on a couple of tables with @Zrob314 collections of scatter terrain above, and getting to be Red Player in a Key Positions game, I have a proposed solution that, I think, maintains the intent of the Key Positions objective card while resolving the issue of the Blue Player having an insurmountable advantage. It's mind-blowing, so sit down...ready?

Barricades and scatter terrain are not eligible pieces to be declares as objectives.

That's it, simple really. Take away the ability to make objects on the battlefield that have a minimal footprint be a "key position" and you drastically reduce the choices the Blue Player has when selecting their objectives that create an "unfair" scenario. Blue player still has an advantage, but most likely not one that the Red Player has no hope of overcoming.

I'm sure most, if not all, of you will disagree with me and tell me I'm wrong, but that's okay. I'm going to implement this at the store I T.O. at and see how it goes

I definitely enjoyed lunch with you, too bad we didn't get paired.

As I said on Sunday, I think there are better solutions, but I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

For one of your upcoming events I'd also suggest giving a try to using the bid loser's battle deck. I think that will seriously cut down on the big bids.

Also, one thing I forgot to mention ion the tactic I offered yesterday. My idea works best as a punishment for big bids. If someone is bidding 15-40+ points in the hope of getting the magical Key Positions unavoidable draw, then being able to throw your entire force down their throat might give them enough of a problem that they rethink that in the future?

Maybe?

1 minute ago, Zrob314 said:

I definitely enjoyed lunch with you, too bad we didn't get paired.

As I said on Sunday, I think there are better solutions, but I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

For one of your upcoming events I'd also suggest giving a try to using the bid loser's battle deck. I think that will seriously cut down on the big bids.

Also, one thing I forgot to mention ion the tactic I offered yesterday. My idea works best as a punishment for big bids. If someone is bidding 15-40+ points in the hope of getting the magical Key Positions unavoidable draw, then being able to throw your entire force down their throat might give them enough of a problem that they rethink that in the future?

Maybe?

Lunch was good, I agree. Nice to talk tactics with new people.

Your ideas merit testing. I think that your suggestion on Red Player terrain choice would require them to build an "assault" list, but it is definitely a tactic to try.

Some discussion on the drive home prompted my thread about proper Battle Card usage, and the fact that the Red Player can shuffle the Blue Players cards prior to drawing (per the Tournament Regs) might reduce the chances of actually seeing Key Positions in the array.

As for using the person with the lower bids battle deck, that won't necessarily work since the person with the lower bid has the choice of choosing Blue or Red player.

5 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

As for using the person with the lower bids battle deck, that won't necessarily work since the person with the lower bid has the choice of choosing Blue or Red player.

Fair, let me rephrase:

You use Red Player's deck.

Currently there is no disadvantage to being the blue player. You get to decide what side of the board you are on, you might get the magical golden ticket to a win and if you tie in both objectives and points you just won the game.

Just now, Zrob314 said:

Fair, let me rephrase:

You use Red Player's deck.

Currently there is no disadvantage to being the blue player. You get to decide what side of the board you are on, you might get the magical golden ticket to a win and if you tie in both objectives and points you just won the game.

I have to admit I was rather surprised that they didn't use the Red Player's deck, I'm also surprised they allow (limited) deckbuilding for the battle decks. I was expecting it to be like Runewars where they rotate the available cards each "season".

7 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

Currently there is no disadvantage to being the blue player.

I also find this weird. Even though I don't care about competition and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game, I do see it as lopsided game design on paper.

21 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I also find this weird. Even though I don't care about competition and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game, I do see it as lopsided game design on paper.

I don't really mind it, as long as the objectives are fair.

Having blue win on absolute ties is really okay for me as it encourages list diversity and also heavily encourages objective play.

One could argue deploying first is a disadvantage. Especially if the high bid puts you behind in activations. Your opponent can see how you place and deploy based on that.

A friend of mine learned this the hard way when he dropped a lot to try and take blue player from me. I had three placements after him which helped with Leia and snipers to get them in a solid spot using scout and late placement to line up the best shots.