I mentioned this before and was shouted down by not a few. Nevertheless, it still bothers me. So...

Why do we have such a confusion of themes for models in this game? Stormtroopers, snowtroopers (recognizing they are extreme environment troopers or whatever you want to think of them as), e-web as snowtroopers. For Rebels we have rebel troopers, fleet troopers (ok, pretend they are "marines"), and cold weather FD.

This kind of model production, while consistent with movies where there were numerous fight scenes in various locations, is horrid for creating a theme. I know I can buy or modify models to change the FD or whatever, but why in the world is there no consistent theme? This may be based off movies, but if it is trying to compete with 40k/warmahordes/etc. for the attention of hobby gamers, this is a big turn off.

I guess it just hasn’t bothered me before. How would you go about having different stats for minis that look identical? That’d be even more confusing.

If you want a theme, you can just use one type of corps unit only. Nobody is making you mix snow and storm troopers.

Yeah, it just doesn't bother me at all. Rebels should look rag-tag and varied. Snowtroopers look great when painted up as elite troops and it's very easy to run all snows or all stormies and have a themed force. I just don't see the issue here.

As far as competing with other games, all it needs to be is Star Wars. It has a solid system and mainstream appeal. There's no turn-off for the majority of people.

I've never taken "theme" to mean "all your units look exactly the same." The theme of my army is "Rebels." I mean, look at the commandos and rangers on Scarif; you see headgear and uniforms that are later used on both Endor and Hoth, as well as other stuff. Also, people are getting REALLY hung up on the "snow" in snowtroopers. Like you said, it's easy to think of them as hostile environment troopers who could be used practically anywhere, and even if the board you have set up is some paradise world that's 70 degrees and sunny (but not too sunny) at all times, units get put into combat all the time with the equipment they happen to already have. People invaded Iraq wearing BDUs (essentially jungle/forest camo) and we had a shitload of tan vehicles in Korea. Anyway, if that's what "theme" means to you, then FFG didn't "fail." They deliberately decided that they didn't care. They did this because most of us (the players) don't care either, or don't see a problem. Your choices are to deal with it or to chop your models up and turn them into what you want, and I've seen some fantastic conversions (speeder bike scouts make pretty good E-web gunners if you don't like snowtroopers). I honestly can't see FFG catering to the extremely small (if loud) subsection of Legion players who care enough about having every single infantry model be exactly the same that they don't buy stuff.

2 hours ago, ryanabt said:

but if it is trying to compete with 40k/warmahordes/etc. for the attention of hobby gamers, this is a big turn off.

I'm not sure that opinion is representative of hobby gamers. Considering the emphasis on painting/color schemes that I've seen in Warmachine and Warhammer communities, I think most players of those games considering playing Legion will be happy to paint their army to a theme regardless of the different armor styles.

Why there isn't more in the movie? Ask George Lucas.

Why doesn't FGG simply create more variation? Ask Disney, they hold the licence and they get the last word in what is to be produced and what not.

It is not FFG IP so they simply CAN'T do as they please. Plus I don't think Legion is a competitor to 40k, AoS or any "older, established" system but a niche product for those how want more freedom then in , lets say, Imperial assault, but don't want to be beaten to death by variations and the inevitable metagaming.

Would be more concerned if we had 12 different rules for the same squad of rebels so they all look the same. Boring.

So far the only real minor gripe would be they could have sold alternative troops maning the guns turrets, outside that and snows along with storms looks fine.

I'm honestly not bothered. Paint them different if you want them to be different, paint them the same if you want them to be the same. If you want to be thematically correct then don't mix Stormtroopers with E-Webs and Snowtroopers. If its going to hurt me in game terms to worry about how different units are painted then I've mixed up my priorities. I play Legion for the game. Painting is secondary (even tertiary) to me. I'm not going to compromise my potential on the table because "Endor Rebel Troopers didn't have T-47s and 1.4 FDs".

When i think theme, i think of whatever setting you are using. My setting is a polluted factory shipyard world where the smoke and dust blocks out the sun. I paint all my troops dull and urban colors and that’s my theme

Im honestly a bit baffled by your post (OP).

If you want them to look themed, paint them in a similar theme?

10 hours ago, ryanabt said:

I mentioned this before and was shouted down by not a few. Nevertheless, it still bothers me. So...

Why do we have such a confusion of themes for models in this game? Stormtroopers, snowtroopers (recognizing they are extreme environment troopers or whatever you want to think of them as), e-web as snowtroopers. For Rebels we have rebel troopers, fleet troopers (ok, pretend they are "marines"), and cold weather FD.

This kind of model production, while consistent with movies where there were numerous fight scenes in various locations, is horrid for creating a theme. I know I can buy or modify models to change the FD or whatever, but why in the world is there no consistent theme? This may be based off movies, but if it is trying to compete with 40k/warmahordes/etc. for the attention of hobby gamers, this is a big turn off.

To echo some people here, my army theme is 'Empire' and they're the ground troops of Blood Squadron, my Armada fleet, and as such have red details and parts. That's my 'theme'. From a previous discussion, I understand your issue, but for the majority of people playing this game ( going here from my local scene and what I've seen on boards, forums, etc.) this is simply not a concern. Players are going to happily mix and match any and all troop types so as to utilize the best combos they can come up with.

Ive seen similar concerns about bases, and people going on about using clear bases because it breaks their 'immersion' to see a trooper based on grass on a snow board, or whatever. I base my whole army the same (grass flock with grassy tufts) and I don't worry in the slightest about this.

Just my two Imperial credits, for whatever it's worth! ?

Cant let the troop variants both you. I had fun with the armies ive painted so far. For rebels ive got a trooper squad fleers and cammandos all in matching uniforms. For imperial i pulled from various legends marerial to paint my army.

In my opinion, the "Theme" of the army should be something that you as a player are responsible for, not the company that manufactures the game (past a certain point anyway). Even if a person's theme is just "a winning list" that's still a theme. If you don't want "snowtroopers" in your Empire army, then don't paint them as snowtroopers, give them some kind of camouflage, or other alternative paint scheme. Don't want snow rebels on your FD? Paint them to be in forrest camo ponchos, and paint their skin a different colour than "human."

As far as FFG is concerned the "Theme" of Legion is to allow people to buy miniatures that are "Star Wars." As mentioned previously, all of their designs have to be approved by Disney prior to production. It is likely much easier and quicker to get approval for a recreation of what is seen in the films (ie snowtrooper e-web or hoth trooper FD), than to get approval for some new design. Sure, even the new EU has lots of examples of the E-web being used by stormtroopers in "standard" armour, but only snowtroopers deploy an e-web. It makes more sense from a marketing perspective then to model the weapon with the uniform that people only familiar with the movies might be able to recognize.

Coming from a historical wargaming background, where the difference between different units with different rules is often times nothing outside of what the player chooses to model, I've spent a few games asking which unit is which when no such distinction was utilized. For Legion, I'd rather have stormtroopers and snowtroopers than stormtroopers and stormtroopers with slightly different rules, but the exact same model. Especially since FFG has chosen to go with single pose models, with no optional modelling pieces in the box. Luckily for me, I have a bunch of WW2 equipment in 28mm I can include.

15 hours ago, ryanabt said:

I mentioned this before and was shouted down by not a few. Nevertheless, it still bothers me. So...

Why do we have such a confusion of themes for models in this game? Stormtroopers, snowtroopers (recognizing they are extreme environment troopers or whatever you want to think of them as), e-web as snowtroopers. For Rebels we have rebel troopers, fleet troopers (ok, pretend they are "marines"), and cold weather FD.

This kind of model production, while consistent with movies where there were numerous fight scenes in various locations, is horrid for creating a theme. I know I can buy or modify models to change the FD or whatever, but why in the world is there no consistent theme? This may be based off movies, but if it is trying to compete with 40k/warmahordes/etc. for the attention of hobby gamers, this is a big turn off.

I may be the only one, but I kinda agree. The presence of snow troopers in an army themed for Endor, Yavin, Tatooine, Scarif, or really, any of the non-snowed planets is just offsetting. It wouldn't be an issue except they include these models in expansions that can, and likely would be used everywhere else. IE the E-webs

I guess I will say it's not too big an issue for me though. I have 2 or 3 extra storm trooper squads unassembled. I'll just chop em up and refit my E-Webs to match.

I guess if you think about it, the inconsistency in theme for building armies had to happen unless part of the objective system determined location and planetary conditions. With players being able to bring mats and terrain for whichever environment suits them, you're gonna have inherent inconsistencies in the theme of each army.


For instance, I've built (and am still building) my terrain to be consistant with Crait from TLJ. All my squads are based on sanguine red with with a layer of white dry brushed Agrellan Earth atop. I have a crashed AT AT walker with deep red batches around it where the ground is disturbed. I'm currently working on getting a mat with the "cracked earth" effect in white to look like the salt flats... My army's theme isn't gonna match with a bunch of rebel troops based for Endor.

So inherently, the theme matters less the more customization you allow players...

Any other game I ever played, people understood that themed armies (all cavalry, or some other specific army theme) you knew a theme narrowed your choices.

I don’t think it’s a failure from FFG, I think you are just taking your own personnal expectations and applying them to everyone else.

I understand you expectations, and in sone way share them. I build my army with Endor in mind, so I don’t buy Snowtrooper and never bothered to paint Vader. But I don’t expect everybody else to do the same, to build a cohesive thematic army. And what if they do and they decide to build their army around a winter theme, is it better?

For me personally, seeing a Stormtrooper painted red or blue is even more theme breaker than seeing a mix of Storm and Snowtrooper painted in regular white. But not everybody wants to paint all their Storm white, and I respect that.

and speaking of theme, what if FFG decided to only produce units around Endor, what about thematic players that would like to build an army around the battle of Hoth? No option for them? I think going this route would have been much more a failure than doing both.

Like most said, building a thematic army should be on the player and not the company. The company goal should be to give as much options as possible to their players, not force them into a restrictive theme. That’s how you lose interest if every armies look the same.

9 hours ago, Jabby said:

When i think theme, i think of whatever setting you are using. My setting is a polluted factory shipyard world where the smoke and dust blocks out the sun. I paint all my troops dull and urban colors and that’s my theme

hey love to see you paint jobs I like seeing what other do with there theme i actually made tow them army's for both sides because i have not been able to decide what i want my table to look like.

I could see them having done it a little differently. If they had released each unit type with a sub set it could be cool. For instance, instead of having snow troopers and storm troopers, each recognized as corps unit it could have been organized as:

Corps:
A.) Standard
B.) Environmental light
C.) Environmental heavy

The standard would be storm troopers, the environmental light could be scouts, and heavy would be snow.

Here's the catch, each unit set has the same cost, but small variations in key words or stats. The idea being you build your army prepped for all 3 circumstances (or not) and field the unit type you decide best fits the terrain. So if you're in a forest maybe bring scouts because there's tons of cover and heavy armor only slows you down. Or if you're in deep snow or difficult terrain, bring your snow troops, same goes for cities or open fields, bring your strormies...

same cost, minor variances based on terrain. Or bring everything like some do now, up to you...


Of course the downside here is everything would need re-stated and it would cost 3x as much to complete an army. (but I'd love to see variants for each group we have so I could field based on thematic choices)

@Darth Sanguis I've seen similar systems used in other games, but people would still complain that the rules didn't "force" you to field Snowtroopers on snowy terrain boards. Additionally, this only really applies to the Empire/Republic. The Rebels don't really have an equivalent "environmental light" that is different from their "Standard," and the CIS Droid army don't really have any sort of "environmental" differences on their units. Trying to balance three different sets of special rules perfectly at the same points cost for the same number of models would be very difficult, and could be open to abuse in combinations that weren't tested fully.

Personally, I feel that in the GCW era Scout Troopers are more appropriate in the "Special Forces" slot than Corps regardless. Takes a LOT of training to be an effective scout while wearing white armour in a forest.

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I could see them having done it a little differently. If they had released each unit type with a sub set it could be cool. For instance, instead of having snow troopers and storm troopers, each recognized as corps unit it could have been organized as:

Corps:
A.) Standard
B.) Environmental light
C.) Environmental heavy

The standard would be storm troopers, the environmental light could be scouts, and heavy would be snow.

Here's the catch, each unit set has the same cost, but small variations in key words or stats. The idea being you build your army prepped for all 3 circumstances (or not) and field the unit type you decide best fits the terrain. So if you're in a forest maybe bring scouts because there's tons of cover and heavy armor only slows you down. Or if you're in deep snow or difficult terrain, bring your snow troops, same goes for cities or open fields, bring your strormies...

same cost, minor variances based on terrain. Or bring everything like some do now, up to you...


Of course the downside here is everything would need re-stated and it would cost 3x as much to complete an army. (but I'd love to see variants for each group we have so I could field based on thematic choices)

Whilst this looks like it would work on paper, it would undoubtedly be a logistical nightmare to produce for FFG.

As it is, if you want a Flamethrower unit in your army but are worried about messing up your theme, your options are either deal with it, or break out the paints and kitbashing tools.

Another, less used, option would be to write up a "backstory" for your army, e.g. I've included a unit of Fleet Troopers in my Endor force because they crash landed and couldn't clear the battlefield before the opposing force arrived. (For added thematic backstory, use one of your terrain pieces to explain their appearance e.g. a crashed escape pod.)

Unlike most other miniature war games, Legion is based on an established IP. What we are getting is what appears in the movies. That may not fit with the idea of a cohesive army look, but it is consistent with the source material. For example, it may make more sense for E-webs to be manned by stormtroopers, but we only see them manned by snowtroopers in the films.

I don't consider sticking to the source material a fail. In fact, I suspect that there would be a bigger uproar if the FFG varied from the films. I prefer having my army painted to match the films, but others are free to have there own paint theme if they prefer a more thematic look. In this way, I think FFG's decision to stick with the film look is the best way to cater to both camps.

Yeah this has always been an issue, be it in D6, D20, or IA:S. I never knew people to get so up in arms about it though. Manufacturers have finite resources, that's all there is to it. In D20 we saw no problem mixing fleet troopers and commandos, but Hoth was a sticky wicket.

Expecting to always match terrain to models is just... an unrealistic goal if you plan on playing with strangers or loose acquaintances at 3rd party locations. That's beyond reasonable to think you can match your bases to your models to store terrain to your opponent. If FFG cared one iota about that kind of atmospheric feeling, mirror match-ups would be illegal.

I've always wanted to be able to paint a big, interesting, Hoth army. Now that a game comes along where it's plausible, everyone is complaining that they, who already get the whole rest of the line for not-Hoth, don't get to steal my e-webs and stuff away from me. Sorry for not feeling sorry for you. I still have to make due with half-baked faux-hoth rebel repaints, I don't even have a corps unit, or a commander, that works for Hoth rebels yet.

The way 40k has been making everything look the same over the last decade has really turned me off of it. Every new kit is about how many chains, skulls, and scrolls they can tack on it. Every. Single. Faction. Nowadays. Is the same scroll-chain-skull encrusted look. In my imperial guard army I have a platoon each of jungle, desert, parade field, and snow uniforms. Doesn't matter to anyone. But that was with the older models, it would be really hard to do that today, they got rid of all the exotic uniforms. And lost my hobby dollars in the process.

Obviously most people don't care that much about theme or nearly all armies would be painted.

I don't think this is a failure. It's a natural result of the universe the game takes place in. The themes are established. Many gamers will come to play in an iconic universe they know and love. Others will be turned off that they can't sufficiently customize and play other games. Some will find ways to make their faceless legions of imperial stooges less faceless.

Legion is not a hobby first game. It's a theme first game with streamlined gameplay that allows some hobby avenues if you want it. You can like it or not, but it's a feature not a bug to FFG.

Personally I'm fine with it. I like that I get to paint if I want to, and well if I care to, but that's not that important. My hours playing to painting ratio is very high compared to other games. And I've gotten my daughter to engage in a tabletop game for the first time because she knows and loves the universe and doesn't need to use gloves to handle the minis or learn hundreds of rules. Others have different priorities and that's fine.

Thanks to all for the responses. I realize that I am in the majority on this forum; however, those saying that it doesn't bother most people here must realize that this is selection bias. There may be a decent number of people who have chosen not to participate in Legion because of the issue I have addressed. In fact, I am seriously considering selling my NIB models because as more waves have come out I have been more put off by this issue.

8 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Any other game I ever played, people understood that themed armies (all cavalry, or some other specific army theme) you knew a theme narrowed your choices.

That said, I realize that what many of you have said is true. This is a personal issue (albeit one for many more than just me). Some noted that I could limit myself and I certainly planned to do so. I didn't plan on purchasing snowtroopers; yet, the e-web issue blew that out of the water. All this to say, I am used to limiting myself, but with so few options this is, to me, too much to overcome and still enjoy game play.

13 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

Ive seen similar concerns about bases, and people going on about using clear bases because it breaks their 'immersion' to see a trooper based on grass on a snow board, or whatever. I base my whole army the same (grass flock with grassy tufts) and I don't worry in the slightest about this.

Just my two Imperial credits, for whatever it's worth! ?

4

Those discussing whether bases or theme fit with the terrain for my games, I hold that to be a different issue. One thing, army make up and painting, is up to me while the others are not. I can't control tournament or even LGS terrain and mats. I can control my own army, or at least I could if FFG would give me suitable options. I have actually been really surprised at the number of people turned off by bases not matching play mats. This just isn't an issue in other games, even ones more hobby oriented. Never have I heard WHF or 40k players have a beef about it.

8 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In my opinion, the "Theme" of the army should be something that you as a player are responsible for, not the company that manufactures the game (past a certain point anyway). Even if a person's theme is just "a winning list" that's still a theme. If you don't want "snowtroopers" in your Empire army, then don't paint them as snowtroopers, give them some kind of camouflage, or other alternative paint scheme. Don't want snow rebels on your FD? Paint them to be in forrest camo ponchos, and paint their skin a different colour than "human."

13

Thanks, I recognize that painting/modding can go a long way to fitting a theme; nevertheless, coming from a hobby perspective, I find it odd for the default to be unthematic and require anyone wanting themed fit to go out of their way and, often, spend extra money (storm trooper legs/arms for e-web, etc.)

8 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I may be the only one, but I kinda agree. The presence of snow troopers in an army themed for Endor, Yavin, Tatooine, Scarif, or really, any of the non-snowed planets is just offsetting. It wouldn't be an issue except they include these models in expansions that can, and likely would be used everywhere else. IE the E-webs

I guess I will say it's not too big an issue for me though. I have 2 or 3 extra storm trooper squads unassembled. I'll just chop em up and refit my E-Webs to match.

I guess if you think about it, the inconsistency in theme for building armies had to happen unless part of the objective system determined location and planetary conditions. With players being able to bring mats and terrain for whichever environment suits them, you're gonna have inherent inconsistencies in the theme of each army.

For instance, I've built (and am still building) my terrain to be consistant with Crait from TLJ. All my squads are based on sanguine red with with a layer of white dry brushed Agrellan Earth atop. I have a crashed AT AT walker with deep red batches around it where the ground is disturbed. I'm currently working on getting a mat with the "cracked earth" effect in white to look like the salt flats... My army's theme isn't gonna match with a bunch of rebel troops based for Endor.

So inherently, the theme matters less the more customization you allow players...

7

See above on the planetary conditions and terrain mats. Doesn't bother me. Having to have extra models to create theme? That does strike me as a poor choice, but only when I think of the game from a hobby perspective. That, I believe, is my issue. I believed it was meant to bring FFG into hobby gaming. It doesn't and, I now believe, wasn't meant to do so.

Your theme sounds awesome!

7 hours ago, Red Castle said:

I don’t think it’s a failure from FFG, I think you are just taking your own personnal expectations and applying them to everyone else.

I understand you expectations, and in sone way share them. I build my army with Endor in mind, so I don’t buy Snowtrooper and never bothered to paint Vader. But I don’t expect everybody else to do the same, to build a cohesive thematic army. And what if they do and they decide to build their army around a winter theme, is it better?

For me personally, seeing a Stormtrooper painted red or blue is even more theme breaker than seeing a mix of Storm and Snowtrooper painted in regular white. But not everybody wants to paint all their Storm white, and I respect that.

and speaking of theme, what if FFG decided to only produce units around Endor, what about thematic players that would like to build an army around the battle of Hoth? No option for them? I think going this route would have been much more a failure than doing both.

Like most said, building a thematic army should be on the player and not the company. The company goal should be to give as much options as possible to their players, not force them into a restrictive theme. That’s how you lose interest if every armies look the same.

5

Agree with you on most of this (especially blue/red stormtroopers, etc.). I do, however, think that it is more than just my expectations. I do think it is perhaps not a failure, but a lost opportunity. More than anything, this conversation has led me to believe that FFG does not see this as a hobbyist game. I should have known that from the start.

Only other disagreement I have with you is that having a mix of different themes isn't restrictive. It is, it declares no theme as the theme. I suggest that having Hoth as base set or Endor would not restrict. It would allow a default that has a theme, but people could mod or FFG could produce modification packs at some point in the future. As it is, the default is simply no coherence at all.

3 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Expecting to always match terrain to models is just... an unrealistic goal if you plan on playing with strangers or loose acquaintances at 3rd party locations. That's beyond reasonable to think you can match your bases to your models to store terrain to your opponent. If FFG cared one iota about that kind of atmospheric feeling, mirror match-ups would be illegal.

I've always wanted to be able to paint a big, interesting, Hoth army. Now that a game comes along where it's plausible, everyone is complaining that they, who already get the whole rest of the line for not-Hoth, don't get to steal my e-webs and stuff away from me. Sorry for not feeling sorry for you. I still have to make due with half-baked faux-hoth rebel repaints, I don't even have a corps unit, or a commander, that works for Hoth rebels yet.

The way 40k has been making everything look the same over the last decade has really turned me off of it. Every new kit is about how many chains, skulls, and scrolls they can tack on it. Every. Single. Faction. Nowadays. Is the same scroll-chain-skull encrusted look. In my imperial guard army I have a platoon each of jungle, desert, parade field, and snow uniforms. Doesn't matter to anyone. But that was with the older models, it would be really hard to do that today, they got rid of all the exotic uniforms. And lost my hobby dollars in the process.

Obviously most people don't care that much about theme or nearly all armies would be painted.

4

As I mentioned to others, I never expected terrain to match models. It certainly is an unrealistic goal. I don't want to take your Hoth army away, I simply want them to dedicate to it. Instead of having snowtroopers and, eventually, sandtroopers/beachtroopers/lavatroopers/etc., I want them to dedicate to Hoth/Endor/etc. as a default and then they can do a different theme for Legion 2.0.

2 hours ago, Brightguy said:

I don't think this is a failure. It's a natural result of the universe the game takes place in. The themes are established. Many gamers will come to play in an iconic universe they know and love. Others will be turned off that they can't sufficiently customize and play other games. Some will find ways to make their faceless legions of imperial stooges less faceless.

Legion is not a hobby first game. It's a theme first game with streamlined gameplay that allows some hobby avenues if you want it. You can like it or not, but it's a feature not a bug to FFG.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last statement. It is not a hobby game. I, for whatever wrongheaded reason, believed it would be otherwise.

11 hours ago, Fistofriles said:

hey love to see you paint jobs I like seeing what other do with there theme i actually made tow them army's for both sides because i have not been able to decide what i want my table to look like.

Ive got a painting thread but of the units done so far only one squad of rebel troopers is propeerly painted to theme, the rest are canon painted since i was just starting off. The units that i have painted to theme I haven’t posted since I can’t take any good shots that do them justice.