Based on the recent conversation in a different thread, it has come to my attention that some people are of the opinion that a game of Star Wars: Legion requires the use of Barricades as terrain to be a truly competitive game.

Let's start with the rules:

Quote

RRG, pg. 9

Competitive Terrain

To simulate two armies attempting to choose the optimal location for combat, the players may place terrain in such a way that they believe they will have an advantage.

1. The players set aside an even number of terrain pieces that cover roughly a quarter of the battlefield, choosing some pieces that will block line of sight and some that will simply provide cover.

2. Starting with the player whose army has the lowest total point value (if both players’ armies have the same point total, flip a coin), players take turns placing a single piece of terrain on the battlefield, beyond range 1 of all other pieces of terrain. If terrain cannot be placed beyond range 1, the player may place it anywhere on the battlefield as long as it is not touching another piece of terrain.

3. After players have finished setting up terrain, proceed to step 4 of setup.

And then the Tournament Regulations:

Quote

Tournament Regulations, pg. 6

Tournament Setup

Before the tournament begins, the organizer must set up tables suitable for tournament play. Each table must contain a 3’ by 6’ rectangular play area with clearly delineated edges and enough terrain to fully cover at least a quarter of the play area (3’ x 18”). The organizer must ensure there are roughly an equal number of terrain pieces as well as terrain types at each table. The organizer should make sure it is clear to players what terrain effects each piece of terrain has before the event starts.

and finally the post from the rules forum (emphasis mine as I believe this is the culprit):

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.

Now, let's take a look at some tables from a recent tournament I attended. All of these tables have multiple types of terrain that fully cover at least a quarter of the table.

Table 1: River is shallow water as defined in the RRG. Area terrain is "swamp" which was defined as Light Cover and Difficult Terrain for ground vehicles and troopers.

Table 2: Red area is defined as "Lava". Impassible for ground vehicles and troops, no cover for any models.

Table 3: Green felt areas are Light Woods as defined in RRG. Brown tree areas are Heavy Woods as defined in RRG with the central trunks blocking LoS. Central village was ruled as walls counting as barricades, huts blocking LoS, and area in between huts/walls being open.

Table 4: All terrain was LoS blocking of various heights.

Given all of the rules above and these four examples, I'm curious to see how many people in this community feel that a Legion table isn't a table unless it has barricades.

Fully 100% agree, barricades are an option given as an example of what could be used for a balanced table. They are not a must.

I think each of those tables could benefit from some barricades. I think they're a great way to break up long lanes of fire. I don't see them as a requirement, but I think there should be a good reason for _not_ including them.

7 minutes ago, Prokins said:

I think each of those tables could benefit from some barricades. I think they're a great way to break up long lanes of fire. I don't see them as a requirement, but I think there should be a good reason for _not_ including them.

Even the 2nd table?

You would include barricades on every table, every game? What would constitute a good reason for not including them, in your opinion?

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

Even the 2nd table?

The second table looks like it has several, “what are basically barricades even if they’re not FFG’s,” doesn’t it?

@KalEl814 That is correct, 7 pairs of walls counting as barricades.

Ah, I misread your intent compared to who you were quoting... I herped when I should have derped. Apologies.

Table 1 seems like one big shoot out, especially since most pieces you can’t enter and are just stuck next to it hoping the enemy doesn’t just run around it and catch you in the open. I think it could use some “better” scatter terrain I.e. barricades or some barrels and such

Just now, NeonWolf said:

Even the 2nd table?

You would include barricades on every table, every game? What would constitute a good reason for not including them, in your opinion?

Yes. Even the second table. You wouldn't need that many (2 or 3), but I can still seem some long lanes of fire on it.

Yes. For me, I would prefer to have barricades on every table, every game. But that's a personal preference.

Some good reasons for not including them:

• If the non-barricade terrain blocked most long (if not all) long lanes of if fire
• If we're playing a campaign and the boards are pre-defined or randomly generated
• If the tournament rules specifically forbade them
• If my opponent was so adamant against them that s/he wouldn't play with them

There might be other reasons. This is just off the top of my head.

Table 3 could use some love as well, needs some bigger/ wider LOS blockers IMO. Table 2 and 4 are good

3 minutes ago, lukecook said:

Table 1 seems like one big shoot out, especially since most pieces you can’t enter and are just stuck next to it hoping the enemy doesn’t just run around it and catch you in the open. I think it could use some “better” scatter terrain I.e. barricades or some barrels and such

As stated in the description of the table, the green felt with the trees on it is area terrain providing light cover. That means if you draw line of sight through that terrain anything on the other side of it is receiving light cover.

1 minute ago, lukecook said:

Table 3 could use some love as well, needs some bigger/ wider LOS blockers IMO. Table 2 and 4 are good

So in your opinion, large areas of terrain that provide light or heavy cover but do not block line of sight are not good enough?

1 minute ago, NeonWolf said:

As stated in the description of the table, the green felt with the trees on it is area terrain providing light cover. That means if you draw line of sight through that terrain anything on the other side of it is receiving light cover.

So in your opinion, large areas of terrain that provide light or heavy cover but do not block line of sight are not good enough?

Yeah you need some actual visibly blocking LOS that you can hide behind. And table 1 would be a blood bath with less tacticalness/ strategy to it IMO, especially with intercept or supplies as the objective.

I see several LOS blocking rock spires on table 1

Table 1 has some very large sight lines.

Just at the left side, where there’s a giant forest practically on left border, that I would imagine saw next to no use as cover. I’d swap it to be more central, cutting off the large clear lines of fire between those pillars next to it.

Similar critique for the other table layouts, a giant piece of sight blocking terrain by the edges might as well not exist for gameplay purposes. It’s effectively locking out useful terrain (ie cover/concealment) that could help a unit approach an objective marker.

I'm very hesitant to add barricades in general. They're important, but if they're over used quickly lead to games of trech warfare where no one dies or moves.

27 minutes ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

I see several LOS blocking rock spires on table 1

Considering most the objectives are based on the center of the table, I’d say there’s very few.

And I was mainly talking about table 3 on that point

Personally I think the barricades should always be used to mark the the corners and or center of deployment boarders. But that’s mostly because I love how that plays out.

I have yet to ever even use barricades in any of my games - only used them once in a demo back in early March before I bought into the game. They are not required and not always needed. If you feel you have to have them, then perhaps I'd look at how your terrain is set up on the game board, how much you are using, and what types. I prefer games with lots of terrain and my boards are dense with it, so perhaps that is why I'm not that big on barricades. Also.. I *do* have crates and other scatter terrain that are 'like' barricades but do not have the actual barricade terrain rules. Maybe I just don't like the looks of them - they really don't fit into many game-board aesthetics and game immersion is huge with me.

- Cedric

18 minutes ago, Lord Cedric said:

I have yet to ever even use barricades in any of my games - only used them once in a demo back in early March before I bought into the game. They are not required and not always needed. If you feel you have to have them, then perhaps I'd look at how your terrain is set up on the game board, how much you are using, and what types. I prefer games with lots of terrain and my boards are dense with it, so perhaps that is why I'm not that big on barricades. Also.. I *do* have crates and other scatter terrain that are 'like' barricades but do not have the actual barricade terrain rules. Maybe I just don't like the looks of them - they really don't fit into many game-board aesthetics and game immersion is huge with me.

- Cedric

What rules do you use for them if not the barricade rules? They seem perfect for anything like that.

19 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

What rules do you use for them if not the barricade rules? They seem perfect for anything like that.

Definitely can as some scatter terrain can play a barricade role. When I look at FFG barricades, I can conceptualize a soldier actually jumping over it etc. When I look at my scatter boxes and crates, most do not look like something that can be jumped over. Sure they can give off similar/same cover. But as far as looking the part of an actual barricade, they do not do it for me. (for reference, I use Imperial terrain 3D printed crates and containers). However, if I have a table set up and my opponent would like to use them as such, I can go with it - just hasn't been brought up yet. I do suppose that I may want to get *some* games in with them as when I go to tourney's or events I'm certain I'll be seeing some.

To answer your question though, I use normal 'light', 'hard' cover and apply LoS rules. Though.. it may be fun to paint some containers up red color and have some house rules where these have 'wound points' and when a red container is out of wounds, it does a radius explosion! and then have a replacement terrain feature that shows a blown-up container. Hmmm.... I think I'm going to do that now.

- Cedric

Barricades are necessary for moving up. If there's nothing but open space, no one can move. If it's all LOS blocking terrain, no one can move, and barely anyone can fire. Also, the barricades in the core have the additional rule of providing cover to all troopers. Moving and attacking on any of those 4 tables is harder than it should be.

4 minutes ago, WillKill said:

Barricades are necessary for moving up. If there's nothing but open space, no one can move. If it's all LOS blocking terrain, no one can move, and barely anyone can fire. Also, the barricades in the core have the additional rule of providing cover to all troopers. Moving and attacking on any of those 4 tables is harder than it should be.

Even Table #2 with 7 sets of barricades? I'm still curious what the tables you play on look like.

8 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Even Table #2 with 7 sets of barricades? I'm still curious what the tables you play on look like.

That one is ok, but the barricades are mostly near the edges and the areas around that center building look like a no mans zone

23 hours ago, Prokins said:

I don't see them as a requirement, but I think there should be a good reason for _not_ including them.

Would you count "I have so much regular and scatter terrain that we don't need barricades?" as a good reason for not including them?

Like such

@Zrob314

To be fair, the amount of terrain you use is beyond what is required, or even reasonable, from an organized play perspective. I am under the impression that your pictures are of your home setup and not at an FLGS or a tournament.

Your collection is impressive and I'm sure games on your table are very cinematic. My post is related to terrain at competitive events.