52 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I agree with your point in legion, for sure. Cannon Fodder however....minimal training and minimal equipment has been the standard for most of human history.

or at least 4-500 years anyway......

Henry IV Act 4 Scene 2 ( at least 217 years before the term cannon fodder was initially coined in french)

Prince Henry: I did never see such pitiful rascals

Falstaff: Tut, Tut, good enough to toss, food for powder, food for powder. They'll fill a pit as well as better. Tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.

there's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack

That was a specific critique of corruption (and showing the audience what a scoundrel Falstaff is). Plus you could make lots of funny coatumes showing how bad the troops were. You’re taking comedic social satire at face value.

For most of human history this “human wave” you cite was not feasible because of endemic labor shortages and other reasons. When a caste of warrior elites dominate the business of war, minimal training and equipment was not the norm. Unless they were defending their own walled city or something, untrained civilians were not deployed en masse as hopeless combatants as a normal part of medieval warfare. It happened but in 1,000 years of history across an entire continent, there are exceptions to everything. When it can be well documented, it’s usually a post-firelock phenomena. For a counter-example, Robert the Bruce sent away too-poorly equipped volunteers at Bannockburn despite being badly outnumbered.

To me, cannon fodder implies commanders knowing people can’t win and sending them to die on purpose for some reason. Which happens but is a pretty rare thing. It doesn’t have to mean scruffy hordes I suppose. Whatever Greeks drew the short straw and had to be the center of the line at Marathon would count I guess. Whoever formed up in the middle that day was virtually guaranteed to die as part of the game plan.

But this is all argumentatively off topic anyways.

I don't think the poor utility of anti-vehicle weapons and for that matter, big vehicles, is a fundamental flaw in Legion. A fundamental flaw is something we look back on as why a game was an unpopular disaster. I don't think Legion has fundamental flaws, I think it has things that I dislike. Some of those are even objective flaws but they aren't the equivalent of a cracked foundation.

I suspect that the new Heavy options will make ion weapons and maybe the missile launcher more valuable. If rebel landspeeders become common, snowtrooper ion rifles might start to look pretty good. In another couple years of releases if there isn't some kind of equilibrium reached it'll still be annoying but not a huge deal to me.

But, the models are inexpensive and good plain fun to paint. I don't need to store and transport a billion of them for a "real" sized game. The SW setting is what sucked me separately into models and gaming to begin with and I am exceedingly prone to nostalgia. I am unclear how the rules could ever get bad enough to scare me off of collecting and painting two armies for Legion. Keep me away from tournaments? Easy. Keep me from being a good customer? Very difficult. So while I wish taking a nice mix of heavy weapons was a better idea in Legion, I don't see this as a problem that will truly hurt the game in the long run.

18 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

No way. Then we're at the mercy of a new IOS or whatever. Maybe use an electronic errata for that for tournament play or something but give me a hardcopy so I can play at home even if it's not perfect.

I think the best-of-both-worlds solution is that the points continue to be printed by the card (and represent the best guess the team makes at time of printing), while an official app is used ala X-Wing for "Formal" and higher tournament events.

This means kitchen-table (well, dining room table) and FLGS tournaments use the points on the cards, but the high-level competitive scene gets closer-balanced points costs with the benefit of hindsight.

In other words, I agree with you but used more words to say the same thing :).

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

The SW setting is what sucked me separately into models and gaming to begin with and I am exceedingly prone to nostalgia. I am unclear how the rules could ever get bad enough to scare me off of collecting and painting two armies for Legion. Keep me away from tournaments? Easy.

I'm pretty much in the same boat in that without the Star Wars setting I would probably have not worried about the game. I already have Beyond The Gates of Antares which is perfectly serviceable as a platoon level sci-fi game which is more to my taste, but Star Wars gives a wider player base and T47s and bryar pistols make me happy. Antares plays similarly to Legion in some ways but without all the card based shenanigans, though I suspect it would potentially be less balanced in a tournament setting.

If I wanted a serious tournament game, I'd play (Star Wars) Chess. If I wanted a fun tournament I'd play Bloodbowl and the Rotgut Rumblers would be unleashed upon the world once again.

Inherently all miniature games share a general balance problem as a result of being asymmetrical that causes the "group think" that we call the meta, which is ultimately as the OP pointed out about optimizing the crap out of armies and exposing the weaknesses of the mechanic.

Its an unsolvable weakness inherent to this type of game and its part of why I always say that miniature games make for extremely pour competitive games. I will say that games like Legion and really most FFG products make for far better competitive games then say Warhammer 40k where the rules are so unclear and based on estimations and "eye balling it", that its almost silly to try to regulate that into a tournament format.

In the same token you have to ask yourself the question, why play Legion or any miniatures game? Is it really for the game? I ask because when you really think about the hobby of Assemble/Paint miniature games like Warhammer or Warmachine, the average player spends the overwhelming majority with the game preparing to play. Maybe its less true about Legion since the units are kind of straightforward in most cases, but still, for me personally I find that the joy of the hobby and the game is really reading about, thinking about, assembling, painting, theorycrafting and so on. The amount of time you actually sit down to play is by comparison extremely limited.

As such I think one of the problems FFG has with their miniature games like X-Wing, Armada and Legion is that there really isn't that much to dive into between games. All of these games only have a couple of factions, pretty limited amount of units, very limited amount of possible configurations and a setting that is exhaustive to the point that I doubt most Legion players spend any time reading and enjoying its atmosphere. In a sense, Legion like many of FFG games are directly and very exclusively about playing and not really about the hobby part of the game which traditionally in the world of miniature game is the primary activity for most players.

In a way, Legion is a board game. There are very limited walls (2 factions, limited units, limited upgrades), fairly directly formulated rules and there is virtually no eyeballing of anything. Its far closer to a board game then an asymmetrical miniature game. Which makes the unbalances far more noticeable and can very quickly tire out a community. I think this is in large part why Runewars is on the bargain bin and has lost support so heavily and ultimately will be the case for Legion as well.

@BigKahuna While I agree with you about modeling and painting being in many ways a bigger part of the hobby than the actual gameplay, I disagree with you as to this being a primary motivator for Runewars being resigned to the bargain bins of game stores. Infinity, Warmahordes, and really any manufacturer of metal miniatures similarly do not provide as many modelling options as say Warhammer games, or multi-part plastic kits, yet many seem to be doing quite well for themselves. As well, X-wing and Armada, which have next to NO hobby aspect, seem to still have thriving communities, at least judging by my local area, their forums, and tournament turnout. Armada has even been at a virtual standstill competitive meta wise for over a year.

The reason I think that Runewars "failed" has more to do with trying to enter a rather saturated market (fantasy miniature wargaming), without having any particularly noteworthy aspects. It didn't allow for the usage of third party miniatures as some of the new fantasy wargaming rules do (SAGA: Age of Magic, Warlords of Erehwon for instance) and wasn't set in a well known and beloved universe (such as Middle Earth). Legion has the huge advantage from a sales perspective of being STAR WARS. The fact that the rules are pretty good will also help, but it is the ONLY game allowing you to attack Rebel Troopers with Stormtroopers, and FFG is the ONLY company producing miniatures of that type.

Additionally, not all miniatures games are asymmetrical, so your first premise is faulty. Many wargames are asymmetrical, and failing to properly account for that asymmetry can lead to issues in the competitive scene if unregulated.

37 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@BigKahuna While I agree with you about modeling and painting being in many ways a bigger part of the hobby than the actual gameplay, I disagree with you as to this being a primary motivator for Runewars being resigned to the bargain bins of game stores. Infinity, Warmahordes, and really any manufacturer of metal miniatures similarly do not provide as many modelling options as say Warhammer games, or multi-part plastic kits, yet many seem to be doing quite well for themselves. As well, X-wing and Armada, which have next to NO hobby aspect, seem to still have thriving communities, at least judging by my local area, their forums, and tournament turnout. Armada has even been at a virtual standstill competitive meta wise for over a year.

Chess has no hobby aspect and outsells them all. Hard styrene Ford Mustangs and F-16's have no game aspect and outsell them all.

37 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The reason I think that Runewars "failed"

I mean it had what? A 9, 10 year run? That's a success in this line of work.

37 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

but it is the ONLY game allowing you to attack Rebel Troopers with Stormtroopers, and FFG is the ONLY company producing miniatures of that type.

And that is the ONLY reason I am playing it!

2 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Its an unsolvable weakness inherent to this type of game

I think it's more an unsolvable weakness of human nature. The games are generally fine if you play them for what they are, but most people don't seem to. What if a bunch of CCG tournament players were in it to make little folk art objects and play a character? CCG's would be a horrible choice of a human endeavor, for someone who is pursuing those goals. But when people pursue 40k or whatever to achieve goals that the entire medium of miniature wargaming is inherently unsuited to, suddenly it's "Why would you tell someone the right way to have fun?!".

Like roleplaying games, miniature wargames require an agreement between all parties about what you are trying to get out of the experience. They are not well suited to tournaments, but tournaments are great advertising, and for some reason people are stuck on an irrational impulse that competition automatically lends credibility to anything. Could you imagine an RPG tournament? What a mess. Gygax tried that, and really tried to enforce what was and wasn't "real" DnD, it didn't work.

15 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I mean it had what? A 9, 10 year run? That's a success in this line of work.

The Runewars Miniature game was released in 2017.

25 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The Runewars Miniature game was released in 2017.

Oh, I don't keep close track of it. I thought it was from like 2009 for some reason. I guess that does kind of suck. But in miniature wargames or RPG's, considering their nicheness, I consider a profitable 5 year run, with a cult following at cons after it goes out of print, a smashing success.

pretty sure I saw/read something that runewars essentially amounted to a "trial phase" for what they might do with future minis games. Not saying it was the plan all along, but it might have been seen as disposable early on if they learned a lot from it and could turn it into another, better game.

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Oh, I don't keep close track of it. I thought it was from like 2009 for some reason. I guess that does kind of suck. But in miniature wargames or RPG's, considering their nicheness, I consider a profitable 5 year run, with a cult following at cons after it goes out of print, a smashing success.

That's fair. Games like 40k with multi-decade relevance are definitely not the "norm," but even that has entailed GW re-inventing the game every few years. At a certain point, FFG will have released just about everything they can for Legion, without getting REALLY esoteric (Ewok support companion extra troopers!), and then we'll see what state the game is in. Between now and then though, I'll be buying kits so I can AT WORST use them for RPG figures/display pieces, at best use them to play some fan created Star Wars skin for another game.

1 minute ago, crx3800 said:

pretty sure I saw/read something that runewars essentially amounted to a "trial phase" for what they might do with future minis games. Not saying it was the plan all along, but it might have been seen as disposable early on if they learned a lot from it and could turn it into another, better game.

Quite possibly. I'm not super familiar with Runewars, but I have heard it shares some rules in common with Legion.

10 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Oh, I don't keep close track of it. I thought it was from like 2009 for some reason. I guess that does kind of suck. But in miniature wargames or RPG's, considering their nicheness, I consider a profitable 5 year run, with a cult following at cons after it goes out of print, a smashing success.

Runewars failed because the setting is uninspired, and the mini quality was not good. I replaced my skeleton arms and weapons with warhammer skeleton arms and weapons, because the ffg runewars minis are made of this horrid bendy plastic. The game also had way too much clutter on the table. Keep it simple.

I play Legion because it combines good setting with good mechanics. 40k has a cool setting and great minis quality, but the rules have no tactical nuance, and the game is too big and clunky now.

You are letting FFg off the hook too easily. If there is a "meta", going against it is a tactical advantage per se, as you will wrongfoot many opponents simply because they are not used to your army. To wipe unit types consistently off competitive lists, you have to make bad balancing mistakes. And please spare me the comparisons with GW crap. GW has never bothered with either math or playtesting and uses its rules simply as a marketing tool to push their newest minis. Last codex wins. We should hold FFG to a higher standard. They can do it and they listen. So vehicles are not useless, but too weak, and that makes specialised antitank weaponry useless. Fix it, FFG. Changing the whole points system is awkward to do, so changing the rules for vehicles could be a way, e. g. such as the suggested power to deny objectives. Or change the rules for infantry. Making suppression more meaningful might do the trick.

We let off HG Wells far too easily as well. The Little Wars meta was clearly biased toward artillery heavy armies: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3691/3691-h/3691-h.htm

It's an okay read if you're interested in an early example of model wargames.

10 hours ago, lologrelol said:

The game also had way too much clutter on the table.

So does Legion and Imperial Assault IMO.

Quote

40k has a cool setting and great minis quality, but the rules have no tactical nuance, and the game is too big and clunky now.

Neither does Legion. Command Cards procing to surge with KEYWORD and stuff, are no replacement for tactics. But it's Star Wars so here I am. You can really see that the amateur computer programmers have replaced the amateur military historians in game companies these days.

The rules to 40k I actually like quite a bit but the Codices and endless PDF special army list "Formations" are indeed, way too big and clunky. Throw in the allies and the "unbound" army lists or whatever and some truly bizarre stuff is not only possible, but world-beating. To be fair to both, the REASON those ugly lists are world beating is because you can relentlessly combine KEYWORD with KEYWORD to EFFECT, so, not that different from what I dislike in FFG's games.

For 40k to be fun and halfways serious I have to play with friends, casual store play is just no good. Whereas so far, Legion's army lists are such that I can play strangers at stores and still have fun.

the problem is that some upgrades where poorly handled. the DLT-19 should never have had Impact as a keyword, it's basically a light lmg used for engaging infantry which should never be great at attacking armored vehicles. Had the designers not given it Impact and the stupid crits hurt armor rule hadn't been implemented then maybe more vehicles would be on the field.

i'm ok with the Snipers, they feel exactly the way snipers should feel, maybe the Pierce was a little too much and they should have had Suppressive instead.

and the designers really failed when they made the Imperial Scouts and Rebel Commandoes at the same time but severely gimped the Scouts, having 1 less scout, no offensive surge and R 1-2 just makes them really bad copies of Fleet Troopers but in a competitive special slot, had they been corps choices we probably would see more of them on the table. For me i would rather take 132 points of snipers over 180 points of useless fragile scouts any day.

2 hours ago, Darth evil said:

the problem is that some upgrades where poorly handled. the DLT-19 should never have had Impact as a keyword,

This might be the most important rules problem of Legion IMO. A league that plays often should try getting rid of impact of DL's and make no other changes, and see what happens.

5 hours ago, Darth evil said:

the problem is that some upgrades where poorly handled. the DLT-19 should never have had Impact as a keyword, it's basically a light lmg used for engaging infantry which should never be great at attacking armored vehicles. Had the designers not given it Impact and the stupid crits hurt armor rule hadn't been implemented then maybe more vehicles would be on the field.

Spot on. The antitank capabilities of antiinfantry weapons make specialised antitank weapons obsolete.

Mm, been agreed on that front for a while. Vehicles are trivalized because the core DLT is so good at everything. Just the two red at 4 would have made a vicious anti-infantry weapon to just suppression snipe and horribly destroy anyone out of cover (which is what Machine Guns do). The addition of impact and it being the only good choice for a weapon period severely skewed the game so that vehicles became "non-optimal", they die too easily to common infantry and are not built to face infantry (hence no offensive mods except Impact). But, we can't know the whole story. Maybe no cheap impact made vehicles (which the developers and testers would be putting on the table anyway just for funs) too obnoxious. We may never know.

38 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

Mm, been agreed on that front for a while. Vehicles are trivalized because the core DLT is so good at everything. Just the two red at 4 would have made a vicious anti-infantry weapon to just suppression snipe and horribly destroy anyone out of cover (which is what Machine Guns do). The addition of impact and it being the only good choice for a weapon period severely skewed the game so that vehicles became "non-optimal", they die too easily to common infantry and are not built to face infantry (hence no offensive mods except Impact). But, we can't know the whole story. Maybe no cheap impact made vehicles (which the developers and testers would be putting on the table anyway just for funs) too obnoxious. We may never know.

don't forget the Crit auto damage to vehicles, suddenly everyone is packing anti-tank

13 hours ago, Darth evil said:

don't forget the Crit auto damage to vehicles, suddenly everyone is packing anti-tank

What auto damage? Vehicles still roll armour saves...

56 minutes ago, costi said:

What auto damage? Vehicles still roll armour saves...

A friggin' white die in the AT-ST's case. Though statistically horribly unlikely, a squad of rebels with pistols can blast apart an AT-ST. That's just plain wrong.

I don't think of it as an armor save but an opposed STR roll!

10 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

A friggin' white die in the AT-ST's case. Though statistically horribly unlikely, a squad of rebels with pistols can blast apart an AT-ST. That's just plain wrong.

I don't think of it as an armor save but an opposed STR roll!

Isn't it great when the most heavily armored thing on the battlefield has T-shirt saves?

Dewbacks need surge-to-block.

2 hours ago, costi said:

What auto damage? Vehicles still roll armour saves...

sorry i mean that everyone can hurt vehicle with that stupid rule. My son took 6 wounds of my AT-ST the other day without a single anti-tank in his list

I think the Armor keyword works pretty well. AT-RT's, snowspeeders and AT-ST's are supposed to be lightly armored and somewhat vulnerable to small arms fire. The Occupier tank should be heavier but that's why it has a red armor save.

I feel like even if DLT didn't have impact we would be in the same situation with vehicles. What we need is more ways for them to influence objective scoring. Either some new objectives, revise the current ones in the RRG, or some new rule that lets them contest.