On 5/20/2019 at 3:47 PM, Mep said:

Either a pass mechanic or a cap on number of total units is best for the game. I actually like a cap on the number of units. It does get the game moving quicker with fewer activations and gives a reason to bring in higher priced units.

9 feels about right for an activation cap as I’ve toyed with it. I think you’d still need a pass mechanic on top of it though.

A lot of people complain that sniper rifles ruin games like Halo or Call of Duty, because of how they constrict and restrict the flow of the game. Now they are ruining Legion. When will game designers learn??? NO SNIPERS. 🤣

The snipers really aren’t maxed out because of what they do. What really makes them powerful is simply getting 3 activations for 132 points.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

A lot of people complain that sniper rifles ruin games like Halo or Call of Duty, because of how they constrict and restrict the flow of the game. Now they are ruining Legion. When will game designers learn??? NO SNIPERS. 🤣

Are you seriously comparing a first person shooter pc game with a tabletop miniature game? 😂

Like Lunarsol said it's not about the sniper itself it's about their point cost and effectiveness in a list.

Locally we have been batting around the idea of not allowing strike teams in our games... If you want snipers or sabs, you attach them to the 60 point squad. We will see if this gains any traction.

Or better yet, Sniper/Sab mini is no longer unit leader, and is first to die.

35 minutes ago, Aurelus said:

Or better yet, Sniper/Sab mini is no longer unit leader, and is first to die.

While it would reduce their effectiveness, the activation spam would still be a problem. The leftover scout would just run and hide.

I think the best way to tell if something is a problem is to ask a theory question:

If you could take more than 3 in a list, would you?

If the answer's yes, then there might be a problem.

10 minutes ago, duck_bird said:

I think the best way to tell if something is a problem is to ask a theory question:

If you could take more than 3 in a list, would you?

If the answer's yes, then there might be a problem.

well with almost all list having 2 or more right now the answer will of course be yes they would as they are cheap units that they can take out more expensive troopers. also they can hold objectives too.

6 hours ago, DreadPiratGinger said:

I'm curious to see if the snipers get changed to be more like the mortar teams, meaning they would become a detachment of the scouts/commandos.

That would be super cool, especially because I don't see the larger scout or commando teams run... basically ever.

@LunarSol
"The snipers really aren’t maxed out because of what they do. What really makes them powerful is simply getting 3 activations for 132 points."

Not to put you on the spot, but can you explain why you think having extra activations is, in and of itself, a good thing?

Is it just for the ability to delay acting? Nothing else seems to make sense (i.e. combined fire is more valuable for getting damage through than split fire; a single activation of 132 points is more efficient than 3 separate activations, and less vulnerable to pre-emption by enemy units, etc)

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

@LunarSol
"The snipers really aren’t maxed out because of what they do. What really makes them powerful is simply getting 3 activations for 132 points."

Not to put you on the spot, but can you explain why you think having extra activations is, in and of itself, a good thing?

Is it just for the ability to delay acting? Nothing else seems to make sense (i.e. combined fire is more valuable for getting damage through than split fire; a single activation of 132 points is more efficient than 3 separate activations, and less vulnerable to pre-emption by enemy units, etc) 

This is exactly it. Going last on those turns where you are starting out of range to really powerful. A quote from where I posted in a different thread:

"When two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say person A has 2 activations and person B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choice; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective; if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved."

And it isn't just about shooting. If you can delay moving your key units until your opponent has moved all of theirs then you can place your units with much better knowledge of the enemy's plans. That knowledge is super helpful in an objective game and helps you pick your match-ups. If you have some units with impact and some with blast and spray delaying until you see where your opponent puts their vehicles and where they put their troopers will allow you to move your army in such a way that allows you fight exactly what you want with the unit best suited to kill it.

To add to Qark's reply above, it can also sometimes be about having extra squads to cover more objectives.

It could be handy to have a couple of scouts holding an objective in the back field whilst the bulk of your army can push forward to take the objectives being contested.

3 hours ago, Qark said:

This is exactly it. Going last on those turns where you are starting out of range to really powerful. A quote from where I posted in a different thread:

"When two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say person A has 2 activations and person B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choice; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective; if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved."

And it isn't just about shooting. If you can delay moving your key units until your opponent has moved all of theirs then you can place your units with much better knowledge of the enemy's plans. That knowledge is super helpful in an objective game and helps you pick your match-ups. If you have some units with impact and some with blast and spray delaying until you see where your opponent puts their vehicles and where they put their troopers will allow you to move your army in such a way that allows you fight exactly what you want with the unit best suited to kill it.

3 hours ago, FearofaBlankPlanet said:

To add to Qark's reply above, it can also sometimes be about having extra squads to cover more objectives.

It could be handy to have a couple of scouts holding an objective in the back field whilst the bulk of your army can push forward to take the objectives being contested.

So, not to put too fine a point on it: What, if anything gives you pause about a 16 activation list?

(2x Rebel Officers, 6x Rebel Troopers, 3x Rebel Commandos Strike Teams: Snipers, 3x AT-RT, 2x X-34 Landspeeders)

5 hours ago, Derrault said:

@LunarSol
"The snipers really aren’t maxed out because of what they do. What really makes them powerful is simply getting 3 activations for 132 points."

Not to put you on the spot, but can you explain why you think having extra activations is, in and of itself, a good thing?

Is it just for the ability to delay acting? Nothing else seems to make sense (i.e. combined fire is more valuable for getting damage through than split fire; a single activation of 132 points is more efficient than 3 separate activations, and less vulnerable to pre-emption by enemy units, etc)

No problem being put on the spot, just wasn't able to sit down and type.

Generally speaking, activation control is the single most powerful, hardest to account for "core mechanic" to an alternating activation system. I've seen a number of systems try to solve for it, but its been my experience that nothing short of even activations works out in the end. Even a single extra can be extremely powerful and makes it more of a bid system than anything. If the average is 10, than an 11th activation will take you farther than 12.

There's extreme cases where a system allows for so many cheap activations that one player essentially has to activate all of their models before the opponent has to move a single piece into threat range (Imperial Assault and Malifaux Rat Engine spring to mind), but even a small advantage is pretty huge and generally tends to invalidate expensive models. An activated model loses a lot of agency on the game board. It no longer projects threat and cannot react to threats against it. It's essentially dead for the turn and when an opponent has more activations, they can generally put it in this state before risking anything of value of their own.

24 minutes ago, Derrault said:

So, not to put too fine a point on it: What, if anything gives you pause about a 16 activation list?

(2x Rebel Officers, 6x Rebel Troopers, 3x Rebel Commandos Strike Teams: Snipers, 3x AT-RT, 2x X-34 Landspeeders)

It lacks anything to take advantage of having the activation advantage. After your opponent is out activated you get free reign with whatever's left, so the last 5 or so activations in this list can be combined into something more worth going last to more or less the same effect. In this game specifically, having 1 model to hold back is also a lot easier to do due to the orders system. Also, there's a lot of things that just aren't that durable, and can be taken out quickly by stronger units to close the gap before you can really take advantage of it. Model quality isn't irrelevant, and in this game specifically weapon upgrades make up the vast majority of how things perform. It's one thing to be the faster draw, but even Greedo will get you if you've got an empty holster.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

So, not to put too fine a point on it: What, if anything gives you pause about a 16 activation list?

(2x Rebel Officers, 6x Rebel Troopers, 3x Rebel Commandos Strike Teams: Snipers, 3x AT-RT, 2x X-34 Landspeeders)

Well at my local rally point I did run a 13 activation list for exactly this reason but the issue, as others have stated, is that the unit(s) you save till the end need to be able to do something meaningful when they do activate.

1 hour ago, LunarSol said:

It lacks anything to take advantage of having the activation advantage.

Even better when the early activating units can contribute as well. That is why snipers are the best delaying unit, not only are they a very cheap delay but they can contribute to the fight from relative safety while they delay. Even without killing something a single suppression token at the right time can swing a game.

On 5/29/2019 at 4:45 PM, azeronbloodmoone said:

well with almost all list having 2 or more right now the answer will of course be yes they would as they are cheap units that they can take out more expensive troopers. also they can hold objectives too.

I think that's a pretty definitive answer then. If the only thing stopping someone from taking 10 of them is the force organization chart, there's a problem! It's mildly problematic to out-perform other special force choices. It's significantly worse to out-compete units in other categories to boot.

18 hours ago, LunarSol said:

Generally speaking, activation control is the single most powerful, hardest to account for "core mechanic" to an alternating activation system.

The activation system/command cards/whatever you want to call it, is my least favorite thing about Legion. It feels like a Napoleonic warfare being copy/pasted onto Vietnam.

I've only played maybe 24 miniatures games at most, but so far SW:L has my least favorite activation/order/whatever mechanic of any of them I think. Dragon Rampant was annoying with that, but that whole game was explicitly written to be houseruled anyways.

17 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

The activation system/command cards/whatever you want to call it, is my least favorite thing about Legion. It feels like a Napoleonic warfare being copy/pasted onto Vietnam.

I've only played maybe 24 miniatures games at most, but so far SW:L has my least favorite activation/order/whatever mechanic of any of them I think. Dragon Rampant was annoying with that, but that whole game was explicitly written to be houseruled anyways.

It's honestly one of my favorite things about Legion. I'm used to finishing my turn and then sitting back for a boring 45 minutes while my opponent takes his turn.

For activations you could also do something like the bolt action system and draw chits from a bag to see who gets the activation. Lots of activations are still advantageous but the player with the most won't be guaranteed the difference unopposed at the end of the turn. It would feel a bit redundant when we also already have randomised token stacks as well to determine which unit is activated and something would have to be done about representing priority (player always gets the first activation).

32 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

19 hours ago, LunarSol said:

Generally speaking, activation control is the single most powerful, hardest to account for "core mechanic" to an alternating activation system. [...] An activated model loses a lot of agency on the game board. It no longer projects threat and cannot react to threats against it. It's essentially dead for the turn and when an opponent has more activations, they can generally put it in this state before risking anything of value of their own.

A million times this. It killed Conflict of Heroes for me when the community realized you could move horse carts out of line of sight to exhaust machine guns on supposed overwatch. I ended up dropping Armada due to this.

Second mover advantage is huge!

32 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

It's honestly one of my favorite things about Legion. I'm used to finishing my turn and then sitting back for a boring 45 minutes while my opponent takes his turn.

Yes, well having a poke in the eye is also better than a bullet to the chest, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer an icecream cone instead!

Command and Colors do a really good job of having activation swings where variable numbers of units activate each round and you don't have perfect control of where they activate. Something like that where not every unit activates every turn, could make spam vs quality theoretically balanceable

Another alternative is forcing all movement into one phase, and all shooting into a second phase (like X-Wing), with simultaneous damage (like A&A minis) but this is slower to play.

All that said, the problem is not as bad in Legion. I think the force org charts have gone a long way to helping keep it in check, and things like making snipers take the Shoretrooper/Veterans Detachment keyword would patch the loophole that currently snipers exploit.

Alternatively classifying Commando and/or Strike Teams as Core units would also alleviate it IMHO.

This thread is a solution in search of a problem. There are multiple ways to deal with snipers, including heavies, cavalry (ATRTs and bikes), and melee special forces.

Also, I have suspicions that you aren't playing with enough terrain or enough variety.

3 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

It's honestly one of my favorite things about Legion. I'm used to finishing my turn and then sitting back for a boring 45 minutes while my opponent takes his turn.

There are many other ways of going about it.

Make strike teams unique. Problem solved