Sato should not be more expensive than Raddus, Sato should be a 26 point commander.

12 minutes ago, Tokra said:

All that count are the victory tokens. Nothing else. If i have more tokens than you, it does not matter if i have only one trooper left on the field. I win.

If I remember correctly you can actually have nothing on the table and you could have killed nothing of your opponents and still win the game if you have more tokens.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

About the objective i will agree, partly. The idea to "build up" a deployment zone, environment and win condition is good. But these win objectives are the cause of all evil in Legion. Trooper > non Trooper; more units at all cost. And Victory token grabbing and hunker down on top of it. In Armada you get rewarded for destroying enemy units on top of your objective. In Legion it does not matter at all. All that count are the victory tokens. Nothing else. If i have more tokens than you, it does not matter if i have only one trooper left on the field. I win.

Legion's issue with vehicles is more pricing based; tellingly, all the Wave 1 vehicles got pretty hefty price drops. I doubt we'll ever see full on mechanized infantry, but we don't see such a thing in Star Wars, either (insert droid pun here).

As for objectives... Honestly? I wish some Armada objectives allowed for those "sole survivor limps away with the macguffin" wins that you get in Legion. Not every mission, but Rogue 1/Battle of Hoth-inspired objectives would be great

As always I would LOVE to see even the smallest amount of point change balancing in this game. I'm of the belief that any cumulatively updating game with a point system NEEDS rebalancing. Nobody gets everything right the first time, and the smallest mistakes in balancing inevitably lead to long term power creep without rebalancing.

On 9/6/2019 at 3:33 PM, Lightrock said:

We've seen Sato lists doing well ocasionally (with wide area barrage). It's ok for his squadrons to be tied down as long as they're tied down next to the enemy ships . You're probably right that Sato wouldn't be top tier even if he cost 10 points less but it certainly wouldn't hurt. Besides if Sloane was nerfed enough to make her less prevalent, Sato's squadrons might actually survive long enough to do the job.

As for Leia, I have no clue what you mean about maxing out upgrades. To the contrary, the only reasonably successful list I've seen with her was a swarm of almost naked hammerhead scouts backed by Yavaris, a couple of flotillas and a sizable bunch of mostly generic squadrons. Hammerheads could max out the concentrate fires while Yavaris and flotillas were capable of pushing up to 9 squadrons a turn. It was a neat list, if not quite top tier. A few points extra for upgrades combined with the Sloane nerf (yeah, her again - she really locks meta down, doesn't she?) coul make a difference.

What I meant was that Leia wants to boost a ship as much as possible. Boosting a kitted out ship is easier and more effective than boosting a naked one. So Leia wants to have many ships and all of them as upgraded as possible. A paradox.

On 9/6/2019 at 5:21 PM, Tokra said:

Yes, pip based system where the die has to decide is so much better... 😁

I mean, you jest, but I prefer this.

I don't like that Armada has a system where people can shave 20-30 points off a list just so their list can ride the activation mechanics. I kinda feel like the only reason bail, pryce and Strat advisers were all designed to band-aid the fact that Armada's mechanics can be blatantly exploited for benefit in game.

I much prefer that no player be guaranteed the first player activation.

I also think that the way the pip cards were handled doesn't necessarily encourage going first. The 1 pip cards typically only issue orders to a single unit. Giving the player a quick advantage for 1 guy but leaving the entirety of his activation order for the rest of the round up to chance.

On 9/6/2019 at 5:21 PM, Tokra said:

In Legion it does not matter at all. All that count are the victory tokens. Nothing else. If i have more tokens than you, it does not matter if i have only one trooper left on the field. I win.

I also think this is a better system.

The fact that the objectives in this game are largely ignored bothers the **** out of me. Just destroy enough of their stuff.

25 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

The fact that the objectives in this game are largely ignored bothers the **** out of me. Just destroy enough of their stuff.

Where on earth are you playing that objectives are largely ignored? Those extra points are critical in most games. Or 8f not bonus points, some other advantage.

Just now, Formynder4 said:

Where on earth are you playing that objectives are largely ignored? Those extra points are critical in most games. Or 8f not bonus points, some other advantage.

Streetsboro Ohio, every Friday night, 5:30pm to midnight....


but we did just move to a new store in Ravenna.

34 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I mean, you jest, but I prefer this.

...

Two points for you.

I never went for the bidding game at all. But i see what you mean. But if you build a list, that want to be first, you have to make sure you are first. I like that you can decide this.
But this bidding contest is what i never understand and never did. On the other hand, it is only fair. You want something (being first), this means you have to pay for it (with a bid). In the end, if you strech the bid to far, you could have used another 1-2 ships instead.
I hope that it will change with the new missions (in worst case it will turn in the other direction, and everyone is bidding for second 🤒).

Both these systems, the Armada and the Legion one, have problems with the first/second player. But i prefer a system where you can count on a stable order, as you can in Armada. And not a random decission.
I don't know if it is still this much of a problem. But this "Luke want to go first" crap that happend in the begining was really annoying (for me). The game was sometimes decided in the turn where Luke went in with his 1 pip.

About the objectives i have to agree as well, at least partial.
In Armada the missions are sometimes ignored. Or not good enough to care about. And so it ends most of the time in a pure combat game, without any bonus for the second player. I dislike this as well. There are just some fleets that have no good pick for an objective, and have suddenly a drawback. In worst case they are playing this mission 99% of the time (hello Solar Corona, again...).
I really hope that this will be change as well with the new objectives.

The objective/deployment/environment part was one really good part of Legion. I really like it. And the focus on the objectives is as well really good.

BUT! Legion is taking it too far, in my opinion.
Destroyed units do no matter.
Non trooper have a disadvantage when it comes to victory tokens (making them cheaper will not help, they will still not be competitive against troopers).
And the new objectives. Honestly i have no idea how they work and/or if you need them (meaning how they work for tournaments). But when i read that there are new objectives in the environment sets (downed AT-ST, Bunker, moisture vaporators i was a little bit shocked. I hope they are only for fun games and not for tournaments, but as i said, i don't know.

And the worst part on Legion was not even mentioned (because it has nothing to do with the cost of the units). But i really dislike this stupid point system with Win/Loss. It totally ruined it for me. The 1-10 points in Armada are great (not perfect but great). This 0-1 points system in Legion is total crap. Sometimes i have the feeling that no one even thought a bit about it when they wrote their tournament rules. Just focused on the game and the money they can make. But not a single second they thought about a good tournament system for it.

At the German Grand Championship there was a Legion tournament as well. 30 Players. I asked them how they are doing it.
Answer: 3 rounds. After this a cut for top 4, and one more round 🤔.
And yes, this means that 3 player with 3 wins and one with two wins, who had luck with his opponents (not with good or close games, with LUCK) went into the cut. And after this 1 round they had two winners.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

BUT! Legion is taking it too far, in my opinion.
Destroyed units do no matter.
Non trooper have a disadvantage when it comes to victory tokens (making them cheaper will not help, they will still not be competitive against troopers).
And the new objectives. Honestly i have no idea how they work and/or if you need them (meaning how they work for tournaments). But when i read that there are new objectives in the environment sets (downed AT-ST, Bunker, moisture vaporators i was a little bit shocked. I hope they are only for fun games and not for tournaments, but as i said, i don't know.

Only the Battlefield Supplies expansion ( the one with the vaporators) provides tournament-legal objectives so far, all the other (much more expensive) sets feature only scenarios in form of 2-mission mini campaigns. Your other point is a matter of preference I think, some people enjoy heavily objective based play (Legion), others pure death match (X-Wing) and Armada lays somewhat in between. Killing units is still pretty important in Legion in that it prevents your opponent from accomplishing the objective, but not as singleminded in that you should complete ignore the win condition in favor of hunting down your opponents units. They are also other options besides the objective to score points like the Bounty keyword where your Bounty Hunters try to eliminate a specific character model.

Concerning vehicles: Legion will always be a game about troopers all and foremost. That, however, doesn't mean that vehicles are bad, like in Armada having a single, powerful activation can be pretty strong and you can still build a list with enough troopers to take care of the objectives vehicles cannot affect ( 3 out of 5 missions at this point). Vehicles have just not been considered efficient enough for the top competitive lists in the last couple of months. But that can change just recently double tank builds seem to have risen in popularity.

50 minutes ago, Tokra said:

And the worst part on Legion was not even mentioned (because it has nothing to do with the cost of the units). But i really dislike this stupid point system with Win/Loss. It totally ruined it for me. The 1-10 points in Armada are great (not perfect but great). This 0-1 points system in Legion is total crap. Sometimes i have the feeling that no one even thought a bit about it when they wrote their tournament rules. Just focused on the game and the money they can make. But not a single second they thought about a good tournament system for it.

That, however, is true. I just don't think Legion was ever designed to be primarily a tournament game. But you could probaly fix that by adding points destroyed as a secondary score to break ties within a bracket. That would also encourage more aggressive play in games where the mission objectives sometimes leads to a stalemate (like Sabotage the Moisture Vaparators).

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

And the worst part on Legion was not even mentioned (because it has nothing to do with the cost of the units). But i really dislike this stupid point system with Win/Loss. It totally ruined it for me. The 1-10 points in Armada are great (not perfect but great). This 0-1 points system in Legion is total crap. Sometimes i have the feeling that no one even thought a bit about it when they wrote their tournament rules. Just focused on the game and the money they can make. But not a single second they thought about a good tournament system for it.

At the German Grand Championship there was a Legion tournament as well. 30 Players. I asked them how they are doing it.
Answer: 3 rounds. After this a cut for top 4, and one more round 🤔.
And yes, this means that 3 player with 3 wins and one with two wins, who had luck with his opponents (not with good or close games, with LUCK) went into the cut. And after this 1 round they had two winners.

I completely agree with this.

I'm hosting the regional championships here in Ohio for Legion and I'm sweating it hard. Armada is nice and easy with the 1-10 system. Legion's scoring looks like an absolute ****-show.

On 9/6/2019 at 5:36 PM, xero989 said:

If I remember correctly you can actually have nothing on the table and you could have killed nothing of your opponents and still win the game if you have more tokens.

No, Legion still has a tabling rule. And since it only scores W/L it can’t account for the pyrrhic nature of the victory.

19 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

No, Legion still has a tabling rule. And since it only scores W/L it can’t account for the pyrrhic nature of the victory.

Okay its just been a while since I last played and could not remember the details. Legion would be a much better game if it has a victory system baised off of how many points you lost to get the victory like major victory is a 4-1 if you losse 200 points or less minor victory a 3-2 if you lose 200-400 and a pyrrhic victory being 400 points or more 2-2 games won becoming a tie breaker. That's just off the top of my head but it would be a much better system, IMO.

On 9/5/2019 at 3:55 PM, xero989 said:

Like I said before I feel like every ship is viable, however I do think ECM should be a discard, and they should get rid of the dumb interaction between X17's and Advanced Projectors, IMO, but as is game balance is pretty soild I just wish accuracy generation was a little more meaningful. I would also be happy if ecm was worded in such a way that it could discard a single die with an accuracy icon.

I think ECM has its place but maybe an errata that says you can target one defence token with two acuracies, and make it so that ECM only works against the first so the second still effects the token.

IDK maybe not a perfect solution. I think officer Palp is a problem. It's still new but **** he just strips the life out of ships!

49 minutes ago, Rune Taq said:

I think ECM has its place but maybe an errata that says you can target one defence token with two acuracies, and make it so that ECM only works against the first so the second still effects the token.

IDK maybe not a perfect solution. I think officer Palp is a problem. It's still new but **** he just strips the life out of ships!

In essence that is my solution by exhausting ECMs to cancel an accuracy before it is spent means they need at least 2 in their pool to lock things up.

I dont see officer palp as a big issue most ships are fine spending one token even some cases two. It just really hurts TRC ships IMO. If manage your tokens and time when you attack Palpatine's ship you will be fine.

7 minutes ago, xero989 said:

I dont see officer palp as a big issue most ships are fine spending one token even some cases two. It just really hurts TRC ships IMO. If manage your tokens and time when you attack Palpatine's ship you will be fine.

I agree that Palp isn't that big a deal he can be a little pain in certain situations and it can be used by a player to discourage you from attacking a ship until after the threat of a big attack is gone. I love Palp though, he is a powerful officer in the right scenario.