On 2/11/2020 at 10:07 PM, Sharkbelly said:

I now call on everyone to stop posting in this thread so it can fall away into the abyss...

Can do!

7 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Can do!

I already did that ! 😤

On 2/12/2020 at 1:07 AM, Sharkbelly said:

I now call on everyone to stop posting in this thread so it can fall away into the abyss...

I don't think we should, there is only a small handful of posters who are trying to make this a medium to air their grievances. By allowing them too; then we are saying we hear you, but here is why we disagree. As long as we keep it civil, future readers will see that those small handful don't define the community. Allowing those who are upset a spot (this post) vs creating multiple new posts that we have to keep addressing, will help newer players in that they don't come into a toxic online gaming community. You don't have to agree with those who dislike the game. I think people have done a fine job defending why they disagree with those who do and letting them know that the game direction is probably not going to ever please them and they have the choice to leave to find other games that might check off more boxes.

But we DO want to be toxic. Our failure to do so, is definitely telling us we should try to push harder and together, as a community, to reach our goal ! People have expectations for us, we should not fail them !

14 hours ago, Tubb said:

It is not a matter of don't liking something, the problem is that I have already invested some money in a game that has been developed very different from what is expected when they say "Warfare is an inescapable part of the Star Wars universe, from the blow dealt to the Rebel Alliance in the Battle of Hoth to a few Rebel strike teams taking on a legion of stormtroopers stationed on Endor..."

Do you really think that description aplies to actual state of the game?

I have always taken Legion to be an abstraction. I play the CIS army. We're supposed to have thousands of battle droids compared to how many clones get fielded, but the reality is much different; I have two more droids then my opponent has clones, per squad.

I am actually fine with this. Even more, I like the abstraction. I still have way more droids (in model count, usually) then my opponent does clones, so it looks like I'm severely outnumbering him (whether or not we have the same activation count). This is an abstraction of the actual battle at hand, and I think it works just fine. It's Obi and his clones vs. Grievous and a larger army of droids marching at them. Even the objectives simulate things like capturing the shield bunker on Endor, or breaking through the opposing line to outflank their other positions. It's all simulated in a much smaller wargame, and I think FFG is doing alright with it.

If Legion was a game that involved fielding actual legions of models, I never would have picked up the hobby, because even plastic (and storage) gets expensive. So the units are toned down in terms of model count and the game doesn't take five hours to play.

19 hours ago, Tubb said:

first alowing two "chiefs" instead of just one, then making "operatives" that allowed two more heroes, so that you were able to field 4 heroes... it didn't make any sense to allow 4 heroes and have 8 different options and still have just ONE troop choice available if you wanted to keep your army themed

I get where you're coming from, but remember that your corps minimum is three while your commander and operative maximums are 2 each. And remember that you can't spend more than half your units on leaders/operatives and expect to do well. Most armies I see have more than twice as many corps units as leader/operative units, and SF trooper units get added on top of that.

18 hours ago, Tubb said:

I hated to have every stormtrooper unit exactly the same, now they have given us more options and I really apreciate it. But having imperial army troops, mud troopers or Naval troopers wouldn't hurt. Rebels already got two options that can be used in any climate, to me it is enough, but a veteran unit without hoth gear wouldn't hurt also.

I totally agree for thematic reasons, but remember the game is still young. All in due time. We'll get the army/navy/mudtroopers before too long. Honestly Shoretroopers are more or less "Temperate" as well, though I don't prefer them due to aesthetic reasons. They have to put out a bunch of memorable characters now if they want the game to sell (especially to the people that like those characters). And remember that variety of character "options" doesn't mean number of characters fielded. I could come up with dozens of character options for each faction, but coming up with numbers of unit types is a little harder. This is because many armies are mostly focused around one or two trooper types (stormtroopers, fleet troopers, P1 Clones, etc), so the source material is somewhat limited. Seeing more variety in how to equip these units is something that I am excited for, on the other hand.

18 hours ago, Tubb said:

But allowing four slots made of 4 men units for a total of SIXTEEN soldiers mandatory is ridiculous.

Remember scaling is an issue. They wanted the 32mm size so the minis would be easy to paint (remember a lot of legion players have never played a minis game before) and so that iconic characters and troop types would be instantly recognizable. For budgetary reasons it's necessary to keep the figure count down. Also it's hard to think of more than a few ground battles in the OT period (Hoth, Vrogas vas, Endor) that did involve more than a few dozen units. A galaxy-spanning conflict means your resources get divided up into all kinds of different places and it's hard to bring all that much to bear on one spot (or maybe it's just that the studio couldn't afford that many extras and costumes in the 70s-80s...).

18 hours ago, Tubb said:

In bolt action there's rookie units, veteran units and regular units and you don't need different outfit, you just use the components provided and just decide how to diferentiate them.

It's entirely possible (and I would say even likely ) that we get veteran versions of existing trooper types in the future. Remember the development cycle takes time as everything has to be balanced, sculpted, and tested independently. They've done quite a good job but it does require patience.

18 hours ago, Tubb said:

In Hoth, you always see Luke and Han and Leia and Veers and Vader... but most of the time the battle was fought between a hundred of nameless hoth troopers and some dozens of snowtroopers.

Remember every wargame abstracts the numbers a bit. Bolt Action certainly isn't on a 1:1 ratio of soldier count! Much less DBA as you cited above. Each "unit" of 6ish troopers in fact represents probably significantly more than 6 (more like 20), so once you extrapolate those numbers you arrive at an approximately accurate ratio. Legion might be something like 1:4 whereas Warlords' games are 1:10-20 and DBA is more like 1:5000. In this way Legion's scaling seems much closer to the source material than most wargames.

Very few of us could afford to put 100+ troopers on the board at one time. It would also require a much larger board and a much longer play time. In the end you end up with fewer, longer games and many, many people that cannot play because the barrier-to-entry is just too high (Initial investment of $400+ for a single army, the time to paint 100+ 32mm soldiers, the time to play through a first game and its ensuing frustrations, further great cost for adding more units, etc. etc.)

I do think that an "Epic" sized game could well be in the works for the future, with perhaps a 1500-2000 point cap. They could still limit leader/operative count to 2/2 and allow much larger numbers of troopers, heavy, and SF units. It would give a more "army" feel while making your leaders and operatives seem that much more unique and powerful. They've done it with Armada and X-Wing, and they've done "Skirmish" level for Legion, so I figure it's also only a matter of time.

On 2/10/2020 at 7:38 PM, TauntaunScout said:

Fine. I want it to be more immersive and *gasp* more of a simulation, yes, even though it has space wizards. People shouldn’t gain aim tokens through osmosis for example. There’s too much to keep track of in Legion and it doesn’t feel like the SW universe to me.

I understand results may vary, but I find cards to be usually more immersive than charts. Rolling a bunch of D6 and looking up results on a chart is the heart of most wargames, I do understand that, but basic traits like "Veteran, Drilled" etc as numerical modifiers seem less interesting to me than "Sharpshooter" or "Reliable" having somewhat more tangible effects. For this reason I enjoy FFG mechanics for representing these traits in a more tangible way. To me, that makes it more immersive.

Understanding and translating abstraction is the major suspension-of-disbelief in any game system (and I say that as a game designer who's working on an ancients battlefield game as we speak). The fewer steps that go into translation, the more immersive the experience is. I understand that for veteran wargamers, numerous D6s, book references, numerical dice modifiers, and charts are the air you breathe and don't feel like translation as such. But for novices this is a much more substantial hurdle to get over and will rather detract from the immersion into the game. Having all the relevant information visible in front of you (yes in card form since it's easier to reference than a book for many) makes the process smoother.

Quote

There’s too much to keep track of in Legion and it doesn’t feel like the SW universe to me. The way say, a game of DBA feels exactly like reading first hand accounts of ancient warfare.

You CAN'T be serious here. I would understand this sentiment for something like Hail Caesar, but DBA is about as far from a simulation as you can get. It is one of the most abstracted historical games of any type, much more so for a battlefield wargame. And I've played DBA for many years. Surely choosing your options for which units to activate, how many, and how early (the command card system) is more immersive than rolling a single die to see what number of groups you can activate? The "Player Initiative Point" system in DBA is extremely lackluster to me and can destroy whole games by a number of bad rolls that cannot be mitigated by good strategy in any way.

And that's not to mention that your general is always 1/12th of your entire army! As far as proportions go, that's far, far worse than SW Legion, especially when characters play a bigger part in Star Wars battles than they ever did in ancient battles.

Even some of the more "Board Game-y" stuff in Legion like chained activation and token sharing still is easy to understand thematically; the leader is pointing something out to the unit, or is calling out to rally them, or the units are performing a coordinated attack. I don't see how this is less "immersive" than the complex formation, weapon, or morale rules in a game like Hail Caesar.

The rule I make when designing a game is that I want the commander to only consider the kinds of decisions and factors that a commander would actually consider. The commander will take into account the experience status of a unit or their morale/rout status, but he won't likely care if his celtic warband mercenaries are armed with spears or swords. It doesn't normally matter whether the unit is steady or wavering as long as the line is held. I don't know. I love historical minis that get close to the theme, and Warlord Games is closest of the ones I'm familiar with, but it still seems the finicky details could be better streamlined through some of the more visible mechanisms that FFG does use in its games.

I'm not saying Legion doesn't have its faults. But I am saying that as far as pure thematic immersion goes, Star Wars Legion is one of the best possible games to choose, especially for a Miniature Wargame.

Game is great, I love it! For a more immersive experience, listen to Star Wars music at a loud volume during your games. It definitely helps!

1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I understand results may vary, but I find cards to be usually more immersive than charts. Rolling a bunch of D6 and looking up results on a chart is the heart of most wargames, I do understand that, but basic traits like "Veteran, Drilled" etc as numerical modifiers seem less interesting to me than "Sharpshooter" or "Reliable" having somewhat more tangible effects. For this reason I enjoy FFG mechanics for representing these traits in a more tangible way. To me, that makes it more immersive.

Understanding and translating abstraction is the major suspension-of-disbelief in any game system (and I say that as a game designer who's working on an ancients battlefield game as we speak). The fewer steps that go into translation, the more immersive the experience is. I understand that for veteran wargamers, numerous D6s, book references, numerical dice modifiers, and charts are the air you breathe and don't feel like translation as such. But for novices this is a much more substantial hurdle to get over and will rather detract from the immersion into the game. Having all the relevant information visible in front of you (yes in card form since it's easier to reference than a book for many) makes the process smoother.

You CAN'T be serious here. I would understand this sentiment for something like Hail Caesar, but DBA is about as far from a simulation as you can get. It is one of the most abstracted historical games of any type, much more so for a battlefield wargame. And I've played DBA for many years. Surely choosing your options for which units to activate, how many, and how early (the command card system) is more immersive than rolling a single die to see what number of groups you can activate? The "Player Initiative Point" system in DBA is extremely lackluster to me and can destroy whole games by a number of bad rolls that cannot be mitigated by good strategy in any way.

And that's not to mention that your general is always 1/12th of your entire army! As far as proportions go, that's far, far worse than SW Legion, especially when characters play a bigger part in Star Wars battles than they ever did in ancient battles.

Even some of the more "Board Game-y" stuff in Legion like chained activation and token sharing still is easy to understand thematically; the leader is pointing something out to the unit, or is calling out to rally them, or the units are performing a coordinated attack. I don't see how this is less "immersive" than the complex formation, weapon, or morale rules in a game like Hail Caesar.

The rule I make when designing a game is that I want the commander to only consider the kinds of decisions and factors that a commander would actually consider. The commander will take into account the experience status of a unit or their morale/rout status, but he won't likely care if his celtic warband mercenaries are armed with spears or swords. It doesn't normally matter whether the unit is steady or wavering as long as the line is held. I don't know. I love historical minis that get close to the theme, and Warlord Games is closest of the ones I'm familiar with, but it still seems the finicky details could be better streamlined through some of the more visible mechanisms that FFG does use in its games.

I'm not saying Legion doesn't have its faults. But I am saying that as far as pure thematic immersion goes, Star Wars Legion is one of the best possible games to choose, especially for a Miniature Wargame.

The command cards feel like Luke is sending messengers with scrolls around the table and hoping they don’t get intercepted. Non-immersive for this setting.

Having unique heroes in situations that aren’t believable is non-immersive.

Looking on a chart is no different from looking up all the keywords. But in old SW there’s a lot less chart to memorize than keyword data to memorize.

Rolling lots of dice is easier than “No, the OTHER black dice”. I don’t say this as a player but as a person who runs demos of various games for mundanes. They have an easier time groking older rules sets.

Individual results may vary.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

The command cards feel like Luke is sending messengers with scrolls around the table and hoping they don’t get intercepted. Non-immersive for this setting.

Agree to disagree. Feels very on-theme to me. Your mileage may vary.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Having unique heroes in situations that aren’t believable is non-immersive.

Not sure what situation you have in mind; every hero in-game has been in the thick of a battle (more or less) at some point. Maybe you mean army compositions in general but that's always the downside of these games. Sort of like mixing a North African WWII army with an Eastern Front army; I guess you could do it under the rules, but there's not a particularly strong competitive advantage so why? I could be wrong there because I'm more thematic than competitive.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Looking on a chart is no different from looking up all the keywords. But in old SW there’s a lot less chart to memorize than keyword data to memorize.

Never cared for memorizing charts. The whole "if more than half, destroyed, if less than half, recoil (unless against knights, elephants, heavy chariots), etc" for dozens of unit types is a lot less intuitive to me than if the keywords were right there in front of you, only for the unit you're actually using. One has to cover every potential situation, the other only tells you exactly what you're doing right now, with no extra, and once you learn it can be used by any number of other units in the future. Keywords are universal and extremely easy to memorize (even when there are lots of them). Charts get bloated super fast, but at the same time they can be quite inflexible as new units get rolled out.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Rolling lots of dice is easier than “No, the OTHER black dice”. I don’t say this as a player but as a person who runs demos of various games for mundanes. They have an easier time groking older rules sets.

Square = Defend. Diamond = Attack. White/Black/Red = Bad/Medium/Good.

I don't know how that could possibly be simpler.

And what if they've never played an older rules set? Probably 70% of the target market for Legion never has.

8 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Rolling lots of dice is easier than “No, the OTHER black dice”. I don’t say this as a player but as a person who runs demos of various games for mundanes. They have an easier time groking older rules sets.

Yeah, I think if all of the dice had different colors that would help a bit. Then it's not "black d6" vs "black d8", it's "grab the blue die for defence."

4 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Agree to disagree. Feels very on-theme to me. Your mileage may vary.

Not sure what situation you have in mind;

Any situation with the head of state personally sabotaging a moisture vaporator. Or where Greedo kills Yoda. Unique heroes don’t belong on the tabletop IMO.

4 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Never cared for memorizing charts. The whole "if more than half, destroyed, if less than half, recoil (unless against knights, elephants, heavy chariots), etc" for dozens of unit types

The SW D6 charts took up like 2 pages and were rarely used after a couple games.

Quote

Square = Defend. Diamond = Attack. White/Black/Red = Bad/Medium/Good.

I don't know how that could possibly be simpler.

Not using the same colors would be a start.

Quote

And what if they've never played an older rules set? Probably 70% of the target market for Legion never has.

“Mundanes” are people who have never played this type of game, ie, normal people.

49 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Unique heroes don’t belong on the tabletop IMO.

And for as many people who think this, there's just as many people who would say the game doesn't feel like Star Wars without them. The option exists to play with unique heroes or without them and is a far better solution than refusing to indulge one side or the other.

49 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

The SW D6 charts took up like 2 pages and were rarely used after a couple games.

You can compress the legion index with the important keywords to about that same size. Most of it is for interacting keywords to make sure that rules lawyers can't exploit a loophole, not for Johnny Average. Heck my group rarely uses it.

49 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Not using the same colors would be a start.

This is a valid criticism of the dice system in place. The other one being they don't give you enough dice in a core set.

49 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

“Mundanes” are people who have never played this type of game, ie, normal people.

I've always disliked made up terms for describing anyone outside of a sect of people. It comes off as petty most of the time despite not being the intention.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yeah, I think if all of the dice had different colors that would help a bit. Then it's not "black d6" vs "black d8", it's "grab the blue die for defence."

There is no black defense dice.

I'm having a hard time believing that folks who have played war games for years are confused by a few different dice types (that are listed as colored symbols right there on the cards no less).

I think it just comes down to stylistic preferences. Legion is definitely an FFG style wargame.

-Plug and play upgrades with slots

-Proprietary dice

-Lots of tokens!

-Hidden information integral to planning your turn

If you dont like those things thats fine, buy the models and play with your own rule set (or any of the prior existing ones like WEG or d20). Or dont buy the models at all. Why would you go onto a forum filled with people who DO like the rule set and spend time trying to convince them they are wrong about their preferences?

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

There is no black defense dice.

I'm having a hard time believing that folks who have played war games for years are confused by a few different dice types (that are listed as colored symbols right there on the cards no less).

I think it just comes down to stylistic preferences. Legion is definitely an FFG style wargame.

-Plug and play upgrades with slots

-Proprietary dice

-Lots of tokens!

-Hidden information integral to planning your turn

If you dont like those things thats fine, buy the models and play with your own rule set (or any of the prior existing ones like WEG or d20). Or dont buy the models at all. Why would you go onto a forum filled with people who DO like the rule set and spend time trying to convince them they are wrong about their preferences?

Eh, that was the color I remembered first, and it's been a few months since I could get a game in, point still stands, just replace black with white or red (those are the colors of the dice right?:-P)

The theme means many people who have never played a wargame or polyhedral die game are interested and want to learn/play. To them it's not quite as obvious for which shape to roll as it would be for which color. Everything else about the game is designed to be (almost) as easy as possible for people new to wargames, it's a bit of a surprising oversight. Probably a cost saving measure.

7 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Eh, that was the color I remembered first, and it's been a few months since I could get a game in, point still stands, just replace black with white or red (those are the colors of the dice right?:-P)

The theme means many people who have never played a wargame or polyhedral die game are interested and want to learn/play. To them it's not quite as obvious for which shape to roll as it would be for which color. Everything else about the game is designed to be (almost) as easy as possible for people new to wargames, it's a bit of a surprising oversight. Probably a cost saving measure.

I guess I just dont get how the symbols on the cards, which show a shape and color, are hard to parse.

Then again my 'wargaming' background is X-wing so I was already primed for FFG style symbol dice in different colors

Unless someone has evidence that Legion’s going to be cancelled in the foreseeable future, I will consider this thread no further.

Legion does not have my permission to die until Clones and Droids are properly fleshed out with expansions. 🤣

7 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I understand results may vary, but I find cards to be usually more immersive than charts. Rolling a bunch of D6 and looking up results on a chart is the heart of most wargames, I do understand that, but basic traits like "Veteran, Drilled" etc as numerical modifiers seem less interesting to me than "Sharpshooter" or "Reliable" having somewhat more tangible effects. For this reason I enjoy FFG mechanics for representing these traits in a more tangible way. To me, that makes it more immersive.

Understanding and translating abstraction is the major suspension-of-disbelief in any game system (and I say that as a game designer who's working on an ancients battlefield game as we speak). The fewer steps that go into translation, the more immersive the experience is. I understand that for veteran wargamers, numerous D6s, book references, numerical dice modifiers, and charts are the air you breathe and don't feel like translation as such. But for novices this is a much more substantial hurdle to get over and will rather detract from the immersion into the game. Having all the relevant information visible in front of you (yes in card form since it's easier to reference than a book for many) makes the process smoother.

-snip-

I'm not saying Legion doesn't have its faults. But I am saying that as far as pure thematic immersion goes, Star Wars Legion is one of the best possible games to choose, especially for a Miniature Wargame.

This is always the defence that I see put forward when this discussion comes up, and it relies rather heavily on missing the point.

People are not objecting to the way Legion presents information. People are not saying you must have five books and charts out the bum or the game is rubbish. Whether someone prefers a very streamlined approach or a very detailed approach is not the issue at hand.

What people find unimmersive about games like Legion is that the way they have chosen to go about their abstraction gives you the feeling that you're playing a game , when what they want is to feel like they're commanding an army . You can have a ludicrously complex game that feels game-y(eg, 8th edition 40K), and a hugely streamlined ruleset that still captures the sense of command really well(eg, too many historicals to count). What the people you're attempting to refute want out of a game is for the rules to make the optimal actions a player must take to achieve victory be at least a facsimile of the actions an actual military commander would have to take if the situation being depicted were real; a system where morale, terrain, maneuvers, battlefield conditions and the objectives of the scenario are the primary focus and all function in at least a loosely "realistic"(by whatever the rules of the setting are) fashion. A lot of modern games have shifted their focus to listbuilding, card-combos, chained activations, keyword synergies, and aura-bubbles with the result that there's a disconnect between what you feel like you should be doing in a given situation as the commander of an army, and what you need to do to get the win as the player of a game.

You can make the instructions on how to play the game as compact and easy to reference as you like, the issue is the content of the instructions, not their style or accessibility.

Scuttlebutt = Naval term for rumor, also, drinking water fountain for some reason. Navy is wierd like that.

Secondly, I really apologize for I didnt intend this to become a salt thread. Was just genuinely interested to see if the rumor I heard had any teeth to it, cause I didnt beleive it. Some of you guys are more tapped into the game than I am, so thought I'd source the crowd. Also, just because new units are announced, doesnt mean that things are going well. But fortunately, that is not the case. I love this game, it is fun, quick, easy, and I get to hang with friends, chew the fat, and chill playing SWL every other week.

Also, remember you can kitbash units...

My Rebel Vets are unused minis converted from my Rebel Troopers. If I play a cold environment, I switch to the cold weather gear. So If you want to play with the Snowtrooper rules, but dont want to have the Snowtrooper armor/aesthetic...then kitbash. Replace your Snowtroopers with Stormtrooper models and kitbash the flame trooper. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing this. My kitbashed were approved in tourneys and i have never come across an opponent that said no. Just make it very clear to them and typically no one is going to care.

You are only ever limited by your imagination...

So to quote the infamous Billy Madison, "a simple no would have sufficed"

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

A lot of modern games have shifted their focus to listbuilding, card-combos, chained activations, keyword synergies, and aura-bubbles with the result that there's a disconnect between what you feel like you should be doing in a given situation as the commander of an army, and what you need to do to get the win as the player of a game.

I think I get the point a bit better here. Perhaps it feels a little bit too game-y. There are definitely plenty of FFG-isms in it.

And I do agree; to improve immersion, the whole point is to make every decision point feel like the decision point that the character you're playing would have. FFG is very good at making a game feel Star-Wars-y (they practically defined it in terms of tabletop), but I understand better now what's missed from a thematic standpoint.

I'm interested to see how many troop choices players like Tubb are expecting to see?
For Empire we currently have Storm, Snow, Scout, Shore, Death Troopers and Imperial Guard. Every single one of these have had screen time and are thus official units.
Remember that when Disney bought the franchise they announced that only the Films and media released by them would be official going forward? That seriously cuts down what we will actually see out of the game for a long time as getting anything non-canon approved would be a major pain.

Would more variety be good? Absolutely!
Where would it come from though?

Sure there are plenty of hero options but heroes general make sales, kind of an important part to the business side of things. And as another poster has said already, they are choices, not mandatory options for lists.



As for how immersive the game is. All I can say is that the game looked rather appealing (after reading extensive reviews, I am new to Legion) with the unit activation and the command card interaction in particular rather appealing. That element of not knowing which unit you can activate next adds an element of strategizing that my other gaming interests do not have (Age of Sigmar, 40k, Infinity).

Oh and as to the topic at hand, here in Aus it's pretty hard to find an online retailer that has the core box in stock, the system is really popular especially now that Clone Era armies are out.

This thread will not die... I hereby exile it from the forum!

On 2/14/2020 at 7:27 PM, Yodhrin said:

What people find unimmersive about games like Legion is that the way they have chosen to go about their abstraction gives you the feeling that you're playing a game , when what they want is to feel like they're commanding an army .

But u are playing a game.

wait, how the heck is this thread still alive?