4 hours ago, lunitic501 said:

But u are playing a game.

But there are milions of diferent games:

You can play marbles. You can play scrabble. You can play poker. You can play chess. You can play abstract board games (rummikub, scrabble...) . You can play Legacy Card Games. You can play legion. You can play thematic board games (Star Wars outer rim, SW: rebellion, mansions of madness, Game of thrones...). You can play wargames. You can play role playing games.

The examples of the list were placed in order of immersion, being first no immersion at all and no immersion needed, and lastly games that couldn't be played without immersion. legion should be, as we see it, in the same slot as wargames, but it is too close (for my taste) to LCGs.

And it is not only a matter of the theme of the game. For exemple, FFG has a lot of games with Lord of the rings theme. BUT there are some of them immersive and others don't.

You got Lotr: the confrontation, that is a "Outbluff and Outmaneuver" game, with some pieces of plastic that have to be placed in front of their enemies, in a way similar to stratego games.

Althought the theme is elves, orcs, hobbits and fantasy literature in general, it is an ABSTRACT game, and so, it is in the abstract section of FFG website: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/lord-of-the-rings-the-confrontation/ because the choices, options, strategies and sinergies that you make in the game have NO relation with the things that happen in the fantasy story it is based on.

It is like playing a Batman chess... has any relation with Batman other than cosmethics? And yes, u are playing a game.

Or you got Lotr: Journeys in middle-earth: a story-driven game with immersion required. In this game you decide to move to a place, and that means that your character is going to that place to explore, you decide to ATTACK that monster, as if you were the character, and that means that you use weapons to fight. So the gameplay and "the alternative reality" are a lot CLOSER. Your actions and gameplay are closer to what actually happens in the story and so you feel inside the action, and it is the purpose of the game, that you enjoy how the story unfolds, how you live an adventure that changes regarding your decisions in front of you.

Or you got lotr: Strategy battle games: a wargame. It can be strongly story driven if you want, playing specific scenarios that recreat scenes from the movies or the books, and you feel completely inside the action, and the gameplay strongly resembles actual orders given to a unit, such as move, attack, retreat, fire. Exactly as "journeys", the game unfolds in front of you, TELLING YOU A STORY TOO.

All of them are lotr games, but not all of them need or achieve the same level of immersion. Some don't need any suspension-of-disbelief simply becasue the gameplay or the Player DON'T CARE about it because the know they are playing a game and they don't "suspend belief".

When you read a book, you need that suspension, when you are told a story, you also need it. When you play a thematic game, you SHOULD experiment that feeling IF the game is immersive enough. It doesn't mean it is a bad game, or a good one: it simply don't take into account the immersion and offers you a diferent experience, similar to that of LCG or abstract board games.

In Star Wars: X-Wing, you feel like flying a starship, giving it maneuvers and seeing how the starship makes moves that you have ordered it... effetively maneuvering... BUT it also allows for combos and the gameplay uses bufs with cards that don't have nothing to do with good piloting skills. That's what X-wing did wrong, and so they decided to switch to a second Edition as they recognized that the combos were taking out the enjoyment... they say right now to justify their second edition: "With refined gameplay that focuses on the physical act of flying starships, X-Wing Second Edition lets you create your own Star Wars space battles right on your tabletop..."

See? they recognized the act of phyical flying is what makes you ENJOY, not the card combos or the list...

But there's a group of players, that use to be the hardcore gamers, that ONLY care about mechanics, combos, lists... and also they don't care abouyt stories unfolding in front of their eyes... they care aout winning and they don't feel bad using loopholes or bubbles or combos that allows for extreme results if it allows them to win. But, at the same time, some complain because the game has loopholes, extreme combos, win lists, death stars, or use the cards to favore new shinies.

Yes?

9 minutes ago, Tubb said:

But there are milions of diferent games:

You can play marbles. You can play scrabble. You can play poker. You can play chess. You can play abstract board games (rummikub, scrabble...) . You can play Legacy Card Games. You can play legion. You can play thematic board games (Star Wars outer rim, SW: rebellion, mansions of madness, Game of thrones...). You can play wargames. You can play role playing games.

Go play marbles or DnD. This clearly is not the game for you. Life lesson for you. If you enjoy something continue doing it, if you don't, then stop doing it. Complaining about something you don't enjoy will never end up with you being happy.

12 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Go play marbles or DnD. This clearly is not the game for you. Life lesson for you. If you enjoy something continue doing it, if you don't, then stop doing it. Complaining about something you don't enjoy will never end up with you being happy.

And If I come here to talk about my impressions of the game, do I make you unhappy? Why are you all so agressive against criticism? Go play Legion.

3 minutes ago, Tubb said:

And If I come here to talk about my impressions of the game, do I make you unhappy? Why are you all so agressive against criticism? Go play Legion.

No its that you've been whining about the same thing for the past year. It isn't going to change. Why are you so dense that you can't see that?

27 minutes ago, Tubb said:

And If I come here to talk about my impressions of the game, do I make you unhappy? Why are you all so agressive against criticism? Go play Legion.

I mean, when you say that you hope FFG loses the license so that another company can make the game you want*, that's pretty antagonistic.

*I am curious which company you think has the resources, desire, and capability to do that, by the way.

16 hours ago, Karnage1992 said:

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.

It is not a matter of quantity, but the possibility to make a thematic army that doesn't seem my son's Star wars action figures collection. And it is not true that they are not allowed to make diferent units, FFG has expanded other game branches with invented characters and invented units... they don't try to invent simply because they are not brave enough, thinking that the units that appear in the films will be more appealing... it has no sense. Just look at selling rankings at amazon and you will se that non character units are WAY more sold.

16 hours ago, Karnage1992 said:

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.

See above, they don't sell as well as infantry units. Simply becasue you don't need six heroes, and you can buy six troops. And they are not mandatory, but they have designed the game so that the only variation you find in tactics is just change your boss so that you got another set of cards...

16 hours ago, Karnage1992 said:

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).

I will not tell you that the game isn't appealing, but all that is good in it (unit activation System that don't let you know who is going to activate that you love so much) is taken from Bolt Action, designed by Alessio cavatore, same designer as Lord of the rings strategy battle game, another scalable gem. And the pin System when a unit is hit, is also from Bolt action. And the way morale is managed, it is also taken from there. BUT those are VERY immersive games, you really feel like Fielding a second world war two army or a middle-earth army when playing... it is not a matter of bad ruling or having to add rules, it is the way they reflect the things that happen in-game. In bolt action, when you choose four paratrooper units that land in a village in france, you don't get Montgomery to go with them and capture personally the well at the center of the town, and of course the Montgomery mini would not allow the paratrooper units to move twice because they get that "power" from a bubble surrounding monty miniature. or allow that, entering from the border, you got the enola gay with an a-bomb (that will let you throw a lot of dices to a unit on the other side of the table) and then "unlock" a "queen's guard" unit for free, that consists in four mounted guards in red outfit that get double shooting when are close to Queen Elizabeth (that also has a miniature and is a mirror unit to Adolf Hitler mini, another playable miniature).

This non-sense is what I see in a game of legion, perhaps is that I like Star wars too much.

And, by the way, you got plenty of spare space on the table for scenery and units since you just use one paper sheet with a chart instead of 20 cards per side.

42 minutes ago, Tubb said:

And If I come here to talk about my impressions of the game, do I make you unhappy? Why are you all so agressive against criticism? Go play Legion.

I try to look past the 'gamey' mechanics and focus on what is good about the game.

You have to consider angles of fire, moving to cover, distancing, timing, outflanking, units supporting other units, and morale.
The vehicle mechanics themselves are actually very good. And I really like the line of sight lines marked on the bigger based figures.
Tactically the game is quite engaging.
There's a lot of choices to be made during the actual game itself, even though there are some outstanding units that are clearly more efficient/easy to use than others.

The command card mechanic does feel very forced, gimmicky, and it slows the game down a lot; but there's still a lot to like.

52 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

No its that you've been whining about the same thing for the past year. It isn't going to change. Why are you so dense that you can't see that?

And I can whine as much as I want, but you should try not to call anybody dense. I got an opinion, you got another, and we can't talk as much as we want, that's what forums are for.

3 hours ago, Lochlan said:

I mean, when you say that you hope FFG loses the license so that another company can make the game you want*, that's pretty antagonistic.

*I am curious which company you think has the resources, desire, and capability to do that, by the way.

For example, Warlord Games. They have worked with the best rules designer in the industry (Alessio cavatore, Andy Chambers, Rick priestley...) a lot of the BIG names from wargaming that were in Games Workshop and even created Warhammer or other great companies are there. They got WAY better multipart plastic kits than FFG, they are used to make wargames, they got resources for great terrain, great companies working with them (some known to produce great ww2 kits such as Sarissa precision, renedra -that makes Mantic Games plastics- or Italieri), they are good at service, they got a great community...

Meanwhile FFG has lost Corey Konieczka and Andrew Navaro...

But it doesn't matter, two years ago no one would have said that FFG had the resources to make a wargame... and you would be right. That's why they have made a board game with minis and cards, not a miniature wargame.

FFG is not Warlord Games, or Games Workshop, or Knight Models, or Mantic, or Gale Force Nine... these are miniature wargaming companies, NOT board game companies that make minis... that's why FFG product differs so much from what I expected.

Would it be right to assume that you view ANY Star Wars miniatures game through the prism of historical wargaming? Because aside from LOTR that is where you keep going for your comparisons.

Of course units will have higher sales then heroes because you need multiples of them to field an army. But heroes are what grab alot of peoples attention. How many people here on the forums got drawn to the game, even partially, because one of their favourite characters were represented?

hey y’all, stop feeding the troll. There’s an ignore function on this forum for a reason.

if Tubbs wants to be miserable, let him be miserable alone.

@Tubb Bolt Action does include named "characters" in the theatre books though, they don't just limit themselves to purely generic units in all published materials. Plus, they allow for equally weird combinations in the core rules, such as SAS with Chindits, not to mention vehicles that were rarely used or only experimental. Heck, the rules are written such that you can have "Maori Gurhkas," arguable the single most OP unit in the game, and that makes the LEAST sense. You don't HAVE to take a historically accurate army, it is up to the players (as it is in Legion) to self restrict/house rule.

As well, of course generic units outsell characters, each person can only field one of each character, but some the non unique units can be taken up to six times, so each customer is more likely to buy multiples of the non-unique units.

Lately Warlord games has been not great. They are pumping out rulesets purely to sell models, then barely support it. Plus, the most recent FAQs for Bolt Action are widely panned for "fixing" a rule in one of the worst ways possible while ignoring things that are more broken. Not to mention their distribution in the US has been lackluster and frustrating for my FLGS. They were shorted on orders for new product lines, long waits for ordered products, and little communication. So not much better than FFG.

Legion broke into my house this weekend, stole my social security number, and ruined my credit! True story!

Seriously though, where's Lando?!?

1 hour ago, Karnage1992 said:

Would it be right to assume that you view ANY Star Wars miniatures game through the prism of historical wargaming? Because aside from LOTR that is where you keep going for your comparisons.

Of course units will have higher sales then heroes because you need multiples of them to field an army. But heroes are what grab alot of peoples attention. How many people here on the forums got drawn to the game, even partially, because one of their favourite characters were represented?

Yes, I think you are right, but I think that it is due to the way Star Wars relys on "real world" elements that make me think this way. If you analize Star Wars, you can see that in fact it is a matter of western in space... it has bounty hunters, has got aliens (chewbacca is "the good alien" in the same way that western heroes had mexican or indian friends), has an outer rim, smugglers... it has a strong tie to things that really exist. When you take a look at old Star Wars West End Games Role Playing Games, you notice that a lot of the success of the game (apart from the great D6 System) was that they gave every possible explanation and detail to every single small thing that you had seen in the film (like every rpg, in fact), and so they gave us exact detail about troop types, weaponry, tactics, rank insignia at platoon level, organisation, camouflage... and so they gave to fanboys like me a realm of great detail filled with information that we still remember, just as if it was completely real... that's why I compare that lore with WW2 lore, they are somewhat equivalent. This is exactly what I mean when i talk about suspension of disbelief: if you want any fiction to really WORK and make it believable, you got to give plenty of details so the "alternative reality" seems completely real. You can't write about Star wars and say that jedi can breathe in space. It is fantasy, but you can't break rules. That was a thing Tolkien and Lucas knew perfectly. If you know that Chewbacca is a wookie, that wookies are from kashyyyk, that they speak Shiriiwook, that male wookies feel wanderlust in some moment of their lives that pushes them to space, that their homeworld has been used as hunting reserve by Trandoshan... then you really feel as if they were real. And then, when you see that Bossk is in front of Chewie in a board game, you build a story... then you stop seeing a (grey) plastic mini, you are seeing chewie fight Bossk... but, perhaps, due to a stupid abstract rule, Bossk will be in charge of a moisture vaporator and chewie will be heading towards a group of wookies to allow them to have an additional 1,24% possibilities to hit with "that" bonus that allows "that" unit to throw another white dice so "that" card can take effect, instead of attacking the trandoshan. I feel like the rich lore is being placed in second or third place in this Star wars game... people don't care if they are having a wookie or Han Solo, they only care about the number of crits "that" mini can do or the relative hit ratio of "that" plastic unit if it is placed near "that one", no matter what it is or how it's been sculpted or even if it makes any sense to have Palpatine at Tatooine alongside Bossk fighting Sabine Wren (IF you ever thing in wich planet you are suposed to fight). if someone cares only about statistics and rules you could play poker or chess, I can't understand that you choose a game with sculpted minis and don't care about them or their meaning or their lore.

It is hard to believe, but there is a lot more suspension of disbelief and immersion in Star Wars: Outer Rim, with its cardboard characters and its tokens and cards, than in Legion.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Tubb Bolt Action does include named "characters" in the theatre books though, they don't just limit themselves to purely generic units in all published materials. Plus, they allow for equally weird combinations in the core rules, such as SAS with Chindits, not to mention vehicles that were rarely used or only experimental. Heck, the rules are written such that you can have "Maori Gurhkas," arguable the single most OP unit in the game, and that makes the LEAST sense. You don't HAVE to take a historically accurate army, it is up to the players (as it is in Legion) to self restrict/house rule.

As well, of course generic units outsell characters, each person can only field one of each character, but some the non unique units can be taken up to six times, so each customer is more likely to buy multiples of the non-unique units.

Lately Warlord games has been not great. They are pumping out rulesets purely to sell models, then barely support it. Plus, the most recent FAQs for Bolt Action are widely panned for "fixing" a rule in one of the worst ways possible while ignoring things that are more broken. Not to mention their distribution in the US has been lackluster and frustrating for my FLGS. They were shorted on orders for new product lines, long waits for ordered products, and little communication. So not much better than FFG.

What you say about Bolt Action is real, but nobody I know takes historic characters in a game. They are ornaments, rarities that persons laugh about, not plausible units to use. It is not likely also that persons that play bolt action do mess with historic facts, even the books are designed so that you build the army around an idea, such as "american liberators from south france" and work an army around the idea, looking for real facts that allow you to choose "that" tank and "that" weaponry simply because it was "like that", and not because it will grant me a quick win. Again I don't know anyone that mix Deutsche Afrika Korps units with Winter British units. But at least you CAN do a whole DAK army or a whole winter army and they are not MANDATORY if you want to have more than one kind of troop. In legion, it is mandatory to have a "winter unit" if you want cavalry (tauntaun) but at the other side you will have, also mandatory, a desert unit (dewback) as cavalry. That is exactly my complain, you should first give (before giving "specific climate" units) every possible unit you can for the same temperate climate so that players CAN build a logical army. Players that don't care about minis and only want rules and combos will not even care how the mini are or what represents, they will only look their stats!!! So, instead of doing snowtroopers, make veteran stromtroopers, or Imperial army units, or naval soldiers, or mudtroopers, or invent!! And after you are done with units that fit temperate climate, then propose a Hoth themed army with their own speder bikes, their regular snowtroopers, their own heavy snowtroopers, their own veterans, their own flamers, their own jetpack units...

I am having no issues with warlord here in europe, sad to hear they are not that great there.

4 hours ago, Lochlan said:

I mean, when you say that you hope FFG loses the license so that another company can make the game you want*, that's pretty antagonistic.

*I am curious which company you think has the resources, desire, and capability to do that, by the way.

It was on the "thinking list"of Games Workshop a long Time agi but they finally decided to launch the lord of the ring game. I was a bit sad at this Time (because fan of star Wars, but just a bit because i also love lotr) but I am very happy now of that decision if make a comparison betwen swl rimes to lotr GW rimes. Not to mention the GW business strategy on their games

2 hours ago, Tubb said:

What you say about Bolt Action is real, but nobody I know takes historic characters in a game. They are ornaments, rarities that persons laugh about, not plausible units to use. It is not likely also that persons that play bolt action do mess with historic facts, even the books are designed so that you build the army around an idea, such as "american liberators from south france" and work an army around the idea, looking for real facts that allow you to choose "that" tank and "that" weaponry simply because it was "like that", and not because it will grant me a quick win. Again I don't know anyone that mix Deutsche Afrika Korps units with Winter British units. But at least you CAN do a whole DAK army or a whole winter army and they are not MANDATORY if you want to have more than one kind of troop. In legion, it is mandatory to have a "winter unit" if you want cavalry (tauntaun) but at the other side you will have, also mandatory, a desert unit (dewback) as cavalry. That is exactly my complain, you should first give (before giving "specific climate" units) every possible unit you can for the same temperate climate so that players CAN build a logical army. Players that don't care about minis and only want rules and combos will not even care how the mini are or what represents, they will only look their stats!!! So, instead of doing snowtroopers, make veteran stromtroopers!! And after you are done with temperate climate, then propose a Hoth themed army with their own speder bikes, their regular snowtroopers, their own heavy snowtroopers, their own veterans, their own flamers, their own jetpack units...

I am having no issues with warlord here in europe, sad to hear they are not that great there.

Somebody must use them, or else Warlord is wasting time on producing rules for them in every theatre book they've made. One of my local players wants to run a list with Winters and/or other named characters from the 101st airborne in a casual game (with opponent approval). People you know are probably a relatively small subset of Bolt Action players worldwide.

Additionally, Bolt Action is a very different game in my experience than what you describe. We DO have people taking ahistorical lists in order to win, as do some of the tournaments in Europe (judging by tournament reports), or else why there are widespread complaints about units like Maori Gurkhas, not to mention the Gurkha unit in general? Want to take a unit that will delete other units off the board almost guaranteed? Take a Gurkha unit then add the Maori template from Western Desert. This is legal and allowed by the theatre book rules, for no other reason than poor writing/editing, and hasn't been hit by an FAQ or Eratta, despite no historical basis and not being the intention of the rule. The history doesn't matter to all the players, winning does. TOs enforcing restrictions are what keep this sort of behaviour at a competitive level, with social pressures (people not playing against that list/voicing displeasure or house rules) enforcement in certain playgroups. I have also rarely seen a Bolt Action tournament that required armies to perfectly match the historical deployments, or to provide a report with citations as to why your army list should be allowed. I have seen some provide some kind of bonus points for such accuracy, but not often. I've seen Pumas with all kinds of German army lists, including Fallschirmjager, despite evidence of only seven different units fielding that particular model of armoured car, none of which are Fallschirmjager. I've also seen late war lists with early war tanks that were years out of services (like the "Flamingo" Panzer II Flamm), not to mention some German lists that completely ignore the Force Org charts to fit in more assault rifles into a single unit than would actually be issued. Your experience with Bolt Action is very different than what I've had, or the experience I've seen described elsewhere online. I've seen more army lists posted with questions about effectiveness than historical accuracy.

You CAN build a perfectly "logical" army right now in Legion, it just takes a bit more effort than it seems you want to put in. If you don't like the models, then there is the time honoured tradition in wargaming of converting units so they look how you want. Don't rely on the company to provide it, especially when the company has to go through an extensive approval process with an outside license holder. That license holder may also say "You can't make up a cavalry unit because Tauntauns/Dewbacks exist, make those first," and FFG has to oblige. Disney/Lucas Story Group influence is what led to the release of the Darth Vader and Luke Operative expansions in the midst of Clone Wars trying to get to the same number of unit GCW had at launch.

Someone wanted to field an entirely Wookiee army at LVO, so rather than complain about FFG not providing the models, they converted three Wookiee Rebel Trooper units, a Wookiee Jedi ("Luke"), and two Tauntaun units with Wookiee riders. If you want "temperate" model options for pre-existing units, either look to third parties, or convert something appropriate. Throw backpacks on Stormtroopers to make them look different (and explain the slower movement), or just paint the "Snowtroopers" up as Flametroopers , a canon unit that wears equipment identical to Snowtroopers that was (again, in canon) deployed in temperate climates (Kashyyyk and Agaris). Don't like the design of Rebel Veterans? Swap the heads on Rebel Troopers to pilot heads, a collection of various looted Stormtrooper/ Clone helmets, or whatever says "Veteran unit distinct from Troopers" to you, swap the backpacks for stuff from shapeways or Bolt Action kits (British Commandos would work well), and it's a good conversion that will stand out. The Tauntaun riders' torsos are separate from the legs, which makes a torso swap a heck of a lot easier than the Kroot wearing looted Imperial Guard flak armour conversion I've done in the past. The arms are even separate, so all you really need is a torso and head swap for temperate Tauntauns, especially since padded armour is totally a thing in Star Wars.

Lucas Story Group is ALWAYS going to be quicker to approve a model that is taken directly from canon than they will something completely new. FFG already has enough delays, having to remake a particular model a bunch of times to get approval holds up design of every other unit they want to release. Personally, I'd rather see Tauntauns and Dewbacks than some mythical FFG original cavalry models two years from now after it finally get approved. Meanwhile, those are model makers not working on Arc Troopers, Clan Wren, etc. When was the last time FFG completely made up a unit for any of it's games? As far as I can tell, it's been a few years. And I do mean unit, not just an upgrade card. I'd imagine the difference in artist time is significant for some large postage stamp to postcard sized card art compared a complete group of models.

As to West End Games: a HUGE part of the reason of their success was they were building the Star Wars universe themselves. Some ridiculous number of species names came out of that game (I want to say... most of them?), and is the reason why for the longest time (basically until Disney I think) every species in Star Wars had a particular job except for extraordinary members, a common RPG trope. That's the origin of "Bothans are spies and Commandos, Twi'leks are dancers, and Rodians are Bounty Hunters," among other stereotypes. So if you wanted to know more about Star Wars, you bought the RPG books. If I recall correctly, Timothy Zahn was given the books by Lucas for research material for the original Thrawn trilogy. West End Games didn't have to ask for approval, they just had carte blanche to invent what they wanted because at the time, Star Wars was a very basic framework, with very little oversight. Compared to now, where the Lucas Story Group has to approve everything, and there is a rather large quantity of canon materials. You're comparing this to a time long past, when George Lucas was in charge of Star Wars and didn't really pay much attention to what people were doing in his sandbox (as long as he got a cut). That time of freedom for game publishers of Star Wars materials is seemingly gone. Jedi: Fallen Order at one point wasn't allowed to use the term Jedi in their game.

10 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

When was the last time FFG completely made up a unit for any of it's games? As far as I can tell, it's been a few years

The only units I'm aware of FFG were given creative oversight on were the Imperial Raider and maybe the Starhawk and Onager class Star Destroyers. Even then I'm pretty sure they only got to debut the units rather than having complete creative control since all of those have shown up in other material shortly after FFG got to show them off.

38 minutes ago, thepopemobile100 said:

The only units I'm aware of FFG were given creative oversight on were the Imperial Raider and maybe the Starhawk and Onager class Star Destroyers. Even then I'm pretty sure they only got to debut the units rather than having complete creative control since all of those have shown up in other material shortly after FFG got to show them off.

The Onager at least existed in design before FFG named and made a model of it (according it Wookiepedia). The Starhawk existed in name but not design as far as I know/can find. So just the Imperial Raider of the ones you list then.

And some named characters in Imperial Assault were also invented by FFG.

Firstly, FFG were given the opportunity with this game to name a number of SW guns that appeared but we're unnamed.

Secondly, the Shore trooper mortar is FFG original.

Thirdly, can we just lay this thread to rest now? It's concerning newcomers.

First and second aren't very similar?

And most of the weapons were invented and/or named first by Dice, designers of Battlefront Videogame, and a lot of the rest were from WEG rpg sourcebooks

7 minutes ago, Tubb said:

First and second aren't very similar?

And most of the weapons were invented and/or named first by Dice, designers of Battlefront Videogame, and a lot of the rest were from WEG rpg sourcebooks

There's no official weapon name for the multiple infantry grenade launchers in DICEs Battlefront.

FFG gave them a name.

Also the mortar is something they just pulled into existence, mostly because they decided Wiess had one back in IA and just went "Now here's an infantry version"

If only there was a Star Wars game that involved typing endless walls of unhappy text.