2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Given that the AAT hatches apparently DON'T HAVE locks (Onderon rebel training, Clone Wars cartoon), the established method for infantry to destroy the tank is open the driver hatch and top hatch, toss in two ion grenades. Personally, I'd prefer to force the infantry to get up close to put the Droid popper in the commander's hatch :-P.

Don't forget in Phantom Menace Jar Jar kills the droid captain when he pops out the top, which then causes the AAT to veer off course, so killing him apparently causes the pilots to panic and try to drive away?

8 minutes ago, Platinum_V said:

Don't forget in Phantom Menace Jar Jar kills the droid captain when he pops out the top, which then causes the AAT to veer off course, so killing him apparently causes the pilots to panic and try to drive away?

I thought the veering off course had more to do with Jar Jar hanging off the gun? I admit that scene is rather vague... I suppose it could be claimed that the "booma" damaged some of the systems of the tank? Who knows. It stills boggles my mind that the AAT tank hatches can just open with a simple pull of the hand, and apparently UTTERLY LACK A MEANS OF LOCKING (I know, I know, it's convenient for the story).

9 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I thought the veering off course had more to do with Jar Jar hanging off the gun? I admit that scene is rather vague... I suppose it could be claimed that the "booma" damaged some of the systems of the tank? Who knows. It stills boggles my mind that the AAT tank hatches can just open with a simple pull of the hand, and apparently UTTERLY LACK A MEANS OF LOCKING (I know, I know, it's convenient for the story).

I'm just convinced the Star Wars Universe doesn't have vehicle locks in general with how many vehicles the Rebels steal, most notably the AT-ST in RotJ (Obviously the same hatch design as AATs)

3 minutes ago, Platinum_V said:

I'm just convinced the Star Wars Universe doesn't have vehicle locks in general with how many vehicles the Rebels steal, most notably the AT-ST in RotJ (Obviously the same hatch design as AATs)

Let's not forget Obiwan just hopped in Grievous' starship and flew off. No keys, codes, or anything.

14 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Let's not forget Obiwan just hopped in Grievous' starship and flew off. No keys, codes, or anything.

He just Jedi mind-trick-jumpstarted the engine and went for a joyride! 🤫

15 minutes ago, Platinum_V said:

I'm just convinced the Star Wars Universe doesn't have vehicle locks in general with how many vehicles the Rebels steal, most notably the AT-ST in RotJ (Obviously the same hatch design as AATs)

To be fair, in RotJ, the driver opens the hatch from the inside, then is pulled out, Chewie didn't just open it up. So maybe the Empire learned from the CIS's mistakes? Or the B1 droids have trouble with door handles.

10 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Let's not forget Obiwan just hopped in Grievous' starship and flew off. No keys, codes, or anything.

Grevious COULD have left the proverbial keys in the ignition to allow for a quick escape later...

Honestly, whether or not a given vehicle is locked or has locks depends on which is more convenient for the story, which I understand, it's just annoying sometimes.

I'm a tank nut, so things like crew ergonomics and little design choices I find fascinating.

I feel like the battle of Naboo, you had AATs in an open field, providing fire support, and that was almost what they were made for; big 73 Easting set piece fights where the actual likelihood of enemy infantry intermingling with the armor is low.

On 2/10/2020 at 12:41 PM, bllaw said:

You would maybe be right here if it didnt have the word "even" in there. it says "you lose AI: Attack, EVEN while this card is exhausted" meaning that you lost AI attack when its ready, and exhausted.

Sorry to necrothread this, but I was thinking about this again, as I just got my AAT today. Since exhaustible cards only gain their effect when they exhaust, the "even" in its effect doesn't necessarily apply to when it is unexhausted, only during the turn it it's exhausted, and while it is exhausted. I don't think that RAW has the "Loses AI: Attack" part active until it exhausts, and while it's exhausted.

I think they intended the first part to always be active, but I don't think that's how it technically works. Maybe it needs an answer from a designer, or FAQ?

1 hour ago, flipperoverlord said:

Sorry to necrothread this, but I was thinking about this again, as I just got my AAT today. Since exhaustible cards only gain their effect when they exhaust, the "even" in its effect doesn't necessarily apply to when it is unexhausted, only during the turn it it's exhausted, and while it is exhausted. I don't think that RAW has the "Loses AI: Attack" part active until it exhausts, and while it's exhausted.

I think they intended the first part to always be active, but I don't think that's how it technically works. Maybe it needs an answer from a designer, or FAQ?

If this was meant to only work when its exhausted, what point would the word "even" have in the sentence? It would just say, "You lose AI: ATTACK while this card is exhausted." You lose AI: ATTACK is what it's saying and its just making it clear that you lose it when the card is exhausted as well as when its ready

32 minutes ago, bllaw said:

If this was meant to only work when its exhausted, what point would the word "even" have in the sentence? It would just say, "You lose AI: ATTACK while this card is exhausted." You lose AI: ATTACK is what it's saying and its just making it clear that you lose it when the card is exhausted as well as when its ready

I see what he means though.

Typically cards that exhaust use the exhaust condition as an activation trigger.

Look at Offensive push:



The trigger to gain this ability is exhausting the card. It could be argued that Lok Durd has the same requirements to trigger as every other exhaust card (as far as I know) and therefore wouldn't gain access to the ability until the card is exhausted . The only difference being Lok durd's ability specifying that once exhausted the ability persists, unlike other exhaust cards.

I could be wrong, but as I understand these games typically work by using logic gates for triggers.

3 hours ago, bllaw said:

If this was meant to only work when its exhausted, what point would the word "even" have in the sentence? It would just say, "You lose AI: ATTACK while this card is exhausted." You lose AI: ATTACK is what it's saying and its just making it clear that you lose it when the card is exhausted as well as when its ready

"Even" allows it to work while exhausted, but it does not state anything about when it is unexhausted. Since it is an exhaustible card, it only is activated by exhausting. The "even" allows it to work during future rounds while it is exhausted.

I think they intended for the "lose AI Attack" to always be active, but technically, RAW doesn't work that way I think.

Edit: One could also make the argument that "even" doesn't add anything to the meaning of the sentence. There's ambiguity there.

1 hour ago, flipperoverlord said:

"Even" allows it to work while exhausted, but it does not state anything about when it is unexhausted. Since it is an exhaustible card, it only is activated by exhausting. The "even" allows it to work during future rounds while it is exhausted.

I think they intended for the "lose AI Attack" to always be active, but technically, RAW doesn't work that way I think.

Edit: One could also make the argument that "even" doesn't add anything to the meaning of the sentence. There's ambiguity there.

Send a question to the devs and find out. Conjecture doesn’t get us an answer unfortunately.

On 2/10/2020 at 3:45 PM, arnoldrew said:

Every time someone mentions that Legion is "complicated" or "clunky" I literally vocalize my laughter.

The difference is after a few games of anything else (even Oldhammer) I have memorized all the rules I need and rarely look anything up during games. Not so with Legion. Or anything else by FFG.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

The difference is after a few games of anything else (even Oldhammer) I have memorized all the rules I need and rarely look anything up during games. Not so with Legion. Or anything else by FFG.

There's no way you're serious. Almost every GW game requires looking up charts and obscure rules for the entire game. With Legion I've hardly ever even seen anyone pull out a rulebook after 3 or 4 games, and if they do it's to look up the Damage chart for when vehicles hit their threshold. I've played 40k, AoS, and Warmachine/Hordes, and Legion is by far the simplest, going by not only my experience and opinion but also just watching the people around me play. At 40k and AoS tournaments the ref spends 100% of his time talking to players about rules, making calls and clarifications, etc. With Legion the ref is over looking at board games or talking to the shop owner almost the entire time. Sure, I guess my experiences and that of everyone around me could be atypical,. but that anyone would suggest Legion has a complicated ruleset actually boggles my mind.

On 2/11/2020 at 6:15 AM, Caimheul1313 said:

Why? This is actually simpler than making a vehicle a full blown commander in my opinion.

I think a full on tank commander would be awesome.

Like Grievous on his wheel thing.

Obi on his dragon thing wouldn't be a vehicle, but still awesome!

1 hour ago, lologrelol said:

I think a full on tank commander would be awesome.

Like Grievous on his wheel thing.

Obi on his dragon thing wouldn't be a vehicle, but still awesome!

I agree the models would be cool, but my hesitation is dealing with the special case rules that would likely end up included in order to deal with having a Commander with no Courage value, or a vehicle with a Courage value.

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

a Commander with no Courage value

...like Darth Vader?

8 hours ago, Lochlan said:

...like Darth Vader?

No, Vader has a Courage value, it's just a dash. Why should the rest of the army be more afraid/inspired by Luke, just because he is on a speederbike? Making a significant portion if your army immune to Panic (due to base size) should make what would be an already expensive vehicle even more expensive.

13 hours ago, Mokoshkana said:

Send a question to the devs and find out. Conjecture doesn’t get us an answer unfortunately.

Spoke with LJ Peña on the Facebook group. Turns out the RAI ruling from the devs is that the "Lose AI: ATTACK" is a constant effect.

This is the first card with an exhaust requirement to have a persistent effect.

8 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I agree the models would be cool, but my hesitation is dealing with the special case rules that would likely end up included in order to deal with having a Commander with no Courage value, or a vehicle with a Courage value.

I think the easiest way to deal with that problem is to release vehicle commanders as a pilot upgrade card that has a courage value printed on that.

57 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

I think the easiest way to deal with that problem is to release vehicle commanders as a pilot upgrade card that has a courage value printed on that.

That's still going to require more special rules, and could have been done in place of Field Commander if that was FFG's plan. Having a vehicle provide the Commander Courage bubble means the radius is larger, and (in the case of vehicles with Armor like the tanks) significantly harder to remove from the field. As it is now, in order to get that kind of bubble you have to treat a Commander as an "upgrade" for a transport, so it costs you all of the Commanders points and actions to get the same effect.

13 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

There's no way you're serious. Almost every GW game requires looking up charts and obscure rules for the entire game. With Legion I've hardly ever even seen anyone pull out a rulebook after 3 or 4 games, and if they do it's to look up the Damage chart for when vehicles hit their threshold. I've played 40k, AoS, and Warmachine/Hordes, and Legion is by far the simplest, going by not only my experience and opinion but also just watching the people around me play. At 40k and AoS tournaments the ref spends 100% of his time talking to players about rules, making calls and clarifications, etc. With Legion the ref is over looking at board games or talking to the shop owner almost the entire time. Sure, I guess my experiences and that of everyone around me could be atypical,. but that anyone would suggest Legion has a complicated ruleset actually boggles my mind.

Oldhammer: How do I know it shoots better? It has a higher shooting skill and I know what that means I need to roll on a D6.

Legion: How do I know it shoots better? A keyword (go look up what that does) and a surge effect (go look that up). Ok wait do it again, but this time roll those OTHER white dice, you used the wrong ones.

Legion feels like I am playing in the dark. The sheer number of variables to juggle (ie, rules to have memorized at the instinctive level) removes any sense that I'm making intelligent moves.

In Warhammer or whatever, I can grok what's going an know where I wanna move my guys. Unlike Star Wars "No, he has Pierce, not Sharpshooter" Legion. Legion doesn't have rules, it has exceptions to exceptions of rules. Ie, your shooting is cancelled by my dodge tokens, but my dodge tokens are cancelled by your keyword. It just feels like we're randomly moving figures around, under the illusion that we're making decisions.

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Oldhammer: How do I know it shoots better? It has a higher shooting skill and I know what that means I need to roll on a D6.

Legion: How do I know it shoots better? A keyword (go look up what that does) and a surge effect (go look that up). Ok wait do it again, but this time roll those OTHER white dice, you used the wrong ones.

You left out looking up all of the effects of terrain on a specific shot, and any special rules that apply to the shooting. "It gets X shots at Y range, unless I moved, then this special rule applies..."

Old hammer: how well does it fight in melee or remove models? Well, you have to compare the target's number vs your numbers, plus checking any relevant special rules. Oh, and the special rules aren't alphabetized and there is no index, so if you have to look something up, you'll be paging through for awhile. Oh, you didn't buy the rule book for your opponent's army? Then you don't really know what their army can do, and have to rely on them to remember.

Legion: Melee is the same as shooting, once you learn one set of rules, you know how work out how well a unit does. Need to look up a special rule? Check the index and go straight to the page.

18 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You left out looking up all of the effects of terrain on a specific shot, and any special rules that apply to the shooting. "It gets X shots at Y range, unless I moved, then this special rule applies..."

If you move it's minus 1 to the dice rolls. Soft cover is minus 1, hard cover is minus 2. I memorized all those rules, no need to look them up.

8 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

If you move it's minus 1 to the dice rolls. Soft cover is minus 1, hard cover is minus 2. I memorized all those rules, no need to look them up.

How did you memorize them, by looking them up repeatedly until you learned them? There is still a chart that has to be referenced to learn those rules in the first place.
Depending on what you mean by "Oldhammer" (I've seen it used to mean any previous version of either 40k or Warhammer Fantasy):
Oldhammer 40k: What about if the weapon has Rapid Fire, Assault, Heavy, or the Pistol keywords? What about if the unit has a special rule like Relentless or (whatever the keyword is to ignore cover)?
Oldhammer Fantasy: Different ranged weapons have different rules, so one has to look up the weapon (until they memorize it) to see what special rules apply to that unit's ranged attacks, in addition to checking the unit special rules.