8 hours ago, Khobai said:

Yeah I think you should be able to take either R2D2 or C3PO by themselves and both should have secret mission. But secret mission shouldnt stack if you take both.

Both should have secret mission, inconspicuous, and 3 wounds each.

C3PO should get about 20 points worth of new abilities to make him more worthwhile his own. Could give him the ability to command Ewoks because hes their GOD.

And you should have the option of taking one for 40 points (I think 35 is too cheap for R2D2) or both for 70 points. And if you take both you should get a bonus special ability similar to teamwork. That way taking both is incentivized over taking only one of them.

I just dont like how counterpart works now. i feel like theres never any reason to take C3PO at all. C3PO is dead weight with the current rules.

I would prefer the game to go in the direction of allowing fully open army construction instead of having to take model X in order to use model Y.

You still havent said what would make 3PO play differently by himself. What I am hearing is that he would be identical to R2 with secret mission. What would those 20 points worth of new abilities even be? What can 3PO do that makes having him on the battlefield by himself worthwhile? Legion is combat oriented game and 3PO simply isn't a combat oriented droid. The only way I see him having some sort of ability would be to do with his translating skills. But even then where do we need translation in legion?

15 hours ago, Nithorian said:

I wonder if subfactions would be a way to run models you already have in a different way. Such as with the GAR giving each Clone Legion its own unique rule set, so you can run basic Phase 1 or 2 Clones, or pay more to have 501st or 212th Clones, but that just adds onto the unit card and models you already own. They could release codex for the army types then, this would be easy to do in some armies but a bit harder in others, I think GAR and Rebels lean more heavily into this kind of thing than the largely ubiquitous Empire and CIS armies.

I like this idea but I think its to late to implement it the majority of players have all ready painted there models and may have all ready based then off of certain legions/battalions. I think if they were to do this it would be a 2nd edition thing

5 hours ago, Bigbboyd said:

Good point on Star Wars itself being the draw. As to GW, sounds like they have moved on from Kill Team. Atleast they are still doing new content for Necromunda (books at least) and War Cry seems to be doing decent. And yeah, it may be a nostalgia thing for the old heads, but bother also seem.to be bringing in new players as well. Buying 1 or 2 sets to build out a full.force is a lot cheaper than the 8 to 10 needed for bigger game.

As to FFG as a whole, they are indeed far more diversified then GW ever dreamed, but that is also a double edged sword at times as some lines will always suffer and (as is the case with Star Wars ), you are beholden to the IP licensers.

GW claims updates are coming, but nothing has come from that yet. I'm sure it is fairly low on the priority list over updating all of the codexes, which are bigger money makers to be fair.

It isn't just 1 or 2 sets for a "good" Kill team though, it is 3-4 (unless the person is told of bits sellers for special weapons/buying a single model). You don't get enough of the "good" special weapons for most Kill Teams in the basic box, and at that point you have enough models for the smallest point level of 9th edition. You can play a "Combat Patrol" sized game of 9th with two to four boxes and a commander, so why would you instead play Kill Team if you want to play 40k? Plus 9th has vehicles which is a big draw for some people.

I keep seeing people claim that Warcry and Kill team are good intro games but there is a fundamental problem with that: in order for them to be a game to get new players in, the established players need to be playing it too. I live in a major metropolitan area, and my FLGS is one of the biggest in the area, with an entire section of the store for their 14 wargaming tables. Warcry was DOA for various reason, and Kill Team never really caught on either. So all the new players in my area still just go straight into skirmish sized forces for AoS or 40k, completely bypassing the "intro" games.

I agree as to the danger about diversifying, I saw the IP issues happen when the Warhammer license FFG had ended, a decent amount of FFG's product lines ended as well. Which is part of the reason they came out with Genesys system, to decouple their (major) RPG line from the license. But similarly there is a danger with specializing. If all your eggs are in one basket, there is a risk of that game losing popularity and then your company has to scramble to become relevant again. I've seen it happen with a few specialized game companies before, they get eaten by the bigger fish either literally (acquisitions) or just losing too much market share.

Of course, now Asmodee is moving product lines around to better enable their companies to focus on specific games types. FFG no longer produces card sleeves or RPGs. Both of those line have been moved to separate companies whose main focus are that type of product. Similarly, they launched a new company "Atomic Mass Games" to handle the Marvel Crisis Protocol miniatures game, rather than add that to FFG's portfolio. So for all the problems Asmodee may have introduced, I can agree to the logic of moving those products to dedicated companies.

I would like to see Sub-factions which didn't introduce new units, but merely limited choices to what are thought of as maybe "sub-optimal" but for significant advantage. Basically a mechanism to support themed armies.

So maybe an Imperial Hoth force that's limited to just Snowtroopers for Corps, but gets something like Maximim Firepower each turn, to simulate off-table AT-AT fire. Or gave Snows "Coordinate Emplacement Trooper".

1 hour ago, Jedirev said:

I would like to see Sub-factions which didn't introduce new units, but merely limited choices to what are thought of as maybe "sub-optimal" but for significant advantage. Basically a mechanism to support themed armies.

So maybe an Imperial Hoth force that's limited to just Snowtroopers for Corps, but gets something like Maximim Firepower each turn, to simulate off-table AT-AT fire. Or gave Snows "Coordinate Emplacement Trooper".

I wouldn't mind something like this restricted to "narrative play" but the issue in a game that doesn't have similar "army special rules" for every faction is balancing the special rules in the "sub-factions" vs the "normal" lists.
But yes, something akin to the Legions of Legends (or whatever it is called) from the LotR game would be interesting as well.

50 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I wouldn't mind something like this restricted to "narrative play" but the issue in a game that doesn't have similar "army special rules" for every faction is balancing the special rules in the "sub-factions" vs the "normal" lists.
But yes, something akin to the Legions of Legends (or whatever it is called) from the LotR game would be interesting as well.

Absolutely agree. My suggestion isn't the only way to introduce sub-factions, but my own observations of that way in 40k was that they introduced some serious cheese into tournament legal armies. It's very hard to balance for competitive play once you start tinkering with comp.

I don't care for company policy, licensee-restrictions, clowns as product managers or whatever.

I'd love to get into Legion, but their clunky, unimaginative and restrictive rules for army composition put me off as much as their weird release schedule (Padmé and silly Cad Bane available when Ahsoka isn't even announced, yet). I can't play a Mando-only army now that Mandalorians are available including a potential commander, you know, like in the show REBELS. We're several releases into the Clone Wars era and I'd love to play 501st with Ahsoka, but no, not possible. I mean, those are not exotic or obscure choices. Keep that up, and I might not bother with Legion at all even if those options are someday available.

3 hours ago, Fourtytwo said:

I don't care for company policy, licensee-restrictions, clowns as product managers or whatever.

I'd love to get into Legion, but their clunky, unimaginative and restrictive rules for army composition put me off as much as their weird release schedule (Padmé and silly Cad Bane available when Ahsoka isn't even announced, yet). I can't play a Mando-only army now that Mandalorians are available including a potential commander, you know, like in the show REBELS. We're several releases into the Clone Wars era and I'd love to play 501st with Ahsoka, but no, not possible. I mean, those are not exotic or obscure choices. Keep that up, and I might not bother with Legion at all even if those options are someday available.

Steady on though... FFG are struggling to meet demand for the release schedule they already have. I'd just be patient. It's still a baby, whose growth is hampered by shipping containers falling in the sea. 🙃

If they are smart, subfactions will be fully compatible with the full faction with only a handful of detachment type keywords (for example, an Ewok catapult should require at least one unit of Ewoks). However, there may be synergy rewards for taking more of a subfaction, such as Logray having a keyword that boosts Ewoks but not other rebels.

I’d like to see Ewoks in the Rebels, Gungans and Royal Naboo security in the republic, geonosians for CIS. I’m not sure what would be a good subfaction for empire.

1 hour ago, ScummyRebel said:

If they are smart, subfactions will be fully compatible with the full faction with only a handful of detachment type keywords (for example, an Ewok catapult should require at least one unit of Ewoks). However, there may be synergy rewards for taking more of a subfaction, such as Logray having a keyword that boosts Ewoks but not other rebels.

I’d like to see Ewoks in the Rebels, Gungans and Royal Naboo security in the republic, geonosians for CIS. I’m not sure what would be a good subfaction for empire.

I don't nessiarily think that every faction needs subfactions. That could be one of the Empires faction identities. I guess if they really needed to give the Empire subfactions they could use the different branches of the military. The Imperial Navy and Imperial Army could be subfactions where the current Empire represents the Stormtroopers Corps.

I don't know that the branches would make for good subfactions, as that really would limit lists to imbalanced options. Stormtrooper Corps gives you good corps and SF options, but no vehicles, or commanders. Army gives you good vehicles, but exactly zero corps options.

Better option would be for Imperial units/commands. Blizzard Force, the Mimban Imperial Army (which includes both Army and Stormtrooper Corps elements), even Endor's defense force offer more varied units. Instead of the normal subfaction identities, these could be unit identities that allow for slightly different list building than normal, or offer buffs to certain unit types (Blizzard Force: all vehicles gain Outmaneuver, or emplacement troopers gain spur)

7 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I don't know that the branches would make for good subfactions, as that really would limit lists to imbalanced options. Stormtrooper Corps gives you good corps and SF options, but no vehicles, or commanders. Army gives you good vehicles, but exactly zero corps options.

Better option would be for Imperial units/commands. Blizzard Force, the Mimban Imperial Army (which includes both Army and Stormtrooper Corps elements), even Endor's defense force offer more varied units. Instead of the normal subfaction identities, these could be unit identities that allow for slightly different list building than normal, or offer buffs to certain unit types (Blizzard Force: all vehicles gain Outmaneuver, or emplacement troopers gain spur)

It's funny you mention Mimban as that is the one time you actually see the Imperial Army troopers. The Mud Troopers aren't actually part of the Stormtrooper Corps. There were stormtroopers there as well. The army could then have a corps of dismounted vehicle crew. The Navy could have Navy Troops and TIE pilots as corps options. Your Idea could work as well, though I still think it would be an interesting part of the Empires faction identity to not have subfaction.

15 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

It's funny you mention Mimban as that is the one time you actually see the Imperial Army troopers. The Mud Troopers aren't actually part of the Stormtrooper Corps. There were stormtroopers there as well. The army could then have a corps of dismounted vehicle crew. The Navy could have Navy Troops and TIE pilots as corps options. Your Idea could work as well, though I still think it would be an interesting part of the Empires faction identity to not have subfaction.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned it. It is the only time we really get to see IA elements besides armor, and therefore distinct at being a mixed force with both IA and Stormtrooper corps options. Problem is that as it stands now, Mudtroopers/Imperial army troopers aren't in the game, and any sub faction based on branches would need several immediate releases to be viable. One based on units (Blizzard Force, or Endor's security force) would be viable from the get-go.

While I agree with the idea of the Navy having Naval troopers/Fleet troopers as a corps option, why on earth would TIE pilots be a corps unit? Or a dismounted vehicle crew? Pilots and drivers aren't supposed to be running around on the ground, pretending to be infantry. Inferno Squad/ISF already fill the role of a dual purpose pilot/commando unit, so pilots would be both nonsensical and redundant. Their stats would need to be pretty **** bad, and they shouldn't actually be cheap, so I guess I'm not seeing the point.

Honestly, any sub-factions not based on existing units would need multiple immediate releases to be viable, which is a common issue with new factions in any game.

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Honestly, any sub-factions not based on existing units would need multiple immediate releases to be viable, which is a common issue with new factions in any game.

which is exactly why they should create subfactions that can use existing models. then they dont need as many immediate releases to be viable.

for example...

a scum faction could use boba fett and bossk

a gungan faction could use padme, anakin, or obiwan

a furry faction could use chewbacca and wookiee warriors and C3PO because the ewoks worship him.

then they just have to plan out a string of releases that work for both a main faction and a subfaction. Like IG-88, jar jar binks, some kindve ewok unit, etc...

I would go with each faction should get their own unique sub faction. That sub faction could be played solo or mixed and matched with their main faction like others have said. That way we don't have to worry about broken cross play interactions and it allows every faction to get a expanded roster with units that don't really fit in the bigger factions.

• GAR: Naboo forces. Cover pretty much everything from the Gungan Royal Army and the Royal House of Naboo. Catapults, speeder, creatures, and handmaidens everywhere!
• CIS: Loyaist CIS planets. Big 2 being Geonosians and Umbara since I don't think a single planet could cover everything.
• Rebels: Partisan forces??? Give some wiggle room to use Saw forces and the Ewoks. This one is a little off since they threw wookies just in the middle, but not sure what else they could do? This is the tough one.
• Empire: Imperial Remnant. Allows everything from the Mando to get in there without stealing from other factions (looking at you Scum).

Future factions:

• FO: Sith Eternal
• Resistance: Galaxy's army. Gets Maz, Zorie, and other pirates from 9 all up in there.
• Scum: Guess this faction would be nothing but sub factions lol. Figure Red Dawn, Hutt, and Night Sisters would be the biggies?

When Scum comes out it would be the perfect time to introduce sub-factions. Scum would not have a counterpart so they could spend half a wave throwing each faction 4 units to quickly get started. That is of course if they stick to 8 units a wave...................... since you know they are now down to 2 as of Q4 lol. So a lot of ifs.

I could also see them doing what other wargames do and increase the number of units released for each faction. The old way of releases seems to be showing a few cracks and I would not be surprised if they would tell us they are changing how they do releases again.

I think themed list rules are a mistake.

There have been a lot of complaints of 3rd edition warmachine, because of the prevalence of themed lists essentially stifling vanilla list building.

It just ends up shoehorning people into particular list builds more and more.

Having a commander that works a bit better with certain units (like the entourage ability) is a more balanced way IMO.

If there is a Scum faction at some point, I would love to see a slow-but-tough Hutt as the leader.

@Sharkbelly I think it would further be interesting for Jabba to only have a melee weapon, but then have "Pulling the Strings" or some other effect to get other units to attack on his activation.

On 10/5/2020 at 7:14 AM, Caimheul1313 said:

Honestly, any sub-factions not based on existing units would need multiple immediate releases to be viable, which is a common issue with new factions in any game.

I think that depends a lot on how they plan on doing subfaction. My idea for how to do subfaction doesn't have that problem. I would make subfaction units tied to a commander(maybe operative as well), while a list could still have units from the parent faction. For example if you wanted to run Saws partisans you would need to have Saw as one of your commanders. You could still put in any of the units from the rebel faction to fill out your list.

2 hours ago, jcmonson said:

I think that depends a lot on how they plan on doing subfaction. My idea for how to do subfaction doesn't have that problem. I would make subfaction units tied to a commander(maybe operative as well), while a list could still have units from the parent faction. For example if you wanted to run Saws partisans you would need to have Saw as one of your commanders. You could still put in any of the units from the rebel faction to fill out your list.

Which is what I said. You have a subfaction that is not mutually exclusive with existing units, as opposed to "Saw's partisans are JUST these specific units."

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Which is what I said. You have a subfaction that is not mutually exclusive with existing units, as opposed to "Saw's partisans are JUST these specific units."

Ah I see now, I misinterpreted what you said to mean they would be more mutually exclusive.

4 hours ago, jcmonson said:

I think that depends a lot on how they plan on doing subfaction. My idea for how to do subfaction doesn't have that problem. I would make subfaction units tied to a commander(maybe operative as well), while a list could still have units from the parent faction. For example if you wanted to run Saws partisans you would need to have Saw as one of your commanders. You could still put in any of the units from the rebel faction to fill out your list.

I dont think you should need Saw to use Saw's partisans in a rebel list.

all that does is limit options by forcing you to take model X to use model Y.

I do however think Saw should give Saw's partisans a bonus like entourage to incentivize you to use them together. The carrot approach IMO is better than the stick approach.

On 10/5/2020 at 8:06 PM, lologrelol said:

I think themed list rules are a mistake.

There have been a lot of complaints of 3rd edition warmachine, because of the prevalence of themed lists essentially stifling vanilla list building.

It just ends up shoehorning people into particular list builds more and more.

Having a commander that works a bit better with certain units (like the entourage ability) is a more balanced way IMO.

exactly. limiting list construction options is never a good thing.

and the theme lists in warmachine are kindve like the extreme version of that because they force you to take X, Y, Z models in order to get the bonuses of the theme force.

im definitely not a fan how theme forces were implemented in warmachine but then again i havent played warmachine for years lol

1 hour ago, jcmonson said:

Ah I see now, I misinterpreted what you said to mean they would be more mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I can see how it was a bit vague. What I was saying that doing the "sub-faction" as a separate, related faction, or introducing any fraction into a game leads to issues where the faction need numerous releases initially. On the other hand what you suggest (having a "sub-faction" as just related units that have synergy, akin to Clan Wren and Sabine) doesn't necessitate a large number of releases initially, and can always be expanded on later.

Kill Team may not have been commercially successful enough for them to justify updating it for 9th edition. sometimes that happens. Not all games do well.

It doesnt mean GW hasnt learned anything, the very fact they were willing to bring back skirmish games in the first place proves otherwise. I still think using Kill Team as an entry level product for 40K was smart. Even if it didnt work as well as Warcry did for Age of Sigmar.

Although GW also has the benefit of owning their own IPs. The problem with Legion is that at some point FFG is going to stop paying for the IP and will no longer support Legion. I just dont see how Legion can endure like 40K has for that reason. I do think subfactions would be the ideal way to keep Legion going for as long as possible though.