Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:17:18


Post by: odinsgrandson


Recent years have seen North American Retail sales of 40k be bested by X-Wing from Fantasy Flight Games.

Now, I'm not here to argue about what 40k sales would look like if we could include their online store or Europe (I just don't have those numbers). In any case, it remains true that X-Wing is a different genre from most tabletop wargames since it uses pre-painted minis of starships at a small scale.

One of the big bits of news from Gencon was Fantasy Flight Games' announcement of Star Wars Legion.



It features unpainted plastic minis in gaming scale for tabletop miniatures combat- it is very much the same genre as 40k (and Warmachine, Infinity, Dark Age etc). There's no doubt that the general Star Wars franchise has more power than 40k- in fact, there are few 40k fans who aren't also Star Wars fans, while the majority of SW fans haven't heard of 40k

Recently, 40k seems to have new life from the 8th edition. A lot of people are pleased with the new rules set, and are anxious to explore the setting some more.

So, the question- is it possible that 40k might be unseated from its top spot by SWL?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:31:12


Post by: Azreal13


Can it? Yes. Will it? Probably not.

Short term, I can see this eclipsing 40K for a little while, but long term it looks like Legion is going to lack some of the aspects that will let hobbyists scratch their itch off the tabletop, and I'm no sure that you're traditional board gamer is of the mindset that they'll keep buying into the same game for years and years and are more likely to pick up the new next big thing.

Then we look at FFG who don't have a great record for long term support of their titles. While pump and dump would be an unfair term to use, they undoubtedly seem to have life cycles with their games. There's always a first time, but SW, while seemingly possessed of endless appeal, is somewhat limited in its diversity. You can see it in X Wing now, where the majority of new ships are obscure pulls from the depths of the lore and they seem to also be struggling to find rules niches for the new ships too (with new mechanics being introduced constantly to justify their in game inclusion) and I say this as a fan of the game.

As such, I can see Legion doing well in the short term, but I think 40K has the reserves to outlast it, and there's always the possibility of non-war gamers being pulled in by Legion and switching to 40K down the road, if GW continues to work on the accessibility of their product then they could ultimately benefit from Legion.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:44:33


Post by: Stevefamine


Fantasy Flight Games has been solid for quite a while now. Lets see if they can make this game impact the local comic shops, book stores, and small shops that wouldn't normally carry wargames.

These minis look terrible. Nearly Heroxlic / Mage Knight tier


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:44:50


Post by: Kriswall


X-Wing outstripped 40k. This game could do the same.

1. Legion will be cheaper to get into than 40k... the core set is $90 and comes with ~400 points each of two different armies. A standard sized army is 800 points. Find a friend to swap with and you can each get full sized armies for $90.

2. Legion will require less hobby skill... the models need to be assembled, but will only be a couple of pieces each. It'll probably take roughly 30 minutes to fully assemble your core set. It took about that long for Runewars.

3. Legion will probably not require painting for competitive events... the Runewars tournament rules don't require painting. No reason to expect Legion will.

4. Legion will have a standardized and well supported organized play scene... FFG is known for having very tight tournament rules with no real ambiguity. They also put out multiple Organized Play kits with prizes throughout the year for most of their games.

5. Legion has Stormtroopers. My mom knows what a Stormtrooper is. She doesn't know who Marneus Calgar is.

Legion has a lot going for it. 40k is a kind of a mess that a lot of us are tied to. 40k is sort of like my World of Warcraft subscription. I have so much time invested in it that I can't bring myself to cancel it. I really only play it once every couple of months for about 10 minutes. 40k is like that. I love it and don't want to 'cancel' it, but I also only play once in a blue moon. I play Star Wars Armada every week. I could see playing Legion every week.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:45:56


Post by: oni


I think Azreal13 nailed it... Legion will be just another flash in the pan.

I'm hoping FFG makes good on Legend of the Five Rings LCG. L5R rivaled MtG back in the day before a series of unfortunate events. I would love to see it rise from the ashes.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:46:23


Post by: Kriswall


 Stevefamine wrote:
Fantasy Flight Games has been solid for quite a while now. Lets see if they can make this game impact the local comic shops, book stores, and small shops that wouldn't normally carry wargames.

These minis look terrible. Nearly Heroxlic / Mage Knight tier


I saw them up close and personal at Gencon. They're not even remotely close to Heroclix/Mage Knight tier. They're well detailed models. They look a lot better than some of the models GW has for sale right now.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:54:09


Post by: Azreal13


 Kriswall wrote:
X-Wing outstripped 40k. This game could do the same.


It's important to note the timing. X Wing overtook 40K when 40K was at its lowest ebb, possibly in its entire history, almost certainly in the 21st century.

GW is much transformed since then financially, and a much tougher prospect to duplicate the same outcome. As I said, I've no doubt it'll explode, and quite possibly outstrip 40K, my concern is for the "legs" and how it'll look 2 years or so down the line.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 20:56:23


Post by: Kriswall


 Azreal13 wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
X-Wing outstripped 40k. This game could do the same.


It's important to note the timing. X Wing overtook 40K when 40K was at its lowest ebb, possibly in its entire history, almost certainly in the 21st century.

GW is much transformed since then financially, and a much tougher prospect to duplicate the same outcome. As I said, I've no doubt it'll explode, and quite possibly outstrip 40K, my concern is for the "legs" and how it'll look 2 years or so down the line.


X-Wing may have overtaken 40k when 40k was at a low... but it's still above 40k and 40k is selling better now. Ultimately, time will tell. I won't be at all surprised if Legion turns out to be successful. It has a lot going for it that 40k doesn't currently have.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:05:04


Post by: Azreal13


Yeah, I think that's a matter of perspective. Speaking as someone who's primary game has been a FFG for the last 2-3 years in X Wing, I'm really not that excited for more templates, proprietary dice and tokens. Most FFG games are plagued by a fundamental sameness that kinda makes it hard, for me at least, to get excited for a new game.

Plus the whole "X Wing is selling more than 40K" comes from the Schrodingers financial report that is ICV2, that doesn't include GW direct sales neither does it quantify the difference, to my knowledge. It shouldn't be dismissed, but it shouldn't be taken as utterly precise either.

You'd also have to quantify "successful." That it'll generate cash by the bucketload in the first instance is likely beyond doubt just from starter sales, but what may qualify as a success for FFG won't necessarily mean it does so for me personally or other gamers.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:17:24


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


In short? No.

Star Wars is a licensed game. And that brings with it inherent limitations to what the publisher can actually do.

For instance? Factions. Right now, Legion has the grand total of....erm.....two. 40k? Counting all Space Marines as one? Marines, CSM, Necrons, Craftworld Eldar, Dark Eldar, Mechancus, Astra Militarum, Inquisition/SoB, Tyranids, Orks. All of which offer their own play style.

FFG/The Star Wars licence just doesn't have the same scope. And we're already seeing that bite in X-Wing. Now don't get me wrong, X-Wng is an excellent game. The mechanics behind are absolutely superb. But each new wave brings a new gimmick - and due to the design of the game, they're rapidly running out of wiggle room to introduce those without invalidating earlier ships (which they manage anyway if only to sell a new, expensive ship or expansion).

Legion may very well be ace as a game. But as much of a Star Wars nut as I am, I need to see waaaaay more than the current somewhat lack lustre offerings.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:29:14


Post by: supreme overlord


I take the opposite approach to this topic. being both a massive fan of Star Wars and 40k I am not at all interested in this game. I dont think anyone in my group will be either. If the minis came assembled and painted that would be a different story but the prospect of having to build and paint another whole army and having to find another group to play with after you're so invested in 40k seems daunting. To each their own I guess!

If they make a Rancor I will probably buy it


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:47:30


Post by: TheCustomLime


This all hinges on Disney's ability to keep Star Wars interesting and fresh. Franchise fatigue, if the next few films prove mediocre, could severely limit what a cash printing machine this game could easily be.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:52:35


Post by: Easy E


I am not a fan of FFGs design style as CCGs with Minis, BUT I will probably pick up this game (and some expansions) for the minis which I will then use in other rules such as Tomorrow's War, Rogue Planet, SpacePort Scum, Rogue Stars, and Rampant Stars.

However, I see this being available in places where GW is not. Places like Target, Toys R Us, Barnes and Noble, etc. I am thinking more of Lord of the Rings, and less 40K.

I can see why GW did not want FFG doing 40K RPG anymore. Too much of a competitor now.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/29 21:54:24


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


We can't tell if X-wing has actually outstripped 40K

it has by the metric of the USA centric Icv2 survey but since its not clear whether all GW sales are counted (Independent, independent + GW stores or independent + GW stores + GW web sales) it's very hard to know if this is the real picture

(although the survey is very useful in telling us 40K and GW have slipped significantly since x-wing launched)

and I very much doubt if Legion is going to generate £19 million+ profit next year (assuming 40K is only half of GWs profits and i'm sure that's an underestimate), fi only because it's a licenced property and Disney is going to be sucking off a considerable amount of cash each year, and my guess is it's on a sliding scale with a minimum payment however sales go, but extra if it does really well)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 04:04:17


Post by: Da Butcha


This game looks amazing, but looks are kind of deceiving (speaking as someone who actually saw it at GenCon).

The minis are a considerably larger scale than 40K. That's not too big of a deal, unless you really wanted a Darth Vader/Marneus Calgar match, but it means that scenery that is compatible with 40K and almost all the other games out there is going to look a little small for this game.

Which wouldn't be a problem, if all the scenery (well, almost all--the little triangular barricades do seem to be part of the set) you see in this set wasn't custom stuff made specially for the photos and the demos.

So I think you are going to have a lot of interest, but I don't know how much of that interest will translate into actual sales when people realize they have to assemble and paint the minis, and also construct (or find elsewhere) scenery for the game--scenery which might not be useful for other, similar games.

I don't think it's going to compare well to X-Wing at all, as X-Wing is extremely accessible for the non-hobbyist, and the games you can play look just like the ones that are demoed (if you buy a starfield mat).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 09:15:43


Post by: Osbad


I see this playing out a bit like Lord of the Rings SBG has. There will be an initial spike which will eclipse 40k (When GW release the Knights of Dol Amroth back around 2005 or whenever, they were the best selling models in their range, bigger than anything from 40k, for that period. They sold more Uruk-hai than the population of .... oh I forget now, but it was some medium sized country!), then gradually over time, the restrictions of the IP will limit new releases to a trickle and first sales and then interest will tail away leaving a much lower level of sales/interest which probably is sustainable, but at a lot lower level than 40k.
X-wing shows the signs of that tailing off right now I believe.

Star Wars is a bigger franchise than LotR of course, so it'll be interesting to watch. I've got zero interest in the IP though, so I'm purely an observer.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 09:28:28


Post by: Freddy Kruger


I feel this might sell well ONLY if they can capitalise on the fan base of star wars. They might draw in people who don't know Wargaming, and might give it a shot due to this.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 09:45:55


Post by: MrMoustaffa


 odinsgrandson wrote:
Recent years have seen North American Retail sales of 40k be bested by X-Wing from Fantasy Flight Games.

Now, I'm not here to argue about what 40k sales would look like if we could include their online store or Europe (I just don't have those numbers). In any case, it remains true that X-Wing is a different genre from most tabletop wargames since it uses pre-painted minis of starships at a small scale.

One of the big bits of news from Gencon was Fantasy Flight Games' announcement of Star Wars Legion.



It features unpainted plastic minis in gaming scale for tabletop miniatures combat- it is very much the same genre as 40k (and Warmachine, Infinity, Dark Age etc). There's no doubt that the general Star Wars franchise has more power than 40k- in fact, there are few 40k fans who aren't also Star Wars fans, while the majority of SW fans haven't heard of 40k

Recently, 40k seems to have new life from the 8th edition. A lot of people are pleased with the new rules set, and are anxious to explore the setting some more.

So, the question- is it possible that 40k might be unseated from its top spot by SWL?


It could have, until I saw the words "movement tool", "Specialty Dice", and "Upgrade Cards".

The moment FFG decided that tape measures, normal dice, and regular old army books were too normal was the moment they decided that they didn't feel like beating 40k at all.

If you think it will be the 40k killer then you have no idea just how stuck in their ways many grognards are. Heck I'm 25 and even I took one look at that and immediately groaned. I loved X-Wing but after some 10 waves or so playing the game is a chore, I swear I have to lug around more for my X-Wing stuff than my IG infantry horde unless I build a specific list before I go into the store. It will also be hell for tournament play if it works the same way as X-Wing because you will need the physical cards for every upgrade. Basically imagine fielding a 40k army except instead of needing your index/codex, you instead need to carry around cards for all your units and upgrades (imagine needing a card for every unit packing a plasma gun, that's what I'm worried about here). Yeah it's fun in skirmish with a couple squads per side, but if they want to go any higher it will be hell.

This is to say nothing of FFG's insistence on selling balance patches in future blisters, meaning that after a year or so our average stormtroopers and rebel troopers will be garbage forcing you to buy the "Imperial Janitor" expansion so you can upgrade your regular old stormtroopers. If FFG makes the same screw ups they made with X-Wing, we'll see lists that look nothing like a proper star wars army any more. Think about X-Wing, how often do you see a T-65 X-Wing that isn't Biggs? Granted 40k has many of these same issues, especially in the past, I'm just pointing out that if it turns out that your average troopers on both sides are obsolete within a few waves then it is essentially no better than 40k.

I'll probably buy a box if I have some free cash just to paint (aka pile it away in the to do pile like some sort of plastic addicted squirrel) but I'm not very optimistic that this game will be much of a 40k killer at all.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Maybe I'll get proven wrong. I really hope I don't, I find proprietary dice, movement tools, cards, etc. incredibly annoying and I really would not like to see FFG set a sort of precedent for those in wargaming if the game does very well. It means you need all new gaming supplies, which means inevitably 2-3 starter sets because they never give you enough stuff in a single box.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 12:15:20


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


For balance?

Aside from the constant requirement to upgrade, many of X-Wing's fault lie with the players.

As a narrative game, it's pretty excellent. And that means one can field whichever ships look the coolest (so, not the HWK. Ever. Because it looks ponk), just for the fun of the game.

But the whole 'only ever Biggs' is down to people taking it very seriously. And fair enough. Not my bag, but it's their bag - and long may they enjoy their chosen hobby in their chosen manner.

As I mentioned above, I don't think any ships in X-Wing have been made obsolete just yet - but there's definitely favoured combos, all made worse by the latest gimmick ship. How sustainable that is, only time will tell. The game is young yet!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 12:24:14


Post by: ZebioLizard2



But the whole 'only ever Biggs' is down to people taking it very seriously. And fair enough. Not my bag, but it's their bag - and long may they enjoy their chosen hobby in their chosen manner.
Except by seriously, you mean people playing to win?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 12:25:54


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Can you define 'playing to win' a bit better?

I play every game I partake in with the intention of being the victor. Doesn't mean I feel particularly compelled to only take the latest netlist?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 12:41:10


Post by: AndrewGPaul


The difference is whether force creation is part of the effort to win. For some people it is - in which case they don't field T-65 X-Wings and whatever else is sub-optimal. For some (i.e. you and I) it's not - I choose a force based on what I think is cool and/or the setting (i.e. X-Wings in pairs or triplets) and then play to the best of my ability with that force.

Will this outsell 40k? Well, it won't appeal to the converters or painters - part of the appeal of a "bespoke" setting is you're free to build, convert and paint the models however you want. I suppose you can do that with Stormtroopers, but painting them red and gold isn't nearly so acceptable in the "community".

The thing is, my group are all big Star Wars fans, and no-one is looking to get into this. At best, we might pick up a starter set (depending on price) to use the models for Blasters and Bulkheads. Any future purchases are unlikely, because the cost of the miniatures is inflated by the ancillary game materials and the awkward packaging.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 12:50:13


Post by: Stevefamine


 Kriswall wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Fantasy Flight Games has been solid for quite a while now. Lets see if they can make this game impact the local comic shops, book stores, and small shops that wouldn't normally carry wargames.

These minis look terrible. Nearly Heroxlic / Mage Knight tier


I saw them up close and personal at Gencon. They're not even remotely close to Heroclix/Mage Knight tier. They're well detailed models. They look a lot better than some of the models GW has for sale right now.


as did I see them at Gencon...

On par with the old Ral Partha metal minis or some of the better scultps of Mageknight without the goopy paint.


I am curious to see how their multi-part kits are for the walkers, droids, and different troops in the expansion sets. Also curious on how they handle the fluff in futurue expansions similar to X Wing's new content units


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 13:20:05


Post by: Easy E


They really should have gone the pre-painted route with these, and then it would be a potential 40K killer.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 13:46:59


Post by: Elbows


I think FFG will have to put a lot more resources behind this to compete with 40K long term. I'd like to see that happen, but it's a tall order.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 14:18:15


Post by: odinsgrandson


 Kriswall wrote:
 Stevefamine wrote:
Fantasy Flight Games has been solid for quite a while now. Lets see if they can make this game impact the local comic shops, book stores, and small shops that wouldn't normally carry wargames.

These minis look terrible. Nearly Heroxlic / Mage Knight tier


I saw them up close and personal at Gencon. They're not even remotely close to Heroclix/Mage Knight tier. They're well detailed models. They look a lot better than some of the models GW has for sale right now.


Fantasy Flight do not have great painters. This makes their product look worse.

Games Workshop hires great painters- even if their studio paintjobs seldom represent their best work these days, they clearly know what they're doing.


Actually, the first thing that comes to mind was a conversation I had about painting Snow Troopers for Imperial Assault. I discussed how I would paint the whole mini in white, with shading etc, and then line the areas and my wife came over and said "No way. You would never pick a color scheme that is so boring."

One of the things 40k really has going for it is the sprawling night infinite universe (Age of Sigmar did this for Warhammer Fantasy). Essentially, no matter what color scheme you choose for your space marines or Eldar, it fits nicely into the established cannon.

Whereas, if you paint your Storm Troopers in Red/Blue/Green/Purple/Turquois/Brown/Gold you are clearly departing from the cannon. If you paint your centerpiece Darth Vader in anything that isn't black with black accents, then you're moving far outside of cannon. I think this game wont' satisfy the creative hobbyist that 40k does so well.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 14:26:30


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 odinsgrandson wrote:


Whereas, if you paint your Storm Troopers in Red/Blue/Green/Purple/Turquois/Brown/Gold you are clearly departing from the cannon. If you paint your centerpiece Darth Vader in anything that isn't black with black accents, then you're moving far outside of cannon. I think this game wont' satisfy the creative hobbyist that 40k does so well.


This. I have fully painted the Imperial Assault miniatures and while it's fun for a board game, having an "army" isn't attractive at all, at least for me. BUT, there are many WW II game enthusiasts and they also try to recreate the paint / camo schemes as best as they can, so there might be a good market (which I don't believe it, part of the X-wing success was the pre-painted minis).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 14:41:52


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


With WW2 though, it's that drive for absolute historical accuracy that's the appeal. Be it specific medal colours on your Brigadier General, or replicating that sky camouflage used in Africa, that's a challenge in and of itself.

Star Wars, for all the things I love about it, has never really had depth in that particular area. Closest as the code cylinders and that on Imperial Officers, and knowing the Squad Leader's pauldron is orange.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 15:04:36


Post by: odinsgrandson


 MrMoustaffa wrote:

It could have, until I saw the words "movement tool", "Specialty Dice", and "Upgrade Cards".

The moment FFG decided that tape measures, normal dice, and regular old army books were too normal was the moment they decided that they didn't feel like beating 40k at all.

If you think it will be the 40k killer then you have no idea just how stuck in their ways many grognards are. Heck I'm 25 and even I took one look at that and immediately groaned. I loved X-Wing but after some 10 waves or so playing the game is a chore, I swear I have to lug around more for my X-Wing stuff than my IG infantry horde unless I build a specific list before I go into the store. It will also be hell for tournament play if it works the same way as X-Wing because you will need the physical cards for every upgrade. Basically imagine fielding a 40k army except instead of needing your index/codex, you instead need to carry around cards for all your units and upgrades (imagine needing a card for every unit packing a plasma gun, that's what I'm worried about here). Yeah it's fun in skirmish with a couple squads per side, but if they want to go any higher it will be hell.

This is to say nothing of FFG's insistence on selling balance patches in future blisters, meaning that after a year or so our average stormtroopers and rebel troopers will be garbage forcing you to buy the "Imperial Janitor" expansion so you can upgrade your regular old stormtroopers. If FFG makes the same screw ups they made with X-Wing, we'll see lists that look nothing like a proper star wars army any more. Think about X-Wing, how often do you see a T-65 X-Wing that isn't Biggs? Granted 40k has many of these same issues, especially in the past, I'm just pointing out that if it turns out that your average troopers on both sides are obsolete within a few waves then it is essentially no better than 40k.

I'll probably buy a box if I have some free cash just to paint (aka pile it away in the to do pile like some sort of plastic addicted squirrel) but I'm not very optimistic that this game will be much of a 40k killer at all.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Maybe I'll get proven wrong. I really hope I don't, I find proprietary dice, movement tools, cards, etc. incredibly annoying and I really would not like to see FFG set a sort of precedent for those in wargaming if the game does very well. It means you need all new gaming supplies, which means inevitably 2-3 starter sets because they never give you enough stuff in a single box.


Wargames so far use very few custom dice (40k has had a few over the years- scatter dice, misfire dice and sustained fire dice). Games can get a following while using non-cubical dice (Infinity uses D20, for example). I'm not entirely certain why the more custom dice have been left to board games (where custom dice are very prominent- even Blood Bowl primarily uses custom dice).


Stat cards have become a standard for most wargames- starting with Confrontation, and even Age of Sigmar uses their version. I just don't see that being the death of any game- especially if we're comparing having a deck of stat cards to having a faction codex, sub faction codex and another 'dex and maybe a sub dex for your allies.


Ultimately, though, 40k and WFB haven't survived for most of their existence by appealing to Grognards. They've mostly gotten new gamers as teenage boys who quit or spend a lot less after five or ten years.

In recent years, they have been having a harder time picking up new gamers- probably because they have such steep entry costs vs a plethora of other games with nice miniatures, rules and lore- a lot of which are board games with minis rather than tabletop games. I think a lot of their current Board Game push is about GW picking up new gamers.


I think that if Star Wars: Legion picks up enough of the teenagers, then it could replace 40k as the standard. 40k would shrink a LOT if the players were all people moving on after getting sick of Legion.



Some of the other points can make this a less likely scenario (less varied universe, fewer creative hobby options, less diverse setting and FFG''s attitude towards game life cycles).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 15:16:02


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


40k is a setting first (despite some attempts to go more in the story direction with the fluff advancement that I personally dislike) that was made to create cool minis.
Star Wars is a story first, setting second, that was made to create movie rather than miniatures.

I'm expecting the Star War miniature game to not last very long. Too soon the limited elements available from the movie, and at a scale compatible with the scale of the game, will just dry up.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 17:54:07


Post by: MrMoustaffa


@odinsgrandson I don't think you quite get what I mean by upgrade cards. If it works like Armada, X-Wing, and I believe Imperial assault, you need multiple cards PER UNIT. I've seen ships in X-Wing with 10 upgrade cards alone, that's a big deal for a skirmish game if it goes above a few models/units per side. This is not a card for just a unit, I'm talking a card for the unit, potentially a card for the squad leader, a card for the special weapon guy, a card showing they have grenades.

This is not at all like Flames of War or other games have, where it's a comprehensive card for the unit and all options. Nor is it like the tactical objective cards 40k has, or the strategy cards DZC has. I really like all of those systems. And FFG's system still works ok for games like X-Wing, at least at a 100pts. The problem creeps in as the games get larger. Epic for example can be a pain unless you both have an agreement to mostly use generics, and you'll still probably need to proxy basic upgrades like R2 astromechs because they only come with a single expansion and aren't even necessarily packaged with ships they logically should be.

This is a star wars game. At some point people will want to reenact the battle of hoth, the ending scene of Rogue One, the assault on Endor, and they'll want big armies per side. FFG's card system they like to use, which shows no signs of changing with this game, will be clunky and undoubtedly annoying to deal with, especially proprietary dice.


Of course it also has a nice "feature" of making it where you cant technically use star wars models you acquired elsewhere if you want to play tournaments as you will need the specific cards. And non FFG star wars minis roughly in this scale do exist. It basically keeps me from using my massive pile of stormtroopers I got from the last star wars minis game.

"But MrMoustaffa if they let you use any old mini they would never make money." Funny, I didn't realize FFG was GW now. Historicals literally deal with this exact same issue and yet Bolt Action and FoW are both doing fine. It is not a legitimate excuse to shove proprietary stuff into their games just to force people from using models they already own. I guarantee you that is the whole reason these models are 33mm scale. To keep people from wanting to use the pile of stormtroopers they already own from Imperial Assault or even the old collectible minis game from the early 2000's. This is the kind of thing GW would get torn a new orifice over, I don't see why FFG gets a free pass here.

Which is a shame, because I want this game to do well and I want to like it. Its just past experiences have taught me that FFG has already screwed it up.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 18:33:23


Post by: odinsgrandson


Ok, I can see how those cards can get out of control. Hopefully, they realize how cumbersome that could be and use a more streamlined card design.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
With WW2 though, it's that drive for absolute historical accuracy that's the appeal. Be it specific medal colours on your Brigadier General, or replicating that sky camouflage used in Africa, that's a challenge in and of itself.

Star Wars, for all the things I love about it, has never really had depth in that particular area. Closest as the code cylinders and that on Imperial Officers, and knowing the Squad Leader's pauldron is orange.


Yeah, there's a separation between Historical and Fantasy/Science fiction gamers. Historicals are all about researched accuracy- a lot of 'getting it right." Fantasy and science fiction gamers are all about 'rule of cool."


I can see some appeal in getting Star Wars stuff right, although there's definitely less room to play around. And there's some room for fluffy conversions as well (I suspect there will be some fans of the old Extended Universe stuff that get some cool treatment).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 18:57:50


Post by: Gimgamgoo


"Fear. Fear attracts the fearful, the strong, the weak, the innocent, the corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally..."

The fearful... those that have all of a sudden gone very defensive of GW. Those that are telling us that this new SW game will need us to buy cards from all sets to be competitive - without any sound knowledge if this is true.

I play X-wing and Walking Dead (amongst many others) and don't think I could stomach another game with a CCG worth of cards.

If I went back in time and found this game before Warhammer got me into wargaming, this could have been the game for me.

SW Legion will live or die by how and where it's marketed.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 19:27:38


Post by: Kanluwen


 Gimgamgoo wrote:
"Fear. Fear attracts the fearful, the strong, the weak, the innocent, the corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally..."

The fearful... those that have all of a sudden gone very defensive of GW. Those that are telling us that this new SW game will need us to buy cards from all sets to be competitive - without any sound knowledge if this is true.

I play X-wing and Walking Dead (amongst many others) and don't think I could stomach another game with a CCG worth of cards.

If I went back in time and found this game before Warhammer got me into wargaming, this could have been the game for me.

SW Legion will live or die by how and where it's marketed.

So wait.

You play X-Wing, a Fantasy Flight Game, and think this is just GW apologists bringing something out of thin air?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 21:56:41


Post by: Peregrine


Let's be honest here, the "card game" issue only exists in sanctioned tournaments. In terms of game rules the cards have zero effect, they're nothing more than rules reminders and functionally identical to printing the rules in a book or using an online squad builder or whatever. There's no need to own any of the cards, or even take them out of the box. The only time you'll have to use the cards is if you play in a sanctioned tournament, and have to prove to FFG that you bought everything.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 22:32:44


Post by: Tibs Ironblood


I think it would be a serious threat if they were pre-painted minis. I cannot count how many people I have known to be put off by painting models. Its a huge leap that many just are not willing to make and I can understand why.

If the minis were pre-painted to even a decent standard that would open the door for a lot of people.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 22:35:16


Post by: Hückleberry


If Legion expands into other "factions" in the SW universe this will definitely give 40k a run for its money. Droid armies, Clone armies, Ewoks, Wookies, Gungans, Genosians. Even small elite type armies like 4-5 Jedi/Sith. If they decide to try to include all these possibilities. I can see a lot of people going all in on this. I know personally for me, and I'm sure a lot of other people, I was a SW fan first and then discovered 40k later. I grew up with it and it was my first love.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 22:46:09


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I hope some of the EU vehicles are well-designed enough. A good sci-fi tank could make me drop 40k altogether.

The Baneblade is awful. The AT-AT is worse.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 23:08:06


Post by: Gimgamgoo


 Kanluwen wrote:

You play X-Wing, a Fantasy Flight Game, and think this is just GW apologists bringing something out of thin air?


No. I think "GW apologists" (as you call them) only tend to take the time to defend their game, and denounce others, when they feel they have something to fear.

Their defense against SW Legion makes it feel like a bigger threat than it will be.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 23:36:22


Post by: Vertrucio


Considering that they make up new Star Wars stuff in media all the time, and half the things people love about the "setting" is all made up in the first place, SWL has plenty ways to go.

Heck, all those GW toys that supposedly gave it longetivity, also made up late in the game's life. Tau? Added late. A bunch of common SM toys now are all recent additions.

FFG made its own ship, which is now canon.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 23:39:14


Post by: Peregrine


 Vertrucio wrote:
FFG made its own ship, which is now canon.


But only with permission and cooperation from the IP owner, they couldn't just throw something together to fill a game need and do whatever it takes. Having to deal with the IP owner is a definite constraint on a licensed game. It's just that arguably the benefits of the Star Wars brand outweigh those constraints.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 23:44:06


Post by: argonak


 Easy E wrote:
They really should have gone the pre-painted route with these, and then it would be a potential 40K killer.


I agree. The key to beating 40k isn't to target 40k's existing players, as FFG showed with X-Wing. Its to create a game that targets everyone, with a broader appeal.

40k as a game is niche. it will always be niche. Its a hobby that requires you to spend exhorbitant amounts of money on plastic miniatures, spend hours assembling them, more hours painting them, lots more money on a table and terrain, then more horus assemblying and painting that terrain. And then you finally have a semi-finished product to play with.

Compare this to X-Wing. $30 dollars. Open box. Play. Yeah, FFG's over-reliance on cards, special dice, special tools is annoying. But that doesn't impact their target demographic in a negative way, and its probably a positive because its kind of "cool" to have a special thing that's all X-Wing's own. And the other half is they go all the way with their system. When you buy an x-wing, you have everything in the box you need to play it.

GW is trying to move this way with their war scrolls, but they refuse to go all the way because they love their codexes. I just got a new start collecting box for scions, and it had the war scroll for just the scions. Not the commissar, not the taurox, not the taurox prime, not a scion command squad, not the tempestor prime. Can I play with just what came in the box if I take it to the shop? Hell no.

If FFG wants to beat 40k, they need to have ready to play miniatures with a straight forward game that is fun to play. If they do that, they could knock 40k out not by stealing its players, but by bringing in so many new players that 40k looks small by comparison and just fades away.

Will it last forever? Probably not, but then what does?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/30 23:50:50


Post by: Digclaw


If Legion Had been released First, I would say it would go after 40k, but Legion wasn't released first, X-Wing was.

Every new Star Wars miniatures game that gets released is in direct competition with X-Wing and every other Star Wars game FFG has put out since.

X-Wing has the advantage because it was first and everybody is already invested.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 00:15:09


Post by: argonak


 Digclaw wrote:
If Legion Had been released First, I would say it would go after 40k, but Legion wasn't released first, X-Wing was.

Every new Star Wars miniatures game that gets released is in direct competition with X-Wing and every other Star Wars game FFG has put out since.

X-Wing has the advantage because it was first and everybody is already invested.


Well, all the X-Wing players I've met seem to love buying new toys. The price point for each kit is usually small enough that people will impulse buy it. This is counter to 40k, where a lot of us subconsciously compare current prices to when we started 40k. . . which makes us all complain about buying stuff.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 00:56:47


Post by: odinsgrandson


Hey- if the new toy is cool enough, we don't complain. I mean, did you see the new Lord of Change?





Anyway, I think there's a common problem with miniatures games based on outside IP. They never seem to have enough fleshed out factions.

We're dealing with a two faction setting (Rebels vs. Empire, or Federation vs. Republic or Resistance vs. First Order).

Star Wars is really a setting of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys (unlike 40k which is always Bad guys vs. Bad But in Different Ways Guys).

There's room in the fluff for various planetary forces (Mandalorians, Ewoks, Wookies, Gunguns, Ilithids, etc). But they're probably going to all sit under umbrella factions of Light and Dark.

In X-Wing they have a third faction for Bad Guys Who Aren't Allied to the Empire, right? For scoundrels, scum and villainy?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 01:31:15


Post by: ced1106


 odinsgrandson wrote:
So, the question- is it possible that 40k might be unseated from its top spot by SWL?


I think there are too many variable to know:

* Hasbro has the SW boardgame license, so we don't know exactly how FFG is publishing SW IA. Maybe FFG is trying to sell the boardgame as a miniatures game, maybe not. I expect that they have some agreement with Hasbro to sell the FFG boardgames. When directly asked this question, FFG said "it's complicated". It's entirely possible that SWL was developed in case FFG didn't have a SW game they could sell. Note that IA has had four big box expansions and numerous small ones. This many expansions is typically the limit for a boadgame, so, while FFG has said they're working on an IA app (over a year now), sales haven't shown many of their boardgames going beyond five big box expansions.

* FFG has dropped support of game lines (eg. BattleLore 2nd edition) in the past, and I doubt GW will drop 40K (although I would have doubted they'd drop Warhammer Fantasy

* SWL might just be a gateway game new miniatures gamers have to other miniature games. We don't know yet how much sheer content FFG will release for SWL. As others have said, it would be difficult to have more than three factions for SWL, although some BGG'ers evidently *really* like ewoks. I haven't heard if SWL will have the level of customizability of miniatures GW has (ie. bits), but doubt I'll see any rebels with chainsaws grafted onto their arms.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 02:00:53


Post by: Xca|iber


 odinsgrandson wrote:
In X-Wing they have a third faction for Bad Guys Who Aren't Allied to the Empire, right? For scoundrels, scum and villainy?


X-Wing has Rebels, Imperials, and Scum, or "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly." Many players however fall into the 4th faction: The Salty.

++++++++++

On Topic: As an avid X-Wing player, who switched from 40k and will probably never go back (except for Battlefleet Gothic), I'm still not super interested in SWL. It seems like it might be okay, but the way FFG games work these days, it's hard for me to justify buying into a whole new game system where I'll have to buy new templates, dice, cards, etc. all over again. I think some other people mentioned this too, but it bears repeating. The initial cost of getting into FFG's X-Wing or RPGs is really a draw, but it means I'm not motivated to shell out again for a new system - in other words, I don't want to go back to how things were financially trying to support a 40k army.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 08:03:55


Post by: ulgurstasta


 Easy E wrote:
They really should have gone the pre-painted route with these, and then it would be a potential 40K killer.



I'm sceptical that the production technology has come so far that prepaintd miniatures can deliver both in looks and in price in a wargaming scale. I used to buy prepainted d&d miniatures a few years back and even though they had their charm, it's not something I would use in a wargame.

Now from what I understand the X-wing stuff is pretty good, but I'm not convinced they could do 28mm infantry in a satisfying manner.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 08:23:33


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 ulgurstasta wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
They really should have gone the pre-painted route with these, and then it would be a potential 40K killer.



I'm sceptical that the production technology has come so far that prepaintd miniatures can deliver both in looks and in price in a wargaming scale. I used to buy prepainted d&d miniatures a few years back and even though they had their charm, it's not something I would use in a wargame.

Now from what I understand the X-wing stuff is pretty good, but I'm not convinced they could do 28mm infantry in a satisfying manner.


Concerning the pre-painted minis: (Because Uncle Atom is great)




40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 11:19:44


Post by: Pete Melvin


This is like when a newspaper headline asks a question. The answer is usually no,


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 12:32:14


Post by: Kriswall


Can Star Wars Legion take 40k's spot? Sure. In an infinite universe, all things are possible. Is it likely to happen anytime in the near future? Almost certainly not.

Now, let's ask another question. Can Star Wars Legion hurt 40k? I think the answer to this one is probably a yes. I'm going to use an anecdote, which I realize doesn't prove anything, but does serve as an example of how things can go on the small scale. At my local store, 8th Edition released and about a dozen people became excited and brought out armies they hadn't played for the better part of year. We all thought that 7th, towards the end, was hot, unplayable garbage. Some of us bought new things, but most didn't other than an Index. Another six or so people showed interest in getting into the game. One person bought a Dark Imperium box and then fleshed out the Chaos half. The other five saw the Star Wars Legion news and immediately decided that if they were going to start a new game that it was going to be the one with the more familiar IP, a likely tighter rule set and a well supported organized play scene.

Now, that's just an anecdote, but I think it makes my point. Existing 40k players are going to keep up with 40k come hell or high water. Some new players, who might have bought 40k before the Legion announcement, will now wait for Legion. Anyone who plays Runewars, X-Wing or Armada (a lot of people) and was considering getting into table top war gaming will probably give Legion a shot over 40k. Legion is cheaper, better supported and has a familiar rule set for many people.

TL: DR; 40k isn't going anywhere in the near future, but will probably lose potential new players (or players coming back to the hobby) to Legion.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 13:25:13


Post by: Easy E


All FFG needs now is a mass battle Star Wars game. I don't know, Star Wars: Battlefield .... or something?

I would love to play an epic/planetfall scale Star Wars game. Then, I would match it up with Armada, X-wing, Imperial Assault, and Legion for some epic-cool campaign weekends! Well, at least in theory I could.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 14:17:02


Post by: Sqorgar


 Kriswall wrote:

TL: DR; 40k isn't going anywhere in the near future, but will probably lose potential new players (or players coming back to the hobby) to Legion.
Not initially. FFG still can't compare to GW when it comes to the breadth and variety of releases. It'll take the better part of a year (or longer) for there to be even enough variety in Legion releases for players to have army customization. Legion's early releases will be primarily based on what's in the core box. Meanwhile, 40k will have had a dozen major releases - new mini-factions, chapter approved, Necromunda gangs, new codices, Christmas bundles, new campaign books and models. While players are waiting on Legion to go anywhere, GW will have multiple chances to draw attention away from it - and honestly, they'll probably be pretty successful at it.

After a while, though, Legion will be past the "fleshing out the core" phase and they'll have their own new models and releases, not to mention a vaguely mature community with websites, wikis, and forums. At this point, non-early adopters will jump in and, should the game be any good, it will start achieving critical mass. By then, GW will have had a huge head start on, at the very least, keeping GW players as well as gaining new fans through Necromunda and Shadespire. I don't think GW has to worry much - though some real competition to keep prices down wouldn't suck.

The one that has the most to lose from Legion is Runewars. Runewars is still in the early adopter phase though and doesn't even have a complete faction yet, much less the promised four of them. It's in a precarious state where the early adopters could easily go be early adopters of Legion, and it miss the chance to achieve that critical mass.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/08/31 21:07:05


Post by: Kriswall


 Sqorgar wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

TL: DR; 40k isn't going anywhere in the near future, but will probably lose potential new players (or players coming back to the hobby) to Legion.
Not initially. FFG still can't compare to GW when it comes to the breadth and variety of releases. It'll take the better part of a year (or longer) for there to be even enough variety in Legion releases for players to have army customization. Legion's early releases will be primarily based on what's in the core box. Meanwhile, 40k will have had a dozen major releases - new mini-factions, chapter approved, Necromunda gangs, new codices, Christmas bundles, new campaign books and models. While players are waiting on Legion to go anywhere, GW will have multiple chances to draw attention away from it - and honestly, they'll probably be pretty successful at it.

After a while, though, Legion will be past the "fleshing out the core" phase and they'll have their own new models and releases, not to mention a vaguely mature community with websites, wikis, and forums. At this point, non-early adopters will jump in and, should the game be any good, it will start achieving critical mass. By then, GW will have had a huge head start on, at the very least, keeping GW players as well as gaining new fans through Necromunda and Shadespire. I don't think GW has to worry much - though some real competition to keep prices down wouldn't suck.

The one that has the most to lose from Legion is Runewars. Runewars is still in the early adopter phase though and doesn't even have a complete faction yet, much less the promised four of them. It's in a precarious state where the early adopters could easily go be early adopters of Legion, and it miss the chance to achieve that critical mass.


"FFG still can't compare to GW when it comes to the breadth and variety of releases."

I would argue that GW's release schedule for 40k is really, really bad. I play Necrons. Exempting the inevitable 8th Edition Codex, when am I going to see my next release? 2017? 2018? 2019? Later? Sure, my fellow players who play other factions are happy, but I'm not. GW is good at cranking new models out quickly, but they're really, really bad at supporting existing factions with regular releases. Not everyone wants "breadth and variety". I would assume that Necron players want Necron units. Tau players want Tau units. Etc. Etc.

You know what X-Wing players get? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Armada players get? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Runewars players will be getting? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Legion players will be getting? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what AGoT LCG players will be getting? New cards for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Star Wars LCG players will be getting? New cards for their faction, multiple times per year.

FFG may not crank out new factions every month, but they do a pretty solid job at supporting existing products/factions. GW does not. GW has production ADD. Every month it's something shiny and new.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 03:25:42


Post by: Sqorgar


 Kriswall wrote:

"FFG still can't compare to GW when it comes to the breadth and variety of releases."

I would argue that GW's release schedule for 40k is really, really bad. I play Necrons. Exempting the inevitable 8th Edition Codex, when am I going to see my next release? 2017? 2018? 2019? Later? Sure, my fellow players who play other factions are happy, but I'm not. GW is good at cranking new models out quickly, but they're really, really bad at supporting existing factions with regular releases. Not everyone wants "breadth and variety". I would assume that Necron players want Necron units. Tau players want Tau units. Etc. Etc.

That is a fair complaint. I didn't consider it because I don't personally enjoy miniature games that way. I really like how GW does it and I have no problem starting a bunch of small armies rather than dedicating myself to just one (or two) forever... and I'm kind of hoping Legion is similar. That being said, I do get where you are coming from.

You know what X-Wing players get? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Armada players get? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Runewars players will be getting? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Legion players will be getting? New models for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what AGoT LCG players will be getting? New cards for their faction, multiple times per year.
You know what Star Wars LCG players will be getting? New cards for their faction, multiple times per year.

FFG may not crank out new factions every month, but they do a pretty solid job at supporting existing products/factions. GW does not. GW has production ADD. Every month it's something shiny and new.
I agree completely, but I still think FFG's release schedule leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, as an LCG player, I can expect about 16 unique faction cards per cycle - for $90, spread out over 6 months (or more) with a lot more cards for other factions (which is great for dabblers like me, but not so much for single faction players). Runewars is very slow to get started and it will be around a year before the four factions are "feature complete" with just core units. I don't really play X-Wing or Armada, but it looks like X-Wing is a wave of 4 ships every six months(?) and Armada is 2-3 ship waves every six months.

I mean, you're right. FFG only has a few factions per game, so they are ultimately catered to - but FFG has a ton of games that it is spread between, and breaks game releases up into (too) small half year waves. To be fair, Runewars doesn't appear to be following the half year wave schedule and it has just an epic ton of releases for the first year (most are redundant to the core set, but there's still 5-6 boxes for each faction announced) - Legion could go a similar way.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 05:34:11


Post by: Bobthehero


 Hückleberry wrote:
Clone armies,


I'd love to see Clone Commandos mini, personally.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 05:43:42


Post by: Peregrine


 Sqorgar wrote:
I really like how GW does it and I have no problem starting a bunch of small armies rather than dedicating myself to just one (or two) forever...


Small armies? In a GW game? Spending hundreds of dollars on a 1500+ point army just to have the bare minimum to play the game is hardly "small", and that's what you get in GW games. Unless you have a really unusual group of players who enjoy tiny games and are willing to avoid exploiting the scaling issues that 40k suffers below ~1500 points playing 40k means dedicating yourself to an army or two, at least for years at a time. If you keep swapping armies frequently enough to enjoy all of GW's new releases you're never going to finish a full 40k army.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 06:31:48


Post by: TheCustomLime


 Bobthehero wrote:
 Hückleberry wrote:
Clone armies,


I'd love to see Clone Commandos mini, personally.


Clone troopers would be enough to get me to immediately blow money on this game.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 07:41:16


Post by: nekooni


I don't think it's a useful comparison at all.

From what I can tell it seems like Legion will be similar to X-Wing when it comes to many things, including the battle sizes.

X-Wing is a great game if you want small battles where movement is incredibly important. Dropfleet has much bigger battles, and it's also a great game. I don't see either one being "better" than the other one, and even if Legion does everything right, it's not going to replace 40k as a game. It might very well rake in more money than 40k, but I don't think that's necessarily going to hurt GW.
As someone pointed out: SW has an incredibly large fanbase, and most of it never played any kind of tabletop game. Bringing so many people into the hobby will probably result in some people not liking Legion all that much, but liking tabletops, and those folks will pick up other games, including 40k.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 11:43:48


Post by: auticus


I think that here anyway Legion will destroy 40k. There are a lot of people chomping at the bit to see GW go down and they are already prepared to back Legion 200%. And its not an insubstantial number of people, its half of a city's worth of wargamers or more that refuse to touch GW and want it dead.

I think that the biggest thing is that the models are NOT pre-painted, and I think that will stint what Legion could be. A great majority of xwing players I know do not like painting and love that their ships come prepainted.

Even if the paint job is fugly... they'd be happy that they don't have to paint anything. Having to paint models is a turn off for a great many people and I think for FFG to "sink 40k" they'll need to have prepainted options.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 12:13:06


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


I'm a little confused. If there are already so many people with a hatred of GW in general, then surely they're not playing 40K anyway and are already funnelling that money into other sources?

When Legion comes out and if they back it, GW won't be losing anything from those people because they're already not playing/buying?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 12:23:31


Post by: Kriswall


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I'm a little confused. If there are already so many people with a hatred of GW in general, then surely they're not playing 40K anyway and are already funnelling that money into other sources?

When Legion comes out and if they back it, GW won't be losing anything from those people because they're already not playing/buying?


Kind of true.

Let's say you have 10 gamers in a store. 7 of them play 40k and the other 3 sit in the back corner and complain about everything. A new player comes in and is looking to start a game. He sees 7 people playing 40k and nobody playing anything else. He's probably going to try 40k.

Now, let's say you have the same 10 gamers. 7 are still playing 40k. The other 3 are playing Legion. A new player comes in and is looking to start a new game. He might try 40k... or he might try Legion. He doesn't know much about 40k, but man are those Stormtroopers just like in the movie! Plus, Darth Vader!

Gamers tend to self organize into communities and generally have limited time to spend on gaming. Establishing a competing community can be both good and bad. It tends to make the dominant community a little smaller, but also tends to increase the overall number of gamers in the area.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 12:31:09


Post by: auticus


Gamers play what everyone else is playing.

40k has a large player base. Thats how it escapes falling due to its bad rules and high cost.

A good chunk of our players that play 40k hate 40k, but they know if they get into another game they risk not having people to play with. Its a self-sustaining cycle.

Their hope is that enough people back Legion that 40k bleeds its playerbase off.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 12:59:11


Post by: Kanluwen


 Kriswall wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I'm a little confused. If there are already so many people with a hatred of GW in general, then surely they're not playing 40K anyway and are already funnelling that money into other sources?

When Legion comes out and if they back it, GW won't be losing anything from those people because they're already not playing/buying?


Kind of true.

Let's say you have 10 gamers in a store. 7 of them play 40k and the other 3 sit in the back corner and complain about everything. A new player comes in and is looking to start a game. He sees 7 people playing 40k and nobody playing anything else. He's probably going to try 40k.

Now, let's say you have the same 10 gamers. 7 are still playing 40k. The other 3 are playing Legion. A new player comes in and is looking to start a new game. He might try 40k... or he might try Legion. He doesn't know much about 40k, but man are those Stormtroopers just like in the movie! Plus, Darth Vader!

Gamers tend to self organize into communities and generally have limited time to spend on gaming. Establishing a competing community can be both good and bad. It tends to make the dominant community a little smaller, but also tends to increase the overall number of gamers in the area.

In my experience, the idea of gamers "self-organizing into communities" precludes the fact that many times when people start up these little groups of their own they aren't exactly welcoming to newcomers--or even really interested in "growing" a community.

They say they're a club/group to get space at shops but never actively recruit. It's a big reason why Mantic's stuff has been kind of a big flop local to me. There's one or two guys who run a "club" but don't ever seem to engage with anyone who seems to be interested.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 13:30:40


Post by: Kriswall


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I'm a little confused. If there are already so many people with a hatred of GW in general, then surely they're not playing 40K anyway and are already funnelling that money into other sources?

When Legion comes out and if they back it, GW won't be losing anything from those people because they're already not playing/buying?


Kind of true.

Let's say you have 10 gamers in a store. 7 of them play 40k and the other 3 sit in the back corner and complain about everything. A new player comes in and is looking to start a game. He sees 7 people playing 40k and nobody playing anything else. He's probably going to try 40k.

Now, let's say you have the same 10 gamers. 7 are still playing 40k. The other 3 are playing Legion. A new player comes in and is looking to start a new game. He might try 40k... or he might try Legion. He doesn't know much about 40k, but man are those Stormtroopers just like in the movie! Plus, Darth Vader!

Gamers tend to self organize into communities and generally have limited time to spend on gaming. Establishing a competing community can be both good and bad. It tends to make the dominant community a little smaller, but also tends to increase the overall number of gamers in the area.

In my experience, the idea of gamers "self-organizing into communities" precludes the fact that many times when people start up these little groups of their own they aren't exactly welcoming to newcomers--or even really interested in "growing" a community.

They say they're a club/group to get space at shops but never actively recruit. It's a big reason why Mantic's stuff has been kind of a big flop local to me. There's one or two guys who run a "club" but don't ever seem to engage with anyone who seems to be interested.


Definitely a YMMV type of situation. Not everyone recognizes the need for community building or is good at it. Fortunately, FFG provides a solid framework for community building by making organized play kits and tight enough tournament rules that no house rules are ever needed. You can play a game of X-Wing or Armada with a random stranger in a random store pretty much anywhere in the world and you don't have to negotiate before the game on how certain rules will be interpreted or how army construction will be handled. If you go to an event, you don't have to research which tournament house rules will be used.

FFG games lend themselves to community building. You need a store to order an OP kit and a single player to judge the event. Advertise on local Facebook gaming groups and people will generally show up.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 13:39:07


Post by: Khadorstompy


Hmm really depends.

The biggest "depends" is going to be what armies Disney lets them make. As people have noticed currently FFG is very restricted in what it can make in X-wing due to Disney not allowing Clone Wars or Expanded universe ships anymore. If that continues to legion then kinda screwed cause 2 factions don't cut it very well. Now if they expand rapidly and do something like Rebellion, Galactic Empire, Scum, Galactic Republic, Separatists, First Order, and Resistance. And you have a solid 7 factions then you have enough to work with.

I love Star Wars as a setting much more then 40k. And if I had a true Stars Wars minatures game when I was a teenager you can bet I would have jumped into it very quickly over 40k. Now the big question is how fast it can grow and take off. If you have no one to play against then all the previous is moot. In my area Warmachine had a decent run then died. 40k is going strong atm. X-wing has seen a dip(Though that might just be cause new stores opened and its split across more stores now). Its just a matter of getting that kickstart to where you have a sustainable group. I remember X-wing being so big at time we would have 20 players on a regular X-wing night and the Tournaments where huge. By the same token....I haven't seen anyone play Armada since the release of Wave 2... I understand that a few people play a game every now and then but...yeah.

So could it? Certainly. FFG writes good rules and Star Wars is a great IP. It just has to catch on everywhere. That the thing about 40k. People play it everywhere. We will have to see.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 13:53:01


Post by: Chikout


I think for me that legion is in a strange halfway house. The minis we have seen so far are nothing better than adequate, but they are not painted. I think the people who love the ip and play x-wing will be put off by the painting side of the hobby. Those who love painting will want better models to spend their time on.
I was excited when I first heard of this game but the minis left me cold.

I also think that legion will do a lot better in America than the rest of the world.
I have seen very little buzz around rune wars so far.
Legion will of course do much better but I don't think it will sell as well as x-wing let alone 40k.

One last thing is the part about x-wing outselling 40k. The chart that everyone uses for this info only covers North America and only covers what GW would call trade which is just over a third of their business (according to their latest financial results). GW retail stores and the GW online store is not included. X-wing may be selling so well that it is actually number one but there is no way to prove that.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 16:16:11


Post by: mattyboy22


After seeing this game first hand at GenCOn, it feels to me like a rules set slapped together with parts of rules sets from their other games in order to sell Star Wars miniatures.

Movement tools (X-wing/ Armada), Upgrade Cards (same), 2 actions but you can only do move twice (Descent/ IA) combined with the odd "the unit leader is the only guy who means anything" left me unimpressed.

Expansion seems limited, how do you differentiate Snow Troopers from Storm Troopers other than a better or different attack dice?

I am a fan of a lot of many games for the innovative things they bring to the tabletop. I don't see this game doing that. Having said that, I'm sure it will sell a ton because it's Star Wars but I don't think 40K is in jeopardy.




40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 16:23:36


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I suspect the terrain kits, if FFG releases any, will be the biggest successes.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 16:41:48


Post by: Breng77


 auticus wrote:
Gamers play what everyone else is playing.

40k has a large player base. Thats how it escapes falling due to its bad rules and high cost.

A good chunk of our players that play 40k hate 40k, but they know if they get into another game they risk not having people to play with. Its a self-sustaining cycle.

Their hope is that enough people back Legion that 40k bleeds its playerbase off.


I mean this is essentially the reason it won't kill 40k. The most important thing in any game is the ability to play it. Which requires players. Most gamers aren't interested in building a community that plays a game, they want to be able to show up and get a game. Players are also very much into keeping their investment, so if I play 40k it would take a lot for me to want to not play that and instead play another game, especially with fewer players. X-wing is different because it is essentially a quick pick-up style game and as such is not really a direct 40k competitor (it feels closer to playing MTG than it does to 40k). Legion in the end won't bleed off enough of the player base as many other games (Warmahordes, Malifaux, etc) it will develop smaller player bases and will catch on in some areas, but for the most part 40k will be the easiest game to find games for and as such will persist.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 21:52:57


Post by: Azazelx


 auticus wrote:
I think that here anyway Legion will destroy 40k. There are a lot of people chomping at the bit to see GW go down and they are already prepared to back Legion 200%. And its not an insubstantial number of people, its half of a city's worth of wargamers or more that refuse to touch GW and want it dead.
I think that the biggest thing is that the models are NOT pre-painted, and I think that will stint what Legion could be. A great majority of xwing players I know do not like painting and love that their ships come prepainted.
Even if the paint job is fugly... they'd be happy that they don't have to paint anything. Having to paint models is a turn off for a great many people and I think for FFG to "sink 40k" they'll need to have prepainted options.


I love posts like this. Your gaming circle is half of the gamers in your city? They all "want GW dead"? Hyperbole much? According to google, you've got a GW store in Louisville, KY, as well as a number of stockists, so it seems to me that they're doing ok enough in your locality to have an actual branded store there.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khadorstompy wrote:
Hmm really depends.

The biggest "depends" is going to be what armies Disney lets them make. As people have noticed currently FFG is very restricted in what it can make in X-wing due to Disney not allowing Clone Wars or Expanded universe ships anymore.


Do you have a source for this? Sounds interesting.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 22:04:51


Post by: AndrewGPaul


I would have thought that the imminent release of the Assault Gunboat for X-Wing is evidence to the contrary.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 22:13:17


Post by: Kanluwen


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I would have thought that the imminent release of the Assault Gunboat for X-Wing is evidence to the contrary.

Or that the K-Wing, ARC-170, and a few others all came out after Disney acquired the Star Wars property...


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/01 23:25:16


Post by: nekooni


auticus wrote:I think that here anyway Legion will destroy 40k. There are a lot of people chomping at the bit to see GW go down and they are already prepared to back Legion 200%. And its not an insubstantial number of people, its half of a city's worth of wargamers or more that refuse to touch GW and want it dead.
I think that the biggest thing is that the models are NOT pre-painted, and I think that will stint what Legion could be. A great majority of xwing players I know do not like painting and love that their ships come prepainted.
Even if the paint job is fugly... they'd be happy that they don't have to paint anything. Having to paint models is a turn off for a great many people and I think for FFG to "sink 40k" they'll need to have prepainted options.

Why exactly do people want 40k dead? I don't get it. If you don't like it don't fething play it. I don't like Armada (I do like and play X-Wing though), but I don't want it to fail either. I've seen that kind of thinking a lot with Age of Sigmar, and I just don't get it. Play whatever you like, but leave people alone that like to play games you don't like.

@Azazelx: Sorry mate, fixed the quotes now.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 09:04:27


Post by: Azazelx


Your quotes. They are (fething) broken. You are attributing to myself things that auticus said that I was arguing against.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 11:34:24


Post by: StygianBeach


Star Wars is everywhere, I think the success of Legion will depend on how many non-wargamers it can attract.

I may be tempted to get some Storm Troopers, but the rebels just look lame... but that may just be because the pic is of Rebels in Forest camo on Tatooine.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 13:06:27


Post by: Gimgamgoo


 StygianBeach wrote:
Star Wars is everywhere, I think the success of Legion will depend on how many non-wargamers it can attract.

I may be tempted to get some Storm Troopers, but the rebels just look lame... but that may just be because the pic is of Rebels in Forest camo on Tatooine.


The rebels looked like they were painted a beige/brown. On a desert world. With generally brown buildings. Seems viable to me.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 14:50:58


Post by: Scott-S6


Chikout wrote:
One last thing is the part about x-wing outselling 40k. The chart that everyone uses for this info only covers North America and only covers what GW would call trade which is just over a third of their business (according to their latest financial results). GW retail stores and the GW online store is not included. X-wing may be selling so well that it is actually number one but there is no way to prove that.

And that chart doesn't even have any data to back it up - it's the results of a survey (and they decline to show us the questions or provide any data about response rate, etc.) and some interviews - i.e. anecdotal at best.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 15:13:42


Post by: Genoside07


I think 40k will be fine, but there will always a change on the top contender depending on releases and how people feeling at the time.

The thing is everyone is very interested in Legion and if I know Fantasy Flight they will do the game right. That will push other games down,
X-wing will continue to be on the board, but games like War machine will start to fall off the charts. There is just so much room in peoples hobby
collection.

With Privateer Press after the one two punch of releasing a subpar new edition of the game and completely destroying the Press Ganger program
that was there main support system, now games like Legion can come in and weaken them even more at the time they are needing to gain
more support.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/02 15:45:30


Post by: Jjohnso11


Until we see what other sets they will release and how often they plan on releasing them we won't know the market impact. X-Wing players won't jump on this game for the same reason they didn't jump on Runewars. Painting and assembling is expensive and time consuming. X-Wing is neither expensive nor time consuming.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 02:58:14


Post by: Lance845


I think the factions is going to be the real issue.

While starwars has a vast cast of rich characters that everyone recognizes and wants to put on the table, they really don't have much in the way of armies

Smugglers as a cohesive force isn't much of anything. You essentially have Empire vs Rebels. You could make a Clone army and a Droid army if you want to dip into the much hated prequel era. But who the hell wants to put Anakin on the table and how different is Clones really going to be from Empire? First Order and Resistance... again, play wise basically a reskin of the first 2. All the way back to Old Republic vs Sith Empire? So... Rebels vs Empire with more light sabres.

You could make a Mandalorian army... neat!

Bounty Hunter and Smuggler and Merc neutral units to add to any army.

By my count that means armies that actually have distinct play styles/units outside of characters amounts to Empire, Rebles, Droids, and Mandalorians. 4. In all the eras of Starwars we have 4 armies. Great...


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 06:51:16


Post by: Grot 6


The answer to the OP is- No.

FFG is not a tabletop miniatures company and are pushing the limit with the IA stuff they do have out. I mean seriously, I see the deal with selling them in "Booster Packs" of 1 or 2 unpainted figs for 15-20 bucks per pack, but THAT is not seriously going to fly with a game in expansion to IA.

I'm honestly interested in IA, and even though I have several of the fig boxes, I am not a real fan of their gak to go all in, just yet. I picked up a side box set, with a couple of tiles, and some figures, as well as picked up some singles, and some boosters of C3PO and R2D2, and a couple of the regular stormtroopers and rebels.I went in 50 bucks for a handful of fugly figs to start with, but lost the taste after I primed them.... Gakshow.

Same as the "Prepainted" X wing game- as I said way back when, the game is limited, and unfortunately, I am also going to call it that the new movie is a Gakshow. I am afraid that it is going to hamstring the "New" tabletop game... I'm honestly waiting to get my FFG Star Wars stuff in the bargain bin when it come time. As of now, in both of my usual shops, the Star Wars gaming is gathering dust, and sits in wait.

From what I have seen for this new "Tabletop" game, it has promise, but I'm not ready to go all in on it, until I can see some of the figures in the flesh. I'm less then impressed with FFG's idea of tabletop, and the quality of their meeples is meh. and 15-20 bucks per pack? no thanks, I'll wait and get them out of the bargain bin in a couple of months.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 06:58:09


Post by: StygianBeach


 Gimgamgoo wrote:
 StygianBeach wrote:
Star Wars is everywhere, I think the success of Legion will depend on how many non-wargamers it can attract.

I may be tempted to get some Storm Troopers, but the rebels just look lame... but that may just be because the pic is of Rebels in Forest camo on Tatooine.


The rebels looked like they were painted a beige/brown. On a desert world. With generally brown buildings. Seems viable to me.


I guess you are right, I think I was just looking for a reason for why I thought they looked lame...

I guess they just look lame then.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 07:09:02


Post by: Peregrine


 Grot 6 wrote:
FFG is not a tabletop miniatures company


{citation needed}

For a company that is "not a tabletop miniatures company" they sure do have a lot of miniatures games.

I mean seriously, I see the deal with selling them in "Booster Packs" of 1 or 2 unpainted figs for 15-20 bucks per pack, but THAT is not seriously going to fly with a game in expansion to IA.


Why isn't it going to fly? $15 per model is cheaper than a lot of GW stuff, and unlike with GW games you get all of the rules/tokens/etc included with the model. If this kind of pricing was a fatal flaw then we wouldn't see X-Wing, Warmachine, etc, having so much success.

Same as the "Prepainted" X wing game- as I said way back when, the game is limited, and unfortunately, I am also going to call it that the new movie is a Gakshow.


X-Wing sure seems to have been around for a long time for a "limited" game, and has made a whole lot of money. And don't you think it's pretty early to pass judgement on the gaming potential of a movie that is still months away from release day?

As of now, in both of my usual shops, the Star Wars gaming is gathering dust, and sits in wait.


As of now, in my usual shops, the FFG Star Wars games are thriving while GW's games are barely stocked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
In all the eras of Starwars we have 4 armies. Great...


How many armies do you really need? X-Wing and Armada work just fine with 2-3 factions, you don't need GW-style design with 500 different special snowflake factions to have an enjoyable game.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 07:55:30


Post by: Rolsheen


I don't think GW has anything to worry about. While the Star Wars background will appeal to a lot of people, the target audience won't be gamers, it'll be parents buying something for their kids at Xmas. The kids will either get board of it and go back to their consoles or they'll more onto a tabletop game with more range. While FFG have put out some good games they are not a tabletop miniature company, they are a gaming company and should stick to what they know, pre-painted models for a game that can be thrown in a box after a quick 30min game. Wyrd, Privateer Press, GW and countless others already produce vastly superior models for their games and having a certain IP isn't going help just look at Spartan Games and the Halo IP.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 08:00:09


Post by: Grot 6


 Peregrine wrote:
Let me nitpick you to death..



Like I said. No.

1. The tabletop game for Star Wars isn't going to work out. When you see it with the discussion of what it uses, and how its played, it isn't going to work out. We'll see on the price, as for cheaper- NO. It is not. FFG has games with miniatures, Runewars, and that new Star Wars game is a step in the tabletop mass battle game direction.

2. The new movie is a gakshow. If you saw the first one and thought you were cheated, your really going to love this one. It is a sales gimmick, at best. As for "Gaming potential"... your going to be disappointed, to put it politely.

3. Tabletop, as in mass battle table top game. HOW many fighters do you use in a regular game, 50? 100? Or do you use up to about 5 or 10 per side, like the other players that I have seen playing it? I've been looking at the other FFG games, as well, I don't even think you see 50 or 100 in Armada. I know I haven't seen near that many in IA, when I see it played. As for FFG, what do YOU consider a tabletop wargame? I'm thinking, and looking as Warhammer/ 40K, Warmachine, or Malfaux, or even The new Star Wars tabletop game. X wing? I see maybe ten ships for X wing. Do you use those ships in other games?

4. The price is not going to do it any favors. As opposed to the rubber plastic, I expect more for the cash. at least 5-10 figures, tops. hell, even a squad of 5 would be in the ballpark- for 10 bucks. WHAT do YOU think the squad boxes are going to go for in FFG's new game? $40.00? $50.00?

5. And Speaking of price- 15 dollars for a rubberized ship is not a good price. and for 1? Not worth the price. 20 dollars for 2-3 figures is not worth the price, these are rubberized meeples, that are not even painted. MY citation is that the box that I bought- the Tatoonie one, had a couple of figures, and some tiles in the box, ( A expansion called Twin Shadows.) You have to buy all of the additional figures, or use the ... cardboard chits. I also bought a couple of additional stormtroopers, a rebel pilot, C3PO, and R2D2, and some alien. all told, around 100 bucks.
The best price I saw for these FFG Star Wars games? MAYBE Armada. Depending on your scale, you can throw down a fleet, for the price.
1 Armada expansion= 1 2-3 man IA game= 1-2 X-wing models ( if that)


And for "Armies", How many do you need?
YMMV, but most games survive with additional choices. I'm partial to a stormtrooper army, so I'm easy. Others might want wookies, or any of the hundred other aliens out there. After the "Force awakens..." yeah... how many armies do you need... o.O Maybe 1 or 2 for starters, then add in the additional ones, seeing as there were at least 10 + in the Rebels show, the Original movies, the prequel movies, the clone wars.... the wookies, the Hutt crime networks, the video games, the old Wizkids books....etc.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 08:11:42


Post by: Peregrine


 Rolsheen wrote:
I don't think GW has anything to worry about. While the Star Wars background will appeal to a lot of people, the target audience won't be gamers, it'll be parents buying something for their kids at Xmas. The kids will either get board of it and go back to their consoles or they'll more onto a tabletop game with more range. While FFG have put out some good games they are not a tabletop miniature company, they are a gaming company and should stick to what they know, pre-painted models for a game that can be thrown in a box after a quick 30min game. Wyrd, Privateer Press, GW and countless others already produce vastly superior models for their games and having a certain IP isn't going help just look at Spartan Games and the Halo IP.


You are aware that FFG has produced successful miniatures games that appeal to gamers, many of them former GW customers, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grot 6 wrote:
1. The tabletop game for Star Wars isn't going to work out. When you see it with the discussion of what it uses, and how its played, it isn't going to work out. We'll see on the price, as for cheaper- NO. It is not. FFG has games with miniatures, Runewars, and that new Star Wars game is a step in the tabletop mass battle game direction.


{citation needed}

That seems like a pretty strong statement for a game that hasn't even been released yet. Have you actually played it yet? Or are you just assuming that because the per-model cost is somewhere between GW's cheapest bulk infantry and GW's most expensive single models that it must somehow be doomed?

2. The new movie is a gakshow. If you saw the first one and thought you were cheated, your really going to love this one. It is a sales gimmick, at best. As for "Gaming potential"... your going to be disappointed, to put it politely.


Again, what exactly are you basing this on? You haven't seen the movie yet, so why should this opinion be at all credible?

And no, I don't think I'm going to be disappointed by its gaming potential. It doesn't matter if the new movie has story flaws or poor acting or whatever, if the new ships/weapons/etc are interesting then that's all that a game needs. And so far the new designs seem at least as interesting as the old EU stuff that people fanboy over.

3. Tabletop, as in mass battle table top game. HOW many fighters do you use in a regular game, 50? 100? Or do you use up to about 5 or 10 per side, like the other players that I have seen playing it? I've been looking at the other FFG games, as well, I don't even think you see 50 or 100 in Armada. I know I haven't seen near that many in IA, when I see it played. As for FFG, what do YOU consider a tabletop wargame? I'm thinking, and looking as Warhammer/ 40K, Warmachine, or Malfaux, or even The new Star Wars tabletop game. X wing? I see maybe ten ships for X wing. Do you use those ships in other games?


"Tabletop" and "exactly like GW games" are not synonyms. X-Wing may only have ~3-5 ships per side, but there are plenty of games that have model counts of 10 or less per side that still count as "tabletop miniatures games". The fact that FFG has not yet produced a GW-style game with hundreds of cannon fodder models cluttering up the table does not mean that they aren't a miniatures company.

4. The price is not going to do it any favors. As opposed to the rubber plastic, I expect more for the cash. at least 5-10 figures, tops. hell, even a squad of 5 would be in the ballpark- for 10 bucks. WHAT do YOU think the squad boxes are going to go for in FFG's new game? $40.00? $50.00?


Again, prices at $15 per model are comparable with the models that people buy for other games. I don't see how you can make a credible argument that the prices that people accept in other games are going to magically kill this one.

5. And Speaking of price- 15 dollars for a rubberized ship is not a good price. and for 1? Not worth the price. 20 dollars for 2-3 figures is not worth the price, these are rubberized meeples, that are not even painted. MY citation is that the box that I bought- the Tatoonie one, had a couple of figures, and some tiles in the box, ( A expansion called Twin Shadows.) You have to buy all of the additional figures, or use the ... cardboard chits. I also bought a couple of additional stormtroopers, a rebel pilot, C3PO, and R2D2, and some alien. all told, around 100 bucks.
The best price I saw for these FFG Star Wars games? MAYBE Armada. Depending on your scale, you can throw down a fleet, for the price.
1 Armada expansion= 1 2-3 man IA game= 1-2 X-wing models ( if that)


I'm not sure what your point here is. There are no "rubberized ships" in FFG games, the X-Wing and Armada ships are normal hard plastic just like anything GW produces. Maybe the IA models aren't as nice, but do you have confirmation that the new game is going to use the same plastic type and not the higher-quality plastic like their other miniatures games?

And beyond that, what makes you think that people won't pay that much? There have been successful miniatures games with pre-painted trash made out of even worse plastic, and judging by the way that many 40k players treat their models I don't think quality is a major concern for them. The people that throw heaps of unpainted 40k models into a cardboard box for transport, breaking off random parts in the process, are not going to care about the difference between plastic types. If it's a reasonably nice looking model, as even the IA models are, that's enough to play the game.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 09:27:59


Post by: Lance845


Yes, i think you do need more than 4 "potential" armies to keep the game interesting. Keeping in mind that it's more likely to just be 2. 40k gets dull as dirt when your always playing against the same few lists. The best way to break that up is variety of armies. You don't need gws 14+. But 6-8.. 8 seems like a great level of variety.

But unlike Starcraft where each army has vastly different tech and units Starwars has everyone gunning around with the exact same levels of tech. gaks gunna get real dull real fast unless they find some real interesting ways to differentiate the armies and their possible builds.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 09:28:29


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 Rolsheen wrote:
I don't think GW has anything to worry about. While the Star Wars background will appeal to a lot of people, the target audience won't be gamers, it'll be parents buying something for their kids at Xmas. The kids will either get board of it and go back to their consoles or they'll more onto a tabletop game with more range. While FFG have put out some good games they are not a tabletop miniature company, they are a gaming company and should stick to what they know, pre-painted models for a game that can be thrown in a box after a quick 30min game. Wyrd, Privateer Press, GW and countless others already produce vastly superior models for their games and having a certain IP isn't going help just look at Spartan Games and the Halo IP.


Seeing as parents buying stuff for the kids is the target GW customer base, then perhaps GW should be worried?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 09:56:25


Post by: kodos


I don't see anything killing 40k in general

But any game has the chance to replace 40k as tournament game if done right.

If Legion can do it depends on some basic things.
First is diversity in Wave 1 and 2. If all viable lists are identical regarding models and just differ in upgrades it won't have players switching over from 40k

The other thing is about rules and missions
if it is just X-WING on ground and all about wipe out the other army, no need to play it

last thing is the upgrade system
cards to replace WYSIWYG is ok, but if cards are not available without models or you need to get models you don't want just for cards it is not really attractive for the usual TT gamer


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:

By my count that means armies that actually have distinct play styles/units outside of characters amounts to Empire, Rebles, Droids, and Mandalorians. 4. In all the eras of Starwars we have 4 armies. Great...


Going that why, 40k has 3 different ones regarding play style, and are just different how the models look
so already an advantage here if there are 4


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 10:15:45


Post by: Rolsheen


Peregrine wrote:

You are aware that FFG has produced successful miniatures games that appeal to gamers, many of them former GW customers, right?


Yes, ones with low detail pre-painted models

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Seeing as parents buying stuff for the kids is the target GW customer base, then perhaps GW should be worried?


Not really, like I said the kids will get bored of it or move onto something better. Maybe 40k, therefore increasing GW sales


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 10:24:16


Post by: Peregrine


 Rolsheen wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

You are aware that FFG has produced successful miniatures games that appeal to gamers, many of them former GW customers, right?


Yes, ones with low detail pre-painted models


Lolwut? Have you ever actually seen the X-Wing and Armada miniatures? They are not even close to low detail, and the paint is better than most 40k players can manage.

Not really, like I said the kids will get bored of it or move onto something better. Maybe 40k, therefore increasing GW sales


Why doesn't this same principle apply to GW? Kids will get bored of 40k, and move on to something better, maybe FFG's Star Wars games. You seem to be awfully selective in applying your criticism to non-GW games, claiming supposed weaknesses and then ignoring the fact that those same weaknesses are at least as applicable to GW's games.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 11:36:41


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


Space marines have no weakness and those comparisons do not apply for X reason, remember. Let's ignore that GW have aimed at 12 year olds since about 1992.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 14:14:38


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Speaking personally, X-Wng works OK with only three factions because it's sufficiently small-scale that we can all buy into the Rebel and Imperial factions, so we never end up with "blue vs blue" scenarios. With 40k, or with Legion, that's not quite such a viable option; if my group all bought into it, we'd end up with quite a few games with the same faction on both sides. In the context of 40k, or most other miniatures games, that's narratively satisfying; the setting is deliberately written so that everyone has a reason to fight everyone else (including themselves). In Star War, that's not the case (outside of the pre-Force Awakens EU, perhaps, and that's a very limited audience), and playing with Darth Vader and the 501st on both sides is disappointing IMO.

Again, personally, having all the cards and tokens included in the miniatures packs is fine if you're buying them for use in Legion. If you just want some Storm Troopers for 7TV, Blasters and Bulkheads or whatever, then it just means they're awfully pricey. Now, if FFG are only interested in sellng their miniatures to people who want to play their game with them, then that's fine, but it does mean I probably won't be buying any. Which is unfortunate, because the old WotC ones were only OK while there wasn't anything else to compare them to.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 15:50:29


Post by: xraytango


So you are seriously saying you've never shown up with your Space Marines only to have to do battle with another player who has Space Marines, and might even be the same faction?

We always just call that a training mission. Just because you have a game that winds up being "blue on blue" doesn't mean that it's narratively 'wrong'.

Maybe a bit more flexibility of one's mindset is in order when it comes to playing the game. Play the game, not the rules, and not the fluff; play the game.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 17:22:27


Post by: kodos


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Speaking personally, X-Wng works OK with only three factions because it's sufficiently small-scale that we can all buy into the Rebel and Imperial factions, so we never end up with "blue vs blue" scenarios. With 40k, or with Legion, that's not quite such a viable option; if my group all bought into it, we'd end up with quite a few games with the same faction on both sides.


If you go to small 40k Tournaments it is more or less Daddy Smurf VS Daddy Smurf

And for Legion there is the possibility for wide range of factions, first coming up with Rebels and Imperium, Clone Troops and Sith/Droids, Scum and Planetary Forces (each Planet had it's unique troops) and finally New Republic and First Order

If we each faction get several units that are viable it is unlikely that you find yourself in a mirror match with the same units on each side


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/03 21:46:10


Post by: AndrewGPaul


xraytango wrote:
So you are seriously saying you've never shown up with your Space Marines only to have to do battle with another player who has Space Marines, and might even be the same faction?

We always just call that a training mission. Just because you have a game that winds up being "blue on blue" doesn't mean that it's narratively 'wrong'.

Maybe a bit more flexibility of one's mindset is in order when it comes to playing the game. Play the game, not the rules, and not the fluff; play the game.


No, no, no; you've got it all backwards. Always play the fluff, because otherwise what's the point in having all these nicely painted miniatures? I might as well stick to chess or Risk otherwise.

Did you not read my post? As I said, 40k's setting is written to allow that sort of thing without needing to handwave it away as a "training mission" (which is narratively unsatisfying, IMO). It's also less likely because there's more choice of faction - there's only one Ultramarines player, for example.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Speaking personally, X-Wng works OK with only three factions because it's sufficiently small-scale that we can all buy into the Rebel and Imperial factions, so we never end up with "blue vs blue" scenarios. With 40k, or with Legion, that's not quite such a viable option; if my group all bought into it, we'd end up with quite a few games with the same faction on both sides.


If you go to small 40k Tournaments it is more or less Daddy Smurf VS Daddy Smurf

And for Legion there is the possibility for wide range of factions, first coming up with Rebels and Imperium, Clone Troops and Sith/Droids, Scum and Planetary Forces (each Planet had it's unique troops) and finally New Republic and First Order

If we each faction get several units that are viable it is unlikely that you find yourself in a mirror match with the same units on each side


I don't go to tournaments; I find them unsatisfying. As for the other factions in Legion, we're back to including things from ancillary material I don't recognise (apart from the Clone Wars stuff, obviously, but FFG have shown they're unwilling to go there). Plus, including New Republic, Resistance and First ORder forces doesn't help - that's a different setting. First Order vs Galactic Empire ain't right either.

all IMO, of course. I'm not saying that any of these things are reasons why the game will, wont or should or shouldn't do well; just why it doesn't interest me.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 20:52:57


Post by: TheSecretSquig


I think FFG dropped a bollock on this one. The SW Franchise is huge and potentially makes GW a very small fish. But, GW games are already established. Veterans already have lage 40k armies, and add to them with a few new models every year. Do you really want to start a whole new 40k scale army again, albeit SW?

FFG should have changed the scale to make it significantly different to 40k. Who here doesn't want to recreate the Ice battles and have lines of AT-AT walkers stomping down a trench system. Can't do that in 40k. FFG should have made this more like 10mm scale or less. People can then field all their favourite Armour and Troops from the films and recreate those epic size battles.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 21:57:09


Post by: Breotan


 TheSecretSquig wrote:
Do you really want to start a whole new 40k scale army again, albeit SW?

I think the answer is in how many veteran Space Marine players with multiple companies worth of models are buying heavily into the new Primaris stuff. In my neck of the woods, it's a lot. Depending on pricing, I think many new players would see this as a cheaper alternative to 40k.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 22:05:22


Post by: Azreal13


I doubt it'll be cheaper per sé, but, like X Wing, I suspect that the price gradient will be much gentler and there'll be ways to easily mitigate the cost if you're not mad keen on playing at sanctioned events.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 22:36:11


Post by: pizzaguardian


Will start with a side not than move in to the main point of my post.

The time-tested complaint of "A GW army costs hundreds of dollars for a regular game" is true but not the whole picture.

What you actually buy for a GW game you get to play, you don't buy a stormsurge to get an upgrade for your crysıs suits, you buy a stormsruge to play a stormsurge. So your entire purchase sees table.

FFG games? Hardly so. I got to see a glimpse of FFG development as a Beta tester, i have seen how stuff gets developed and you guys know the results.

How many ships can a x-wing player field, max 8. How many does a player own, dozens at least. The problem comes with purchase usage and company business plans.

FFG 's business plan is literally making you buy kits not for their primary ingame value(the actual model-ship) but making you buy the "upgrade" in the pack. And unless you play the game continously it becomes a drag just to keep along.


I have a 1000$ worth of x-wing and half that in armada sitting in my cabinet right next to me. Half of that at least was bought because of upgrades and "maybe i will play it on the off chance". At least a quarter of the total never saw table and never will.

40K doesn't have that issue, yes stuff will go out of fashion cause of rule changes and meta, but unless FFG changes their business plan they will be two different beasts. Granted they will fight on the same water, but will hardly be in direct competition.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 22:41:40


Post by: Azreal13


But the "you have to buy the ship for the upgrade" argument only really holds water if you're a) playing in sanctioned events or b) playing in the douchiest community on the planet.

If you're flying casual you can just buy the ships you like/want and use an online squadron builder or print the cards.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 22:49:32


Post by: pizzaguardian


Same applies for 40k models, proxy to your hearts desire.

My point on only seeing a fraction of your collection played at a single time stands.

And that makes me sad, x-wing is not playable at a scale of 10+ models. Wish it was.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 22:58:57


Post by: Azreal13


Yeah, proxy models, up until recently, and quite possibly going forward, you're still going to need a fortune in books to even know what you're doing with your drinks cans and bottle tops. (Which, incidentally, one could also do for X Wing, without spending a penny on rules.)

Equally a fraction of my 40K collection sees table time every time I play, and requires a vast amount more time and effort to get it table ready, even if I don't paint it.

40K also scales badly, although I'm not sure about 8th.

I'm not saying your criticisms of X Wing aren't founded, I just don't see how they don't apply equally to 40K, if in a slightly different way.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 23:33:22


Post by: Lockark


It's a Wargame with a total of two factions to play as. Even most of the most popular historical settings like Napoleonic and WWI/WWII has more.

It doesn't have the legs to stand on it the long term, even if they pull from the none original trilogy you get clone wars republic and separatists, and new trilogy 1st order and new republic. Witch haveing stuff like the 1st order fighting drones or the Empire Fighting Clone Troopers are going to start messing with peoples suspension of disbelief for the game.

Star Trek makes more sense for a skirmish level wargame, and the setting rarely ever shows open land based warfare even thow it's implied to happen. Since you atleast can start out with the "Big three" (Feds, Klingons, Romulans) factions, then tone of other major factions that have been showed/referenced/ect. (From Dominion and Borg, or more obscure fan Favorites like Bren and tholians)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/04 23:40:07


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


I was a loyal 40K and WFB player back in the day (hardcore in the oughts, became much more casual in as of 2010).

I was thinking I could maintain both sets of rules and play both with my friends. When they realized X-wing and Armada were pre-painted, they jumped ship. They still buy 40K, a lot, but it just piles in boxes in a spare room, they don't even play it anymore.

At this point, I pretty much doubt more than one or two of them will bother with Legion. Children seem to get the lion's share of their attention nowadays (heretics). Two of them refuse to see the new movies, even the prequels, because Star Wars is nothing but a waste of time.

Yet, interestingly, everyone, even my X-Wing group, is egging me on to buy the starter and paint it. I guess I have the look of the first monkey to bite into the fruit about me.

I think it'll be a game that will take a little while to find its voice, Release pace will be critical to keep interest up, I think. I also hope the game is more skirmish than 2000-pts-of-guardsmen affair, because that is going to bum me out. As long as they don't introduce flyers...


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 00:30:04


Post by: Coldhatred


I feel like FFG is missing a trick with Legion and forgetting one of the advantages of the game, as many people have already pointed out: pre-painted miniatures. It's the same reason that Runewars doesn't seem (anecdotal, of course) to be catching on, and why I don't think it will be much of a threat. Plus, the whole faction thing is going to ruin my suspension of disbelief, and you are much more tightly tied to a specific kind of color scheme, having more in common with historicals in that manner.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 00:35:49


Post by: Grey Templar


 Peregrine wrote:
 Rolsheen wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

You are aware that FFG has produced successful miniatures games that appeal to gamers, many of them former GW customers, right?


Yes, ones with low detail pre-painted models


Lolwut? Have you ever actually seen the X-Wing and Armada miniatures? They are not even close to low detail, and the paint is better than most 40k players can manage.


Indeed. For their price, the paint on the Xwing and Armada is pretty dang good. You'd probably have to pay $20-30 minimum to get a small Xwing or armada ship painted to the standard they come out of the box .


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 05:10:54


Post by: silent25


It depends....

Given this is original Star Wars with Luke vs. Darth Vader, it is appealing to an older crowd. How many of those people will jump into the game depends more on the rule and game play than just it being Star Wars. While X-Wing got a big shot of people thanks to the new movie, they released a new starter to take advantage of that.

Most the people I know that jumped into X-Wing did so because it was seen as a zero effort game. No modeling, no painting, just play. A good chunk of X-Wings success is based on the fact that people who hated to model or paint could get into X-wing. Also those who were dedicated to another game could get in without having to build/paint another army. It brought in people into miniature gaming that would have never have thought of trying 40K or anything else.

While I don't see any building being required for Legion, it's not painted. Right there it doesn't look as good on the table. With X-wing, you could have a good looking game with no effort. Legion will require effort to make it look good. Because of that, it won't attract many of the people who got into X-Wing because of ease of accessibility. It won't easily attract people who made X-Wing their second game either because of ease of access either.

It will have to rely on the strength of its rules to get a base started because it is appealing to a smaller number of potential customers than what X-Wing appealed to.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 05:28:16


Post by: kodos


40k and X-WING have there downside with the release system
There is the "buy an Expansion for just 1 card" vs "your whole army is unplayable after the next book release"

I have sitting 20k points worth of 40k stuff on the shelf of different tournament army's
Now I am at the point where I don't buy stuff any more but start the remove colour from old stuff cut them apart and build them according to the new rules. (in-between I was in doubt to kill some old best painted stuff, but with 8th there is no reason to buy new stuff any more)

And here I like the X-WING system more, as the rules don't change and I just "need" cards to get my old painted stuff being viable


If Legion stick with the size of 20-40 models there is also the size advantage over 40k 100 model spam


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 06:12:09


Post by: Scott-S6


 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, proxy models, up until recently, and quite possibly going forward, you're still going to need a fortune in books to even know what you're doing with your drinks cans and bottle tops. (Which, incidentally, one could also do for X Wing, without spending a penny on rules.)


What is the legitimate source for obtaining the info on the x-wing cards, movement dials and movement templates for free?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 08:07:28


Post by: AndrewGPaul


There's a few squad builder sites out there, and the X-Wing wikia site. One assumes that they have FFG's tacit approval, since they're still going.

Dials are trickier; you can easily find the allowed manoeuvres for each ship in the table format like you get in the blister packaging, but you'd need to make your own dials.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 08:27:06


Post by: Sining


I would have been more interested if this had involved small groups of rebel heroes fighting imperial villains instead of having random generic rebel troopers and stormtroopers. Like having Luke + Han + Chewbacca vs Bobba Fett + IG-88 etc, with maybe 5-8 characters a side.

I've already painted way too many stormtroopers for Imperial Assault to want to paint them again and the rebel troops are not very exciting as miniatures.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 09:19:15


Post by: Peregrine


 Lockark wrote:
It doesn't have the legs to stand on it the long term, even if they pull from the none original trilogy you get clone wars republic and separatists, and new trilogy 1st order and new republic. Witch haveing stuff like the 1st order fighting drones or the Empire Fighting Clone Troopers are going to start messing with peoples suspension of disbelief for the game.


And yet, despite this claim, X-Wing is a spectacularly successful game, while Armada and Imperial Assault are at least reasonably successful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 pizzaguardian wrote:
Same applies for 40k models, proxy to your hearts desire.

My point on only seeing a fraction of your collection played at a single time stands.

And that makes me sad, x-wing is not playable at a scale of 10+ models. Wish it was.


Except no, it really doesn't apply the same to 40k. A game of 40k with proxied models is a completely different experience. Yeah, the rules are still mostly the same, but the spectacle of the fight, the reason people play 40k at all instead of far superior alternatives, is gone. Instead of two nicely painted armies fighting a battle you have some cardboard boxes and soda cans with some other cardboard boxes for "terrain". But with X-Wing there is no difference between a game with all of the cards and a game with none of the cards. The models and action on the table are exactly the same, you're just using a printout from a squad builder instead of a card if you have to look up a rule. The cards in X-Wing have zero function from a rules point of view*, they're nothing more than reminders of what the rules for your units are. So the proper comparison would be playing 40k with purchased rulebooks vs. playing 40k with a pirated pdf of your codex.

*Literally, half the time we play games of X-Wing we don't even bother to get out the cards because we all know what the rules are and it's just extra clutter on the table. Having a pile of cards sitting next to the table doesn't enhance the experience at all.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 10:53:13


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Well, that's one rather extreme example of "proxied models" in 40k ...

However, I agree about the cards in X-Wing; the one-page printout from the squad-builder sites is much less fiddly and annoying than using the cards. Except when using Luke and R2, or any other ship that can regenerate shields and/or damage.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 12:52:56


Post by: Lance845


I think claiming people play 40k for the spectacle of the models is pretty presumptuous.

People play for lots of reasons and while I know all about how you enjoy the painted armies and it's YOUR reason for playing it's not THE reason people play.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:01:40


Post by: pizzaguardian


IF you have the models, sure.

But peregre seems to be inflating good sides of x-wing and bad sides of 40k.

"Oh i dont have to get cards", sure you don't. But you need dials and ships and templates. The exact same argument is used as a negative for 40k as in,

"But it is just not good when 2 armies are not propely painted"

Either being able to proxy is a good thing, or a bad thing.
A proxied X-wing ship is as proper as a badly painted or a proxy 40k model.

My "you have to buy packs just for cards" arguments works only at a tournament scene surely. At that point 40k has the upperhand, cause most tournaments allow counts as models to a pretty liberal degree.

But at a casual setting you only need some tokens and dials for x-wing and ships and no cards for x-wing. Obviously no terrain as well which is a big plus for x-wing.

To be honest, it is apples to oranges for x-wing vs 40k. My issue is FFG 's business plan. You HAVE to keep up with every release for x-wing, not in knowledge but in cash. That is not the same for 40k.

If Legion keeps the same business model, 40k has a slight leg up on it. Like how Legion will have a leg up on 40k with IP. So who knows.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:04:47


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, proxy models, up until recently, and quite possibly going forward, you're still going to need a fortune in books to even know what you're doing with your drinks cans and bottle tops. (Which, incidentally, one could also do for X Wing, without spending a penny on rules.)


What is the legitimate source for obtaining the info on the x-wing cards, movement dials and movement templates for free?


I've seen people use homemade dials, cardboard and brass pins with manoeuvres drawn on and all. Especially when the dial is spoiled before the release.

You can purchase movement templates from a number of third party sellers in beautiful acrylic... for a lot more than a starter set would set you back, so it's not quite price that is holding you back. You can make your own dice using blanks available at any FLGS, and you could even print your own version of a damage deck on cardstock. Again, if you add all those costs of cheapness, you'll find you're often paying more than a starter set. The rules are free on their website.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:05:22


Post by: Mitochondria


Spent $125 on X-Wing in the last 30 days.

Spent $0 on 40k in the 30 days.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:08:36


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


Mitochondria wrote:
Spent $125 on X-Wing in the last 30 days.

Spent $0 on 40k in the 30 days.


Spent £105 on AoS in the last week.

Spent £0.00 on X-Wing. Ever.

So what's your point?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:09:27


Post by: kodos


 pizzaguardian wrote:
I
To be honest, it is apples to oranges for x-wing vs 40k. My issue is FFG 's business plan. You HAVE to keep up with every release for x-wing, not in knowledge but in cash. That is not the same for 40k.

This is the same for 40k
maybe it changes with 8th, but now it does not seem to be the cade
if you want to keep up with the tournament scene you have to constantly purchase rules and models
proxy are allowed but WYSIWYG is a thing


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 13:16:58


Post by: Talizvar


FFG does many things right and Star Wars appears to go strong as a universe to keep pumping out games.

That said, I think the success they have seen is by creating each iteration of game so it does not compete with the other: it gives a very different experience and segment of the universe.

This new offering is too close to the Imperial Assault scale of hero / squad combat both in model count and physical size.
Going to a true 28mm (not the heroic 32mm) is good if you want to focus on lots of troops, 15mm if you want more vehicles and buildings.

I think it is a bit better to follow a standard scale unless they want to try to be the sole provider of terrain supply, then as a business decision it makes "sense".


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 17:40:47


Post by: Scott-S6


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
There's a few squad builder sites out there, and the X-Wing wikia site. One assumes that they have FFG's tacit approval, since they're still going.

Dials are trickier; you can easily find the allowed manoeuvres for each ship in the table format like you get in the blister packaging, but you'd need to make your own dials.

The fact that you can get the rules on unofficial sites for free is hardly a plus point vs. 40K since the same is true...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, proxy models, up until recently, and quite possibly going forward, you're still going to need a fortune in books to even know what you're doing with your drinks cans and bottle tops. (Which, incidentally, one could also do for X Wing, without spending a penny on rules.)


What is the legitimate source for obtaining the info on the x-wing cards, movement dials and movement templates for free?


I've seen people use homemade dials, cardboard and brass pins with manoeuvres drawn on and all. Especially when the dial is spoiled before the release.

You can purchase movement templates from a number of third party sellers in beautiful acrylic... for a lot more than a starter set would set you back, so it's not quite price that is holding you back. You can make your own dice using blanks available at any FLGS, and you could even print your own version of a damage deck on cardstock. Again, if you add all those costs of cheapness, you'll find you're often paying more than a starter set. The rules are free on their website.

You didn't answer the question. There isn't a legitimate source for the info on most of the dials or most of the cards. There are unofficial sources but the same is true for every other system.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 17:59:10


Post by: The Warp Forge


In all honesty I believe it can but FFG really need to conqour the following steps:

1) FFG templates: These need to go, but since its been established that they won't they need to make something interesting with them. Wargamers and not board gamers so please don't lump us in the same group.

2) Painfully long release cycles: We as wargamers have been brought up to expect releases continuous for the games we play. 40k has a new release every week. KM do a release every month, Etc. What made me bored of IA was that I had to wait 3 months after the first preview to get the minis. If FFG want this to work then they need to be RAPID with their releases to keep an audience interested. Again we are not as patient as Board Gamers and we should learn from the mistakes of Spartan Games, but this leads to my next point...

3) The Clone Wars: We are now reaching the times where a younger generation who grew up with The Clone Wars are now reaching young adaulthood. They remember their films just as much as people who grew up with the GCW do. This audience is a gold nugget of opportunity for their target audiences but provides plenty of variety to what The GCW does not. Before the first area that I gamed at closed, it used to host forghtnightly Armada tournaments and usually out of 8 players, two would be Rebels. The rest were Empire because who can't resist Imperial Star Destroyers? The same appeared for IA, and although there are a variety of aliens for Scum and Rebels, no one could resist legions of Stormtroopers with Darth Vader. The Clone Wars at least can provide for a fresh market with more variety with people adopting clone armies and Droid armies who have a variety of models styles and armour to keep them entertained with flavorsome characters such as General Grevious and Mace Windu to name a few. Whilst I agree they should build upon the GCW and Rouge One for the matter first so that they don't stick their fingers in too many pies, they should consider these a lot more than the new films being released as not many really care for them.

I do doubt they will do this but if by the off chance they do then I think it has a long-term life cycle ahead of itself.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 18:11:48


Post by: kodos


 Scott-S6 wrote:

You didn't answer the question. There isn't a legitimate source for the info on most of the dials or most of the cards.

official promotion pictures, you don't need to buy anything if you are a causal player


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 18:31:39


Post by: Bookwrack


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Mitochondria wrote:
Spent $125 on X-Wing in the last 30 days.

Spent $0 on 40k in the 30 days.


Spent £105 on AoS in the last week.

Spent £0.00 on X-Wing. Ever.

So what's your point?


I spent $0 on both in the last 30 days. I guess that means I'm crowned King Internet, 1st of his line.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 18:37:10


Post by: Grey Templar


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, proxy models, up until recently, and quite possibly going forward, you're still going to need a fortune in books to even know what you're doing with your drinks cans and bottle tops. (Which, incidentally, one could also do for X Wing, without spending a penny on rules.)


What is the legitimate source for obtaining the info on the x-wing cards, movement dials and movement templates for free?


Well there are a lot of free list building websites and apps which have all of that information, but it's useless without the actual cards, templates, and movement dials in tournament play.

And even outside tournament play, you'd still need at least the maneuver templates, dials, and asteroids to play the game(plus the actual ships).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 18:49:49


Post by: Ruin


Daft question, but why is everyone insisting on prepaints being the proverbial rocket ship that'll get strapped to Legion's back and overtake 40k?

A Star Wars prepaint game already existed over a decade ago, made by Wizkids (a company who could eat GW for breakfast if it wanted to) and it gained a little traction, but was never really enough to topple the GW behemoth. Now, admittedly it was a somewhat collectable game, but it ticked all of the boxes that seem to have been mentioned in this thread.
It was available in bookshops, it was prepainted. It was fething Star Wars. Yet it has faded into obscurity while 40k endures.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 18:54:46


Post by: Grey Templar


Ruin wrote:
Daft question, but why is everyone insisting on prepaints being the proverbial rocket ship that'll get strapped to Legion's back and overtake 40k?

A Star Wars prepaint game already existed over a decade ago, made by Wizkids (a company who could eat GW for breakfast if it wanted to) and it gained a little traction, but was never really enough to topple the GW behemoth. Now, admittedly it was a somewhat collectable game, but it ticked all of the boxes that seem to have been mentioned in this thread.
It was available in bookshops, it was prepainted. It was fething Star Wars. Yet it has faded into obscurity while 40k endures.


Yeah. This is never going to take the spot of 40k. Nothing will ever take the spot 40k once occupied(maybe not even new 40k).

GW has definitely fallen and though they have turned their game around 180, they will never regain their market dominance. There are too many competing wargames now for that to happen. Legion will, at best, just take a spot alongside Warhammer, Warmachine, Infinity, and Flames of War.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 19:06:20


Post by: kodos


The free spot is organised SciFi Skirmish tournament game
the same spot WM/H took from Warhammer


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 19:09:00


Post by: Grey Templar


That's sort of what Infinity's niche is. It's played pretty hardcore competitively and is pretty organized in that respect. It's not a full scale battle game and is definitely a skirmish game unlike 40k


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 19:24:46


Post by: Stormonu


The two games are on different paths; Legions won't overtake 40K, any more than WotC's Star Wars minis overtook 40K or IA overtook 40K.

The bickering about prepaints, factions and even the breadth of units themselves, are as Tarkin once said, "pointless". 40K Horus Heresy is all about marines vs. marines and you can play either GW's or FFG's game as frugally or stupidly expensively as you want. Most people will seek some middle ground - they'll pick up what they want and leave the rest at the curb.

I believe overall, the two scratch a very different itch. 40K is sort of the generic version of sci-fi, it has a little bit of every sort of sci-fi trope thrown in - bits of Alien, Dune, Starship Troopers, etc. Legions is specific to Star Wars and has a very, very narrow scope - its recreating the Galactic Civil War; and that's it.

Further, I believe Legions will likely be more Necromunda/Shadow Wars in size than the army sizes of current 40K. I dare say games of Legion probably won't be bigger than what you would expect to see for 2E 40K.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 20:55:05


Post by: kodos


 Grey Templar wrote:
That's sort of what Infinity's niche is. It's played pretty hardcore competitively and is pretty organized in that respect. It's not a full scale battle game and is definitely a skirmish game unlike 40k

40k is still a Skirmish, that's why it works not well with a lot of models
And I have never seen Infinity tournaments here, although we have a very active community

From the size Legion is somewhere between Infinity and 40k and more like Warpath FireFight.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 20:58:18


Post by: Coldhatred


Ruin wrote:
Daft question, but why is everyone insisting on prepaints being the proverbial rocket ship that'll get strapped to Legion's back and overtake 40k?

A Star Wars prepaint game already existed over a decade ago, made by Wizkids (a company who could eat GW for breakfast if it wanted to) and it gained a little traction, but was never really enough to topple the GW behemoth. Now, admittedly it was a somewhat collectable game, but it ticked all of the boxes that seem to have been mentioned in this thread.
It was available in bookshops, it was prepainted. It was fething Star Wars. Yet it has faded into obscurity while 40k endures.


My point on the pre-painted was more that I don't even think Legion will hit the popularity of X-Wing, let alone endanger 40k to any great degree, due to the fact that X-Wings pre-painted miniatures really lowered the accessibility level of the game and allowed gamers who would have been reticent to start building/painting new forces for an entirely different game a way to have the best of both worlds. Legion doesn't appear to be taking that approach and I believe, just like Runewars, it will flop because FFG isn't considering one of the primary reasons X-Wing was such a financial success for them.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 22:17:59


Post by: Grot 6


Ruin wrote:
Daft question, but why is everyone insisting on prepaints being the proverbial rocket ship that'll get strapped to Legion's back and overtake 40k?

A Star Wars prepaint game already existed over a decade ago, made by Wizkids (a company who could eat GW for breakfast if it wanted to) and it gained a little traction, but was never really enough to topple the GW behemoth. Now, admittedly it was a somewhat collectable game, but it ticked all of the boxes that seem to have been mentioned in this thread.
It was available in bookshops, it was prepainted. It was fething Star Wars. Yet it has faded into obscurity while 40k endures.


They are not. This game is not going to be prepaints. People are talking about the game being able to stand up with 40K. The more I dig, it is like that other cat said. It will be a in-between game. not for over 100 minis, but not less then 50 or so.

"With thirty-three unpainted and easily assembled miniatures, and all the cards, movement tools, tokens, and terrain that you need for battle, the Star Wars: Legion Core Set is the perfect way to bring Star Wars battles to your tabletop."

-Fantasy Flight.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/05 22:49:43


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
There's a few squad builder sites out there, and the X-Wing wikia site. One assumes that they have FFG's tacit approval, since they're still going.

Dials are trickier; you can easily find the allowed manoeuvres for each ship in the table format like you get in the blister packaging, but you'd need to make your own dials.

The fact that you can get the rules on unofficial sites for free is hardly a plus point vs. 40K since the same is true...


Sorry, what are you getting at? You appear to be reading more into my answer than was intended. You asked where the rules on the cards can be found, I answered (albeit without links, as I don't have them bookmarked). It appears I mistook your rhetorical question for an actual one.
Whether it's a "plus point" compared to 40k has nothing to do with my reply (other than the fact that GW don't seem to tolerate people putting the 40k rules up online, while FFG have yet to do anything about the various X-Wing sites). The various third-party sites are "legitimate" in my estimation as they provide accurate information and are tolerated by the game's publisher. Not "official", but then that would add nothing of value.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 04:09:11


Post by: Sqorgar


 Grey Templar wrote:
Legion will, at best, just take a spot alongside Warhammer, Warmachine, Infinity, and Flames of War.
None of those are really mainstream focused at least. I can buy X-Wing Miniatures and Imperial Assault at the bookstore (also Destiny and Armada). I have to go to a comic book store to get my Games Workshop stuff, and I have to order Infinity and Warmachine stuff online. Star Wars, and FFG, has a market penetration that the other miniature games don't and can't have. I probably won't see Runewars at the local Target, but I think I'll probably see Legion starter sets at least.

The reason the WizKids collectible miniature game ended up failing is a massive industry shift away from collectible games. Everything collectible that wasn't Magic or Pokemon crashed hard. All the CCGs, dead (though some came back as non-collectible). HeroClix, HorrorClix, Axis & Allies CMG, Monsterpocalypse, Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft Miniatures, Pirates of the Spanish Main, Mechwarrior - dead. It seems to be coming back with Destiny and Pathfinder, but the simple fact is, the market can't sustain dozens of collectible games just like the market couldn't sustain dozens of subscription MMOs. It wasn't Star Wars CMG's fault. It actually did really well. But after a decade and like two dozen expansion sets, the majority of figures that could be made were made and people didn't want to go through the collectible crap with the four hundredth stormtrooper figure.

So the spot Legion will take is exactly the same one the Star Wars CMG had - a sort of mainstream, light miniatures game. It will ultimately, I think, be more popular than 40k, but it will not be as involved for the fans as 40k is. That is, I think it will be mostly groups of friends playing casually on Friday night rather than heading to the gaming store to play tournaments with strangers. There will still be tournaments and hardcore players, but I doubt they will make up the brunt of the audience for the game. In that way, 40k will still be the most popular and relevant miniature game, as GW's vertical integration allows them access and maneuverability that dealing with the Targets of the world doesn't.

As a complete aside, I expect that we'll start seeing FFG/Asmodee stores popping up soon. That's really the next level to conquer. They need a place to sell their incredibly large catalogue and provide gaming communities to the dozens of tournament games they offer. Even Wizards of the Coast did it back in the early 00s (I remember going to one in the Santa Monica mall when I lived there in 2002). Perhaps most likely is the store-within-a-store approach that Apple took with Best Buys and CompUSAs (and I think Barnes and Nobles used to have a GameStop in it).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 04:41:02


Post by: Stormonu


Nitpicking, but since it's come up twice - Wizards of the Coast did the previous Star Wars minis games, not Wizkids. Wizkids did do a "pocket model" version of Star Wars (with punch-out plastic card models), but I don't think that is what is being referenced. Wizkids is more well-known for their Clix and recent Attack Wing games, and there may be some confusion because they now put out the official D&D minis, which had previously been done by Wizards.

There is, by the way, an even older version of a Star Wars tabletop skirmish game that was done by West End games - with metal minis; it had add-on rules for vehicles as well.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 05:38:20


Post by: 4zero6


Unless things have changed, the entire X-Wing community in my meta (which garners weekly nights and monthly tournaments) of at least 15 regular players doesn't paint. In fact they wouldn't play a tabletop game where it was required. Half at least said they wouldn't even assemble a mini. Except for one of them who plays ALL the games....

If this was pre-painted they would play this. Its not and wont sell to the WM/H or 40K groups.

In my meta.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 05:54:21


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


On the arguable need for FFG to up their general release pace...I'd say it's more important they properly sort out their stock.

X-Wing stuff can sell out quickly. And takes months for the shelves to be replenished.

Yes, there are other ways to get the cards and counters as covered. But one still needs the ships. Can't speak for anyone else's, but if I can't get what I need/want within a couple of weeks, I'm likely to just not bother in the long run.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 07:37:55


Post by: notprop


FFG slow releases, Movement templates and tokens, releasing this just as 8th is sucking up all the money, FFG having only recently annoyed allot of US retailers, quite limited scope within existing Star War Universe for units beyond character focus, did I mention many many template and tokens...

I suspect allot of people will get the game and loose interest waiting for more units or hold off until they see the next wave.

The portents for a smash hit aren't there yet I reckon. It would need a big release beyond the boxgame to get traction, and it need to to keep that licence funded.

I've seen FFG drop too many games to rush into this as much as I like Sar Wars.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 08:36:05


Post by: Melevolence


Many points have been nailed by others already, but even as someone who hasn't been in the hobby as long as others i can say that despite my enjoyment of the Star Wars franchise, I likely will not be bothering with Legion.

FFG has too many games going and I feel that's a major issue. It steals release scheduling from one another. Unless each game has a dedicated dev and production crew, it'll be a problem. Look at how even Warhammer could have periods of slow to no releases for one game to focus on the other, and GW only has 2 games to focus on (AOS and 40k, excluding standalone mini games that happen to be compatable with the larger games mentioned).

Then there's the factor of the rules themselves which I'm not sure if anyone has gotten their hands on to really study them proper. What sort of depth does this game offer? From what I've heard from those who saw it first hand at the cons or from Youtube, hero characters seem borderline broken. They're super good and while that feels somewhat fitting from a lore standpoint, from a game standpoint it seems like it could simply be a war of attrition to keep your leader alive the longest.

There was mention of missions that focus on objectives, which is nice but some can be won even when you've no models left. Fluff wise it's neat but as a standard game mode that seems...off. Competitive wise for sure it's odd.

The game itself seems very...short sighted. It seems like it'd be most fun with friends or a gamer group but not on a higher level like at tournaments.

Then the first party supplies you need really hurts. I hate having to buy special dice. So damn much, Especially since we KNOW the core box wont supply enough, even for one player let alone two. Measurement tools, templates, etc. Just a major hassle if something gets lost/stolen/damaged and likely costly to replace too. For 40k, I can replace my 'measurement tool' for .50 at Mardens (liquidation store). Basic D6 are super cheap for a block that supply all I need for my army. Templates now are no longer needed but even when they were they were pretty cheap considering.

The game feels like it should have everything it needs to be solid, I just don't think it'll launch the way they want it to. I feel like it should have launched with Rebels, Empire, Droids and Clones at the very least to ensure there was a solid variety from the start. I know the original trilogy is the most iconic. Everyone knows Luke and Vader, but having younger Obi-Wan or Mace leading Clones and Grevious or Dooku leaking Droids would have been interesting additions. I'd rather play Droids, in all honesty. They've some really cool units (Basic droids, super droids, the assassin droids, the force field rolley poley droids, tanks, etc).

I don't want any game to fail but with Runewars still being fresh off the presses I can't help but wonder if FFG can actually manage two games like this at once while still trying to keep X-Wing and Armada alive. Also that Star Wars over saturation COULD hurt it down the line, especially if Imperial Assault resumes (But most feel it's ending soon?)

I'll jump on board for the droid models...if they ever come even if I don't end up playing. But I fear that in 2 years this game may not even be around, despite its strong and recognizable IP.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 09:25:14


Post by: Peregrine


 Stormonu wrote:
Nitpicking, but since it's come up twice - Wizards of the Coast did the previous Star Wars minis games, not Wizkids. Wizkids did do a "pocket model" version of Star Wars (with punch-out plastic card models), but I don't think that is what is being referenced. Wizkids is more well-known for their Clix and recent Attack Wing games, and there may be some confusion because they now put out the official D&D minis, which had previously been done by Wizards.


Right, it was a WOTC game. And IIRC the game sold well enough, WOTC just lost the Star Wars license when it came up for renewal and LucasWhatever decided to spike the cost of it to extortionate levels. WOTC told them where to shove it, and went back to making obscene amounts of money off MTG.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 10:19:20


Post by: Wonderwolf


Dunno. From a FFG business perspective I would doubt they'd want to tie their company fortune for decades to a pricey IP with very limited creative control, constantly at the mercy of some IP guy over at Disney.

Especially if they study and learn from what happened to GW when they came off cold turkey from the LoTR sugar rush.

Milk Star Wars for cash while it's hot and try to build up your own stuff (Runewars?), covering potential short term losses in that line with the Star Wars cash, is what I would (try to) do as FFG.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 11:32:19


Post by: auticus


One of the major differences in the past star wars miniatures games is that back then there were no world championships for those.

The tournament scene is what drives miniature games ultimately. Casual for-fun games never seem to get any traction.

Strap on a world championship title, and you've got yourself something.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 13:49:57


Post by: Pete Melvin


 auticus wrote:


The tournament scene is what drives miniature games ultimately. Casual for-fun games never seem to get any traction.



I'm sorry but that is total and utter tosh.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 14:26:07


Post by: Kriswall


 Pete Melvin wrote:
 auticus wrote:


The tournament scene is what drives miniature games ultimately. Casual for-fun games never seem to get any traction.



I'm sorry but that is total and utter tosh.


In many areas in the US, it's completely true. Remember that we don't tend to have gaming clubs in the same way that the UK does. There generally isn't a place where you can go, hang out and play a game with your mates while drinking a pint. Many games live or die by whether or not the local stores run regular events and by whether or not there is a major event 'coming soon' to practice for. I play a lot of Armada. I'd probably stop playing if the various local stores stopped running events. Fortunately, Legion will be like any other FFG game and will be supported with official OP Kits, Store Championships, Regional Championships, National Championships and Worlds. Every official event will have swag... acrylic replacements for cardboard components and game cards with alternate artwork, most likely. Take all of that away and Legion likely has very little chance in the US. The organized play scene (i.e., regular events like tournaments) totally drives these games in the US.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 14:32:14


Post by: Easy E


 auticus wrote:
One of the major differences in the past star wars miniatures games is that back then there were no world championships for those.

The tournament scene is what drives miniature games ultimately. Casual for-fun games never seem to get any traction.

Strap on a world championship title, and you've got yourself something.


This is probably true in the US, because EVERYTHING HAS TO BE A COMPETITION here in the US.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 14:51:43


Post by: auticus


It is absolutely true in the US. The narrative and for fun scene over here is something you have to dig to find.

The competitive tournament scene is what nearly everyone here near me buys armies for. If not to play in tournaments, to at least not get rolled by the guys that are bringing their tournament list to the casual and campaign events too.

No one here cares about a game if it doesn't have a world championship series. It could be the best games with the best models ever, and no one will touch it without a yearly grand tournament to support it.

Thats the key difference between Legion and past Starwars tabletop games. Legion will have a world championship. Take away the FFG tournament scene and Legion would be just like the last few star wars games. A blip and then nothing.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 14:53:47


Post by: Pete Melvin


So there are no "small" games in the US? No small manufacturers? Come on. As far as I can see the big games in the US are just the same as over here. 40K, WM, X-Wing and some others. These seriously can't be the ONLY things that exist because SWAG.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 14:56:31


Post by: auticus


None that are played with any regularity. At least around where I am. The occassional frostgrave game gets played once in a while in someone's basement but people aren't talking about it.

Remove 40k tournaments and you lose most of your 40k players here. Guaranteed. Remove xwing tournaments and you lose most of your xwing players here. Guaranteed.

The stores here all know that as well, thats why they pump out events. The stores here that don't have regular tournament events go out of business quickly because without tournaments, no one plays the games with regularity.

And if you lose a chunk of your players like that, the ones remaining that don't play tournaments will fold soon after because there are few people to play against.

The big games near me are 40k, Warmachine, and X-Wing. They all have regular tournaments. There is a smattering of smaller games but t hose are played by private groups and have a small following, but nothing to the degree of the other three.

Legion will live or die by its tournament scene in the US, just like X-Wing does. What it does in the UK and other parts of the world I cannot say as I have no experience there.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 15:41:46


Post by: kodos


It is similar in Germany
of course there are a lot of games around a local group lays at home, as there is still a Battletech, Necromunda or 40k 2nd Edi scene

than we have BloodBowl, very popular without official support but only because there are tournaments and Events

the only reason 9th Age is played so much here is because it is the main ETC game

and while Germany has a lot of X-WING Events, Austria has like 1 or 2 and a community only exits near the border to Germany

running official organised events is necessary to get the game running
If ETC would replace 40k with Legion or Warpath 40k would just be another small game like many others


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:18:41


Post by: AndrewGPaul


There is a non-competitive scene in the USA, because you see it on The Miniatures Page, the Lead Adventure Forum and on podcasts (Meeples and Miniatures, for example), and just in the fact that there's plenty of "small press" games out there if you know where to look. However, it seems to be pretty small, and perhaps mostly historical games. IIRC, the venues are private homes in the main, rather than clubs.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:29:31


Post by: Galas


Non-competitive scenes by is own nature always make much less "noise" and receive much less attention from the community.

Tournaments is wheres the money at. You don't see the World Football Cup of casual games in the street.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:30:23


Post by: Arbitrator


I don't think Legion will hurt 40k by stealing it's playerbase. I think 8th has shown that a great deal of GW's fanbase are like beaten spouses, who at the slightest hint their ex has in any way changed for the better they rush back, ignoring their past and insisting they always loved them. At the slightest hint of improvement, people dropped Warmahordes/Infinity/Malifaux like a bad habit because if there's one thing a great deal of wargamers have it's buyer's remorse.

No, Legion will 'hurt' 40k in that it will attract a great deal more players from existing games like Assault and X-Wing. FFG have the resources to really push their products. They're really the closest thing to major competition in terms of resources Games Workshop has ever really had. Even PP is a comparatively very small company. Couple this with arguably THE most iconic IP in media and you've got a recipe for some kind of success at the very least. Those new players won't care about the cards and the unique dice because they've not known any different. That and I think people here are really overestimating how much the average person gives a toss about it.

A lot of X-Wing players may not have looked at tabletop wargames because of the assembly and painting required, however if they cast a glance at Legion then it could serve as an effective gateway drug. Imagine if Games Workshop started producing a game where it came pre-painted. How many people here would be more likely to pick that up than any other company doing it? it's a vice versa for FFG games. The exclusive X-Wing player would be more likely to buy into Legion despite that need to paint.

The one place Legion will probably flounder is in the UK. GW still have the trump card of having a big high street presence to attract just about every potential newbie but in the Americas I expect it to really do well.





40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:52:03


Post by: auticus


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
There is a non-competitive scene in the USA, because you see it on The Miniatures Page, the Lead Adventure Forum and on podcasts (Meeples and Miniatures, for example), and just in the fact that there's plenty of "small press" games out there if you know where to look. However, it seems to be pretty small, and perhaps mostly historical games. IIRC, the venues are private homes in the main, rather than clubs.


Sure, there is indeed a tiny scene, but the money will not be made from that group.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:52:15


Post by: Grey Templar


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the arguable need for FFG to up their general release pace...I'd say it's more important they properly sort out their stock.


Yeah. They just need to be able to properly anticipate demand and be willing to take the, very very tiny, risk that they over produce.

Currently they're basically unwilling to over produce anything. They would rather sell out and have to wait months and months for a reprint than have a portion of their stock leftover for the future.

It's like they don't realize that they have a Star Wars license and a pretty popular one at that. That's basically a license to print money.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:54:20


Post by: auticus


 Arbitrator wrote:
I don't think Legion will hurt 40k by stealing it's playerbase. I think 8th has shown that a great deal of GW's fanbase are like beaten spouses, who at the slightest hint their ex has in any way changed for the better they rush back, ignoring their past and insisting they always loved them. At the slightest hint of improvement, people dropped Warmahordes/Infinity/Malifaux like a bad habit because if there's one thing a great deal of wargamers have it's buyer's remorse.

No, Legion will 'hurt' 40k in that it will attract a great deal more players from existing games like Assault and X-Wing. FFG have the resources to really push their products. They're really the closest thing to major competition in terms of resources Games Workshop has ever really had. Even PP is a comparatively very small company. Couple this with arguably THE most iconic IP in media and you've got a recipe for some kind of success at the very least. Those new players won't care about the cards and the unique dice because they've not known any different. That and I think people here are really overestimating how much the average person gives a toss about it.

A lot of X-Wing players may not have looked at tabletop wargames because of the assembly and painting required, however if they cast a glance at Legion then it could serve as an effective gateway drug. Imagine if Games Workshop started producing a game where it came pre-painted. How many people here would be more likely to pick that up than any other company doing it? it's a vice versa for FFG games. The exclusive X-Wing player would be more likely to buy into Legion despite that need to paint.

The one place Legion will probably flounder is in the UK. GW still have the trump card of having a big high street presence to attract just about every potential newbie but in the Americas I expect it to really do well.



Of course this is purely conjecture on my part, since I can't speak for the world - however our xwing club in town is the largest gaming club in our region... dwarfing even 40k. When they tallk about Legion, a good majority of them are not interested in Legion for a mix of they aren't interested in army games, and they aren't interested in having to glue and paint their own stuff.

If Legion came prepainted, a lot of those folks would at least buy the starter and try it. As it is, a large chunk of them won't touch it because they are not interested in gluing nor painting.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:57:06


Post by: Grey Templar


 auticus wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
I don't think Legion will hurt 40k by stealing it's playerbase. I think 8th has shown that a great deal of GW's fanbase are like beaten spouses, who at the slightest hint their ex has in any way changed for the better they rush back, ignoring their past and insisting they always loved them. At the slightest hint of improvement, people dropped Warmahordes/Infinity/Malifaux like a bad habit because if there's one thing a great deal of wargamers have it's buyer's remorse.

No, Legion will 'hurt' 40k in that it will attract a great deal more players from existing games like Assault and X-Wing. FFG have the resources to really push their products. They're really the closest thing to major competition in terms of resources Games Workshop has ever really had. Even PP is a comparatively very small company. Couple this with arguably THE most iconic IP in media and you've got a recipe for some kind of success at the very least. Those new players won't care about the cards and the unique dice because they've not known any different. That and I think people here are really overestimating how much the average person gives a toss about it.

A lot of X-Wing players may not have looked at tabletop wargames because of the assembly and painting required, however if they cast a glance at Legion then it could serve as an effective gateway drug. Imagine if Games Workshop started producing a game where it came pre-painted. How many people here would be more likely to pick that up than any other company doing it? it's a vice versa for FFG games. The exclusive X-Wing player would be more likely to buy into Legion despite that need to paint.

The one place Legion will probably flounder is in the UK. GW still have the trump card of having a big high street presence to attract just about every potential newbie but in the Americas I expect it to really do well.



Of course this is purely conjecture on my part, since I can't speak for the world - however our xwing club in town is the largest gaming club in our region... dwarfing even 40k. When they tallk about Legion, a good majority of them are not interested in Legion for a mix of they aren't interested in army games, and they aren't interested in having to glue and paint their own stuff.

If Legion came prepainted, a lot of those folks would at least buy the starter and try it. As it is, a large chunk of them won't touch it because they are not interested in gluing nor painting.


This is likely due to a huge portion of Xwing players not being table top gamers in general. They got exposed to the game by picking it up not at a game store. They see it as a board game. They just can't fathom a game where you assemble and paint the figures.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 16:59:41


Post by: vonjankmon


Hobby games that require you to spend the time assembling and painting miniatures will always be more of a niche market with a very limited customer base.

The number of people willing to spend more time assembling and painting than they do playing is much smaller than the number of people that want to buy a game and get to playing.

X-Wing should have demonstrated that plainly for everyone to see with its huge success and ability to pull in new players to the miniature table top. Those people playing X-Wing have had years of exposure to the more hobby related games such as Warmahordes and 40K because (At least in the US) the stores they are playing in generally carry both. Legion is not going to suddenly make all of those people who were not interested in assembling and painting change their mind.

I personally don't see it as succeeding but I like FFG as a company that generally produces really quality stuff so I hope I am wrong.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 17:01:34


Post by: auticus


Thats why I think that if FFG produced prepainted preassembled Legion kits that it would dwarf 40k in an instant, and the snowball would grow so large that 40k players would shed 40k for it as the playerbase would be huge and guarantee constant games AND a world championship series.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 17:31:54


Post by: Scott-S6


Wonderwolf wrote:
Dunno. From a FFG business perspective I would doubt they'd want to tie their company fortune for decades to a pricey IP with very limited creative control, constantly at the mercy of some IP guy over at Disney.

Disney is, at least, much more professional about this than Lucas Film where creative decisions and pricing seemed to be purely at their whim. Much safer to do this with Disney than with Lucas.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 17:45:10


Post by: Grey Templar


 Scott-S6 wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
Dunno. From a FFG business perspective I would doubt they'd want to tie their company fortune for decades to a pricey IP with very limited creative control, constantly at the mercy of some IP guy over at Disney.

Disney is, at least, much more professional about this than Lucas Film where creative decisions and pricing seemed to be purely at their whim. Much safer to do this with Disney than with Lucas.


Aye. Disney is much more hands off than Lucas.

Disney also only recently got this IP. They want to expand it, so they're going to be quite open to suggestions for stuff from people they have the license with. And it's not like Disney can micromanage everything. Disney was huge before they bought Star Wars, now they're even bigger. They simply can't micromanage anything.

Heck, they're probably thrilled to have Xwing. Its a way they can reuse some of the older IP they've inherited. Like the newly announced Gunboat and other more obscure star wars vessels. Legion also gives a good opportunity to reuse some of the more obscure IP from the system.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 18:51:58


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


 auticus wrote:
Thats why I think that if FFG produced prepainted preassembled Legion kits that it would dwarf 40k in an instant, and the snowball would grow so large that 40k players would shed 40k for it as the playerbase would be huge and guarantee constant games AND a world championship series.


I dunno. Many 40k players love the hipster elitism they try to claim.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 19:01:37


Post by: Sqorgar


 auticus wrote:
Thats why I think that if FFG produced prepainted preassembled Legion kits that it would dwarf 40k in an instant, and the snowball would grow so large that 40k players would shed 40k for it as the playerbase would be huge and guarantee constant games AND a world championship series.
I think the argument of pre-painted vs unpainted is a nonstarter. Legion is unpainted. That's not going to change this late in the game.

For me personally, as a player of OTHER miniature games, I'm glad Legion isn't pre-painted. With Imperial Assault and Runewars, I've seen a ton of new painters take up a brush. The rising tide raises all boats, I say. Every miniature game out there will benefit from new players willing to tackle the additional challenge of assembly/painting. Seriously, once I started painting, I no longer felt that miniature games were beyond my reach and started trying almost all of them.

Quite honestly, I've seen more painted Imperial Assault miniatures than painted Warmachine miniatures. Painting is not nearly as intimidating as it seems, but it isn't trivial either. I imagine painting a monopose Stormtrooper will seem more achievable than Belisarius Cawl, and people not ready to leap head first will find something relevant to dip their toes in. I think there are a lot of board gamers out there who love miniature-heavy games and are looking for something more substantial and ongoing to sink their teeth in. I think they'll look greedily at Legion at first, and eventually outgrow it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 21:21:24


Post by: silent25


 Scott-S6 wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
Dunno. From a FFG business perspective I would doubt they'd want to tie their company fortune for decades to a pricey IP with very limited creative control, constantly at the mercy of some IP guy over at Disney.

Disney is, at least, much more professional about this than Lucas Film where creative decisions and pricing seemed to be purely at their whim. Much safer to do this with Disney than with Lucas.


Tell that to Knight Models. They had their Marvel license yanked without notice and that was less than a year ago. They had to recall all their product, destroy all inventory, and kill a bunch of products mid development. The theory is that they weren't happy the company was also having a DC miniature game, but I don't recall any justification being given.

FFG is living by the IP sword. It runs the risk of dying by the IP sword. It has been 5 years since X-wing was released. The question is how much longer is there on their license agreement before they have to renegotiate? It will likely cost a lot more to keep the license around when they do.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/06 21:40:18


Post by: Scott-S6


 silent25 wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
Wonderwolf wrote:
Dunno. From a FFG business perspective I would doubt they'd want to tie their company fortune for decades to a pricey IP with very limited creative control, constantly at the mercy of some IP guy over at Disney.

Disney is, at least, much more professional about this than Lucas Film where creative decisions and pricing seemed to be purely at their whim. Much safer to do this with Disney than with Lucas.


Tell that to Knight Models. They had their Marvel license yanked without notice and that was less than a year ago. They had to recall all their product, destroy all inventory, and kill a bunch of products mid development. The theory is that they weren't happy the company was also having a DC miniature game, but I don't recall any justification being given.

FFG is living by the IP sword. It runs the risk of dying by the IP sword. It has been 5 years since X-wing was released. The question is how much longer is there on their license agreement before they have to renegotiate? It will likely cost a lot more to keep the license around when they do.


Knight's announcement sounded more like they couldn't afford to renew DC & Marvel at the same time as buying Harry Potter. I don't know how the Warner Bros licensing is handled but Disney is upfront cash so that 100% of the risk is on the licensee.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/07 15:36:38


Post by: odinsgrandson


One quick note:

A bunch of years ago, when Warmachine was still young, I had a discussion with the store owner about the staples of gaming.

There were three games that most gamers assumed would keep their top spots forever- Magic the Gathering, Warhammer 40k and Dungeons and Dragons.

But the thing is, D&D did fail. TSR went bankrupt and the IP was sold off to Wizards. At the time we were talking, D&D had re-secured its top spot in RPGs (this was before 4th ed and the rise of Pathfinder).

Ultimately, I think that there isn't a "too big to fail." If Wizards or GW don't care for their IP well, they could be toppled.



As for FFG- they run games on a cycle for the most part. They support for a while, have a bunch of expansions, then let the games go out of print for a while, then bring it all back with a new edition.

This has shown to be a working business model for them, but it might prevent them from spending 20 years center stage.

Games Workshop runs with a lifestyle policy- if their sales drop off for a game, they try to revive it right away rather than focusing on other things for a while.

Obviously, this has worked for them.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/07 18:45:26


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


The market does seem fairly stable though.

Whilst 40k has been through multiple iterations, it still plays much the same as it always did in terms of turn structure, forces, roles for each weapon type.

Warmahordes has seemingly stuck to its guns in a similar way. I'm by no means up on it, but the central role of your Warcaster remains, and armies are still constructed around how to best exploit that feat, and when to trigger it. Not to my taste of course, but seems to serve them more than well enough to keep heads above water.

I think the more interesting thing to look at are the games that didn't stick around. Again that's an area I'm massively ignorant in, so others will have to contribute. But several have come and gone. Question is why?

Given GW and Warmahordes can pump what is essentially the same old same old, why did newcomers to the market struggle in such numbers? Were the models not to taste? Was there some fatal flaw in the game itself?

If we can garner something akin to a consensus, that'll likely be a better way to work out if Legion has what it takes.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/07 18:54:10


Post by: MeanGreenStompa


I still think Star Wars is hampered by the presence of only two legitimate factions (I know, scum n villainy but... meh).

So you buy a handful of ships and you're done.

It's not so bad in X wing as you're able to swap ships and cards in and out, but how well would 40k have done with ultramarines vs tau? Think about how many don't care for either aesthetic.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/07 20:14:41


Post by: Stormonu


 Grey Templar wrote:


This is likely due to a huge portion of Xwing players not being table top gamers in general. They got exposed to the game by picking it up not at a game store. They see it as a board game. They just can't fathom a game where you assemble and paint the figures.


This seems a very elitist statement, considering the complaints of "grey plastic" armies in 40K. *I* spent the last two weeks of my vacation assembling and painting 40K minis, and I'd take up a prepainted game in a heartbeat rather than fiddle with more minis to desprue, assemble and paint - playing is a much better use of my time than painting and assembling, I beleive.

On topic, it would be nice if FFG could offer prepainted figures for Legion as a "premium" service - at the very least, Dust did this and Warlord offers (offered?) it for their Bolt Action tank line.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/07 21:07:32


Post by: odinsgrandson


X-Wing might have made its top spot out of the same thing the Wii did- it can get more casual people in, but more importantly, it is a hardcore gamer's second system.

X-Wing won't cut into your 40k hobby time, after all. And you don't need tons of ships to play- plus the games are pretty quick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The market does seem fairly stable though.

Whilst 40k has been through multiple iterations, it still plays much the same as it always did in terms of turn structure, forces, roles for each weapon type.

Warmahordes has seemingly stuck to its guns in a similar way. I'm by no means up on it, but the central role of your Warcaster remains, and armies are still constructed around how to best exploit that feat, and when to trigger it. Not to my taste of course, but seems to serve them more than well enough to keep heads above water.

I think the more interesting thing to look at are the games that didn't stick around. Again that's an area I'm massively ignorant in, so others will have to contribute. But several have come and gone. Question is why?

Given GW and Warmahordes can pump what is essentially the same old same old, why did newcomers to the market struggle in such numbers? Were the models not to taste? Was there some fatal flaw in the game itself?

If we can garner something akin to a consensus, that'll likely be a better way to work out if Legion has what it takes.


I'll resist the urg to argue with you about your characterization of Warmahordes tactics (I find them to be a lot deeper than 40k) but we can talk about what it takes to make it.

I generally think it takes 3 elements:

1- Rules have to be good, and unique. I have to not feel like I'm playing a game I'm already invested in.
2- Minis have to be good (and possibly unique in style)
3- Fluff has to have appeal.

They need these things in order to build up a following. At some point, the following is really what you need to build the game (players teach new players, and local groups will keep things moving). After that, you really don't want to offend huge swaths of your customer base by changing out the things they love (or else you'll be in for trouble).

When I first started collecting minis, GW's stuff was the best around. I could also play Battletech (and I did) but the rules were a lot more cumbersome. GW minis were the best around, and the fluff for 40k was already unique.

Warmahordes has all three of these things. They're all distinct from other things on the market- and they were more distinct when Warmahordes was building steam (styles of minis has really diversified lately).


So of course neither of them want to offend their core audience. They won't be changing the more essential elements of their game, because they don't want to kill off the things their fans love.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 11:46:20


Post by: morgoth


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For balance?

Aside from the constant requirement to upgrade, many of X-Wing's fault lie with the players.


And that is true about any discussion of balance on any game, more or less.

The fact of the matter is that balance is in the hands of the game maker and it's possible to strike close to 50% win rate for any faction if you try, as some online games have demonstrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ced1106 wrote:
* FFG has dropped support of game lines (eg. BattleLore 2nd edition) in the past, and I doubt GW will drop 40K (although I would have doubted they'd drop Warhammer Fantasy

I think it would be more accurate to call it a reboot.

Reboots are good - I personally love the new Trek, even if it's not the old Trek, at least the actors and the movies don't look like gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The more interesting question may be: will Star Wars small scale miniatures draw more attention and interest to 40K and actually improve their sales rather than hurting them ?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 13:58:14


Post by: Easy E


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The market does seem fairly stable though.

Whilst 40k has been through multiple iterations, it still plays much the same as it always did in terms of turn structure, forces, roles for each weapon type.

Warmahordes has seemingly stuck to its guns in a similar way. I'm by no means up on it, but the central role of your Warcaster remains, and armies are still constructed around how to best exploit that feat, and when to trigger it. Not to my taste of course, but seems to serve them more than well enough to keep heads above water.

I think the more interesting thing to look at are the games that didn't stick around. Again that's an area I'm massively ignorant in, so others will have to contribute. But several have come and gone. Question is why?

Given GW and Warmahordes can pump what is essentially the same old same old, why did newcomers to the market struggle in such numbers? Were the models not to taste? Was there some fatal flaw in the game itself?

If we can garner something akin to a consensus, that'll likely be a better way to work out if Legion has what it takes.


To run a game company is 10% creative and 90% all the other stuff like finance, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, human resetc. As gamers, we tend to only look at the product but to successfully run a game company there is so much more to it. I am guessing it is one of these areas that leads to a games failure more than the game itself. I would imagine the number 1 reason is insufficient liquid cash flow to service existing debts i.e. financing.

Companies that survive more than 5 years are the miracle exception and not the rule.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 14:34:10


Post by: Corrode


The creative is the easy part. There's thousands of "idea guys" out there who can't turn that into an actual product, or who can get as far as releasing some stuff but can't manage the business end of it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 16:09:42


Post by: Galas


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The market does seem fairly stable though.

Whilst 40k has been through multiple iterations, it still plays much the same as it always did in terms of turn structure, forces, roles for each weapon type.

Warmahordes has seemingly stuck to its guns in a similar way. I'm by no means up on it, but the central role of your Warcaster remains, and armies are still constructed around how to best exploit that feat, and when to trigger it. Not to my taste of course, but seems to serve them more than well enough to keep heads above water.

I think the more interesting thing to look at are the games that didn't stick around. Again that's an area I'm massively ignorant in, so others will have to contribute. But several have come and gone. Question is why?

Given GW and Warmahordes can pump what is essentially the same old same old, why did newcomers to the market struggle in such numbers? Were the models not to taste? Was there some fatal flaw in the game itself?

If we can garner something akin to a consensus, that'll likely be a better way to work out if Legion has what it takes.


Just look at WoW and all the other much betters MMORPG that tried and died. Being the first and the bigger one gives you a great advantage, even if you are inferior in all shape or form. That doesn't means you can't fail after years and years of problems, you can see it with the expansion Warlords of Draenor for WoW, the worst expansion of the game, going down to something like 4 million suscriptions from 12 milions from his golden days in WoTLK. Now with Legion, they have recovered because they have fixed most of the problems, but only after they taked a BIG hit by that crap expansion, something like 8th edition of 40k and 7th.
I think that in that crisis moment, have they failed to correct the ship, probably that would mean their deads. But both of them, in their lowest moment, achieved to got out of the hole.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 18:26:03


Post by: Scott-S6


 odinsgrandson wrote:
One quick note:
A bunch of years ago, when Warmachine was still young, I had a discussion with the store owner about the staples of gaming.
There were three games that most gamers assumed would keep their top spots forever- Magic the Gathering, Warhammer 40k and Dungeons and Dragons.
But the thing is, D&D did fail. TSR went bankrupt and the IP was sold off to Wizards. At the time we were talking, D&D had re-secured its top spot in RPGs (this was before 4th ed and the rise of Pathfinder).
Ultimately, I think that there isn't a "too big to fail." If Wizards or GW don't care for their IP well, they could be toppled.
As for FFG- they run games on a cycle for the most part. They support for a while, have a bunch of expansions, then let the games go out of print for a while, then bring it all back with a new edition.
This has shown to be a working business model for them, but it might prevent them from spending 20 years center stage.
Games Workshop runs with a lifestyle policy- if their sales drop off for a game, they try to revive it right away rather than focusing on other things for a while.
Obviously, this has worked for them.

TSR had always been carrying a load of debt. In the publishing business, where you have to be able to refund stock that gets returned unsold, that is hugely dangerous.

In that end, that's exactly what sunk them - they got a big return, couldn't pay it, as a result couldn't print more and they were done.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/08 22:55:11


Post by: odinsgrandson


Big companies can fail quickly- usually due to large losses combined with high operating costs. They don't actually have to lose all of their money in order to go out of business.


Now, I don't think that GW is headed for a fall. On the contrary, I think that they're new business model is really working for them, and I think it can continue for a long time to come.

The previous business model was all about cutting costs to increase profits- and it made the company look good until there weren't any more corners to cut and things just stagnated (during a time in which gaming in general was expanding).

The current model is about expanding their player base with 'gateway games' and even just attracting new players who won't ever get into their big two games. There are places to go with that in the long term, so long as they can keep it up (and I suspect that they can).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 00:12:26


Post by: krazynadechukr


With the amount of SW films and shows coming out, the fan base, etc... SW could overtake 40k very soon.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 16:38:21


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 krazynadechukr wrote:
With the amount of SW films and shows coming out

Sure that translated perfectly into a huge playerbase for The lord of the Ring and it will for Star Wars too!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 16:51:54


Post by: Peregrine


 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
 krazynadechukr wrote:
With the amount of SW films and shows coming out

Sure that translated perfectly into a huge playerbase for The lord of the Ring and it will for Star Wars too!


Actually it did, the LOTR games gave a major financial boost to GW and drew in a lot of players who weren't going to be buying 40k/WHFB. IMO the subsequent decline of the LOTR games has more to do with GW's poor handling of them than any inherent weakness in the IP.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:06:08


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


I tend to think 40k will continue to have an advantage in being a wargame setting first and foremost. Games thrive off new releases and 40k is a game where there will always be new and varied releases (with plenty of Space Marines thrown in for good measure).


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:06:58


Post by: kodos


After the movies, GW treated LotR as a standard GW game, which included a huge price increase for plastic boxes

as most of the LotR were not standard Tabletop players used to GW, but people who just liked LotR, the system collapsed over night

(funny fact, most LotR player know still play the game as their only fantasy TT and historical games in addition)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:08:00


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Peregrine wrote:
Actually it did, the LOTR games gave a major financial boost to GW and drew in a lot of players who weren't going to be buying 40k/WHFB. IMO the subsequent decline of the LOTR games has more to do with GW's poor handling of them than any inherent weakness in the IP.
I think LOTR is a great franchise for a wargame and continues to be one long after the movies and I agree GW mishandled it. However, LOTR's decline was definitely aided in large part by the hype for the final movie wearing off and GW running out of movie-related things to release for it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:10:55


Post by: Grey Templar


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Actually it did, the LOTR games gave a major financial boost to GW and drew in a lot of players who weren't going to be buying 40k/WHFB. IMO the subsequent decline of the LOTR games has more to do with GW's poor handling of them than any inherent weakness in the IP.
I think LOTR is a great franchise for a wargame and continues to be one long after the movies and I agree GW mishandled it. However, LOTR's decline was definitely aided in large part by the hype for the final movie wearing off and GW running out of movie-related things to release for it.


Which was a shame since the rules were really good. It was a nice system that did well both at the skirmish level and at the large massed battle level. It scaled really well, with the only issue being keeping track of your many hero's might, will, and fate points.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:15:01


Post by: kodos


GW released a lot stuff from the books that was not seen in the movies also adding R&F rules gave the system another boost.

if GW would not have killed it prior the Hobbit it would have gotten another huge boost with the killing of Warhammer as the those players would have switched to War of the Ring instead of T9A


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:17:38


Post by: Tamwulf


No, Star Wars Legion will not overtake 40K.

There is not enough play depth in Legion. Nor will there be. It's all about Hero's with the army playing a supporting role. Sound familiar? Imperial Assault? Anyone?

Proprietary widgets and dice to play the game sucks. It also means down the road another source to monetize the widgets and/or offer them as prizes ala' X-Wing (You mean I just won this 200 player Nationals event and all I got was a card with unique art and some acrylic movement templates? Well, OK. Thanks...).

The models we have seen so far are NOT production models. They are carefully selected or master mold runs of the models. No company is going to show you the mass produced models in its marketing campaign. They are going to show you the best models, pro-painted to draw interest.

Random activation and lack of army customization kill all strategic and tactical table game play. At best, you will get to meta-strategic plan the game. Actual game play is left entirely up to chance. Your tactical decisions will rely solely on the flip of a token or randomly drawn card. You'll never be able to plan out your turn. The game will reward a lucky player far more often than a strategic player.

Did I mention came play revolves around your hero and not your army?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the marketing for the game is all wrong. Who are they appealing to? The Table Top War Gamer who likes to competitively play games, the hobbyist that likes to assemble, convert, and paint models? The Board Game Enthusiast that wants to open up a box, start playing a game in 10 minutes, and then finish within an hour? Or the Star Wars Fan Person that will buy any and all things Star Wars even if they never play the actual game, but will be the first to point out that a Stormtrooper doesn't use a DL-22 Heavy Blaster Pistol? You can't make a game like that to please everyone, and FFG made Legion like they are trying to please everyone.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:26:38


Post by: kodos


 Tamwulf wrote:

There is not enough play depth in Legion. Nor will there be. It's all about Hero's with the army playing a supporting role. Sound familiar? Imperial Assault? Anyone?

more like 40k now, just that the supporting army is 200 models that are nothing more than additional health points

Random activation and lack of army customization kill all strategic and tactical table game play. At best, you will get to meta-strategic plan the game. Actual game play is left entirely up to chance. Your tactical decisions will rely solely on the flip of a token or randomly drawn card. You'll never be able to plan out your turn. The game will reward a lucky player far more often than a strategic player

I guess you never played a game that was not standard GW I go You Go?
where the way to victory is to write the best army list and tactic is to roll the first turn.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:29:44


Post by: Kanluwen


 kodos wrote:
 Tamwulf wrote:

There is not enough play depth in Legion. Nor will there be. It's all about Hero's with the army playing a supporting role. Sound familiar? Imperial Assault? Anyone?

more like 40k now, just that the supporting army is 200 models that are nothing more than additional health points

This is counter to the whining going on about things like Conscripts.
Are they "additional health points"?
Sure!
But "everything can hurt everything" now. Remember the hooplah about X number of Lasguns killing Land Raiders/Knights/Emperor Titans?


Random activation and lack of army customization kill all strategic and tactical table game play. At best, you will get to meta-strategic plan the game. Actual game play is left entirely up to chance. Your tactical decisions will rely solely on the flip of a token or randomly drawn card. You'll never be able to plan out your turn. The game will reward a lucky player far more often than a strategic player

I guess you never played a game that was not standard GW I go You Go?
where the way to victory is to write the best army list and tactic is to roll the first turn.

Random activation isn't exactly a common mechanic, nor a well thought out one.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/09 17:51:15


Post by: morgoth


 kodos wrote:
Random activation and lack of army customization kill all strategic and tactical table game play. At best, you will get to meta-strategic plan the game. Actual game play is left entirely up to chance. Your tactical decisions will rely solely on the flip of a token or randomly drawn card. You'll never be able to plan out your turn. The game will reward a lucky player far more often than a strategic player

I guess you never played a game that was not standard GW I go You Go?
where the way to victory is to write the best army list and tactic is to roll the first turn.


I know this has become some kind of religion / accepted opinion, but honestly the big difference between per-turn activation (igougo) and per-phase per-unit activation (another kind of igougo lol) is that both players are involved more often, activation order is the highest priority and overall strategy comes second.

IGOUGO, as the detractors call it, is not without its own benefits and is not by nature something terribly wrong.

The idea that going first decides the game needs to be taken with
Same goes for the idea that the list decides the game.

Here's an idea: forget about those few times where you were shot off the board by a massively better list on a table that favored shooty armies, and go ask some of the best 40K players what they think.

In my very limited experience and skill, I can tell you that going second has won me some games I couldn't have won going first.
I have also won many games where my list was the inferior one by a long shot.
And lost many games where my list was the superior one by a long shot as well.


Anyway, on-topic: Star Wars as a franchise is infinitely bigger than 40K will ever be.
However, the tiny tiny fraction of Star Wars fans who may be interested in assembling and painting models will never be bigger than 40K, let alone GW.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/10 00:14:50


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


I think that an underlying assumption in a lot of the discussion seems to be that the market is finite. It ain't. Legion could see many years of growth, which would mean it is a commercial success, and GW could stay quite stable, which would also be a success. This is not a Thunderdome. There is enough love to go around for more than one system, one doesn't need to (force) choke the life out of the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to preempt the three dozen posts saying "I never said that." If the hat don't fit, then don't wear it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/10 09:08:19


Post by: kodos


morgoth wrote:

I know this has become some kind of religion / accepted opinion, but honestly the big difference between per-turn activation (igougo) and per-phase per-unit activation (another kind of igougo lol) is that both players are involved more often, activation order is the highest priority and overall strategy comes second.

IGOUGO, as the detractors call it, is not without its own benefits and is not by nature something terribly wrong.
.


if a game is tactical or not dies not depend who player phases are made
it is more about if the rules are balanced to fit the phases ore not

if the player who deploy last and place the last objective has a chance to go first, balance is not done well and Alpha Strike a thing
on the other hand, first turn kills were never a thing in WM/H or Kings of War

that is why alternate unit activation could be a solution to games like 40k and it works quite well for Bolt Action which is nothing more like 40k in WW2
(going that why, most historical games that use alternate unit activation do it randomly)

saying Legion is not tactical because of random activation, than 40k is just list building and rolling for first turn

But "everything can hurt everything" now. Remember the hooplah about X number of Lasguns killing Land Raiders/Knights/Emperor Titans?

40k has always been Herohammer, some Editions less than others but this is how GW want the game to be played (Space Wolves in 5th had good enough troops to be played different and got hit with the nerfhammer after it to be back to "spam as many HQ as possible")

and I also don't like the mechanic that everything can wound anything, as this just makes high ROF weapons always the better options, especially with that many buffs around.

and I guess that those that paniced about lasguns killing titans also turn away other games that use mechanics they don't understand.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/11 02:07:45


Post by: Jehan-reznor


Kanluwen wrote:
Random activation isn't exactly a common mechanic, nor a well thought out one.


That is just untrue, bolt action, Warzone and many true war games use some form of random activation.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/11 12:43:06


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Too Fat Lardies' various games make use of it, in different ways IIRC.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/11 14:34:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Random activation isn't exactly a common mechanic, nor a well thought out one.


That is just untrue, bolt action, Warzone and many true war games use some form of random activation.


But you can still plan your activations. It randomly determines who goes first, sure, but you can activate your units in an order of your choosing, rather than having both who goes first and what unit goes first randomly chosen.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/11 15:41:22


Post by: kestral


For me the reason a star wars game will never replace 40K is the modeling. 40k's genius was the way it encouraged people's imagination to take flight during the early days by being both very open and very derivative. Invent your own IG regiment? Awesome, I'll get right on it, there are a zillion possibilities and lots of models you could incorporate. These here are my Chinese IG led by this Sun Zhu general figure I gave a chainsword and these are my banners with calligraphy.... . Invent your own stormtrooper company.... ...err, Ok. These are my special stormtroopers with nightfighting gear. No where near as interesting. Limited scope for creativity. Unless you can make your own obscure or wholly invented alien army I don't see much that I'd like to do. GW is foolish to try to shut down scratchbuilding and counts as - the game itself is not all that great.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/11 23:44:51


Post by: thekingofkings


 kodos wrote:
After the movies, GW treated LotR as a standard GW game, which included a huge price increase for plastic boxes

as most of the LotR were not standard Tabletop players used to GW, but people who just liked LotR, the system collapsed over night

(funny fact, most LotR player know still play the game as their only fantasy TT and historical games in addition)


I play the hell out of LOTR but have completely abandoned the rest of GW's products after the new edition of 40k and a valiant attempt at AoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kestral wrote:
For me the reason a star wars game will never replace 40K is the modeling. 40k's genius was the way it encouraged people's imagination to take flight during the early days by being both very open and very derivative. Invent your own IG regiment? Awesome, I'll get right on it, there are a zillion possibilities and lots of models you could incorporate. These here are my Chinese IG led by this Sun Zhu general figure I gave a chainsword and these are my banners with calligraphy.... . Invent your own stormtrooper company.... ...err, Ok. These are my special stormtroopers with nightfighting gear. No where near as interesting. Limited scope for creativity. Unless you can make your own obscure or wholly invented alien army I don't see much that I'd like to do. GW is foolish to try to shut down scratchbuilding and counts as - the game itself is not all that great.


The clone wars era had much more variety in the GAR, but the stormtroopers are just a part of the imperial warmachine and we have seen a lot of variety in their armors and types so far. I wouldnt rule out that variety hitting the tabletop.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 00:31:11


Post by: AnFéasógMór


I know plenty of people who spend insane amounts of money on both games, so I don't know how much they're competing.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 04:15:30


Post by: -Loki-


AnFéasógMór wrote:
I know plenty of people who spend insane amounts of money on both games, so I don't know how much they're competing.


Competing doesn't mean people won't buy both products. This isn't primary school where you're club Sega or club Nintendo. The market is so saturated with games that it's not uncommon for people to play multiple, from different companies. Often people who appear as die hards for one system only play multiple, they just don't talk about the others.

Personally, Corvus Belli and Wyrd compete for my hobby money. I play both companies games and love playing them and tend to split the money evenly, but sometimes one just has an amazing release and the other loses that money for a while. A good example is this gencon, Wyrds limited edition and early release offering was too good to pass up and took about a months worth of hobby money, which took money from what I'd spend on Infinity.

Regarding the thread Star Wars absolutely has the name recognition and breadth (if they go for a Legends setting moreso) to make a really good wargame. Enough so that with the Star Wars branding, I could see it overtake 40k outside of the UK the way X Wing did. I very much doubt Legion will be the game to do it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 06:30:19


Post by: Pilum


 -Loki- wrote:

Regarding the thread Star Wars absolutely has the name recognition and breadth (if they go for a Legends setting moreso) to make a really good wargame. Enough so that with the Star Wars branding, I could see it overtake 40k outside of the UK the way X Wing did. I very much doubt Legion will be the game to do it.

To be honest Loki, I feel that X-Wing was that game with the biggest chance to 'breakout' Star Wars gaming. Whether it has long-term I'll let others argue over. Leaving the lightsabre duels out of it, the most striking part of Star Wars as a young 'un was the fighter combat. X-Wings dogfighting TIE's was - and is! - awesome. The ground combat ... well, apart from seeing a blaster cannon shoot at (and get blasted apart by) a walker, it's rather lacking in the OT; the snowspeeder attack is the standout moment, but I'd be inclined to file that under the dogfighting, above. Capital Ship combat? Again, seriously lacking, regardless of the iconic opening of New Hope, and even in Jedi is ultimately a backdrop for - again - the starfighters.

Now, someone whose 'first' Star Wars was the prequels may have a different view, which is fair enough, dirtside is far more prevalent there, and perhaps the clone troopers are as evocative to that person as Red and Gold squadrons are to me; but then, this game isn't initially looking at the prequels...


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 06:37:00


Post by: morgoth


One interesting point for this discussion is that as GW demonstrated, having more games for the same IP does not translate in more revenue, but rather in a more fractured player base.

In that sense, Legions might do more harm than good.

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 06:42:00


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


morgoth wrote:

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


Will you give it a bloody rest with this "no comparison" rubbish? Every single thread you turn up spouting it, after having been shown many times that it's not true.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 06:50:00


Post by: morgoth


 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
morgoth wrote:

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


Will you give it a bloody rest with this "no comparison" rubbish? Every single thread you turn up spouting it, after having been shown many times that it's not true.


You, sir, are entitled to your opinions.

I think it has been shown many times that the hobby aspect of 40K and similar games is what keeps many potential customers away from it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 06:56:45


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


morgoth wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
morgoth wrote:

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


Will you give it a bloody rest with this "no comparison" rubbish? Every single thread you turn up spouting it, after having been shown many times that it's not true.


You, sir, are entitled to your opinions.

I think it has been shown many times that the hobby aspect of 40K and similar games is what keeps many potential customers away from it.


I am, and my opinion is that you are trolling by endlessly repeating the same topic in every thread every made, just to prop up your fragile ID.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 08:32:21


Post by: Pacific


Despite the licence, Legions is going to be competing against a significant existing playerbase, and a GW that seems (for the first time in years) to actually be interested in rejuvenating the game.

That being said, there is always going to be a lot of crossover in fan base (I shouldn't think there are many 40k fans who wont go and see the Last Jedi). If FFG keep up the quality releases, support the game and produce a quality rulesets then of course it is going to become a rival to 40k. But, if you're a 40k fan you shouldn't be worried - 40k won't be at any risk of disappearing and competition can only be a good thing, the existence of Legion could help keep pushing GW into making 40k a better (and perhaps even cheaper) game. The only winner as a result will be us as wargamers.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 15:37:02


Post by: Ruin


morgoth wrote:

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


Make way for Don Quixote! He's going full tilt!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 15:53:27


Post by: Azreal13


morgoth wrote:
 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
morgoth wrote:

Still, I don't think anyone can compare a board game with three pre-painted ships (starting point) to a miniatures game where you have to build 20+ miniatures and paint them, etc.


Will you give it a bloody rest with this "no comparison" rubbish? Every single thread you turn up spouting it, after having been shown many times that it's not true.


You, sir, are entitled to your opinions.

I think it has been shown many times that the hobby aspect of 40K and similar games is what keeps many potential customers away from it.


Where? Where has it been "shown?" I for one would be hugely interested in this information. Are we talking university studies? Extensive market research surveys commisioned by the many massive companies in the sector?

Or just your ideas based on tenuous evidence being dressed up as something more credible because you know what a weak argument you've got?

Whereas something like competition theory has been subject to those sorts of information gathering and analysis, and anyone with even a superficial understanding of it can see that there's competition between the two systems, and someone who claims to be an "entrepreneur businessman" or whatever it is you claim to identify as failing to grasp this beggars belief.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 20:11:53


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


I'm less interested than I should be after the treatment of the EU. Yeah not all of it is good and well thought out (Yuuzhan Vong come to mind. *shudders* Blech) but I still love a lot of it.
They make a Revan or Nihilus or Bane figure they'll have me on board for sure and I'll buy those.

It does seem strange they didn't make everything prepainted though.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 20:35:59


Post by: Kriswall


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm less interested than I should be after the treatment of the EU. Yeah not all of it is good and well thought out (Yuuzhan Vong come to mind. *shudders* Blech) but I still love a lot of it.
They make a Revan or Nihilus or Bane figure they'll have me on board for sure and I'll buy those.

It does seem strange they didn't make everything prepainted though.


It's only strange if you're not familiar with table top war games. It's significantly more strange to see a table top war game come with prepainted minis.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 20:51:52


Post by: Marmatag


I could care less if it overtakes 40k, I still won't play it. The world is lousy with star wars themed everything, I want something totally and completely different.

Now, if they released a Marvel themed tabletop game, that would be something which would pique my interest.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 21:15:17


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Kriswall wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm less interested than I should be after the treatment of the EU. Yeah not all of it is good and well thought out (Yuuzhan Vong come to mind. *shudders* Blech) but I still love a lot of it.
They make a Revan or Nihilus or Bane figure they'll have me on board for sure and I'll buy those.

It does seem strange they didn't make everything prepainted though.


It's only strange if you're not familiar with table top war games. It's significantly more strange to see a table top war game come with prepainted minis.

For Star Wars, prepainted would've made more sense. With other mini games (or even board games with minis, like FT: Zero and Zombicide), you never really needed those painted.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 21:31:31


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


To sum up, the hurdles for this game as I see them. This is purely an opinion piece.

1) Limited scope for different factions. Much of the old EU is gone. Some is coming back of course (Thrawn, Nogghri for instance)

2) FFG's typical release schedule. Few, far between. Compared to their competitors in the market they're entering here, they risk being left behind there. Though in fairness, there's a massive assumption on my behalf that a larger gap between releases will be of detriment. It may not be.

3) FFG's supply chain. That's the main 'threat' to Legion's success. X-Wing really suffered from thIs in the early days. Sure, you can get the cards and counter elsewhere, but if you can't get the models? Given it often takes months for stuff to be restocked, that's a serious hurdle they need to overcome. But, for all I know they have got that licked for this game. Time will tell.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 21:55:17


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


I don't recognize Nogghri off the top of my head, but it's nice to know that Thrawn is back.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/12 22:52:06


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


3) FFG's supply chain. That's the main 'threat' to Legion's success. X-Wing really suffered from thIs in the early days. Sure, you can get the cards and counter elsewhere, but if you can't get the models? Given it often takes months for stuff to be restocked, that's a serious hurdle they need to overcome. But, for all I know they have got that licked for this game. Time will tell.


It was nice if it was only on the early days. My FLGS owner would be real happy if that was the case. Either that, or Portugal just gets the short end of the stick when it comes to FFG resupplies. (I don't play X-wing, but I frequently talk with him, and he mentioned how sometimes it's really, really hard to get any product at all)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 11:39:07


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


UK seems to have that issue as well. Or at least had.

I got out of X-Wing over a year ago, so can't really say my info is up to date.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 12:37:09


Post by: Kriswall


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
To sum up, the hurdles for this game as I see them. This is purely an opinion piece.

1) Limited scope for different factions. Much of the old EU is gone. Some is coming back of course (Thrawn, Nogghri for instance)

2) FFG's typical release schedule. Few, far between. Compared to their competitors in the market they're entering here, they risk being left behind there. Though in fairness, there's a massive assumption on my behalf that a larger gap between releases will be of detriment. It may not be.

3) FFG's supply chain. That's the main 'threat' to Legion's success. X-Wing really suffered from thIs in the early days. Sure, you can get the cards and counter elsewhere, but if you can't get the models? Given it often takes months for stuff to be restocked, that's a serious hurdle they need to overcome. But, for all I know they have got that licked for this game. Time will tell.


1... Armada works very well with 2 factions. X-Wing works very well with 3 factions (technically, it has 5, but 2 are compatible with 2 of the core 3). Not every table top game needs 40+ factions like 40k. I would argue that 40k has way too many factions which causes some core balance issues. I'd also be shocked if we don't see a 3rd faction covering "Scum & Villainy".

2... As has been mentioned before, for any given faction, FFG has a MUCH quicker release schedule than a company like Games Workshop. I play predominantly Imperials for Armada. I know I'm going to get a couple of releases per year. For 40k, I play predominantly Necrons. Will I see a new model kit for Necrons in 2017? 2018? The time between same faction releases with Games Workshop is horrible for most of their factions. FFG has a much better release schedule when you factor in that they aren't supporting 40+ factions.

3... This is a potential issue, but not an uncommon one for new product releases. Even Magic the Gathering had shortages when it was first released in the early 90's. Between generally having access to multiple FLGS's, online retailers, FFG's own webstore and other sites like eBay, it's fairly rare nowadays to not be able to buy an FFG product somewhere. At least in the US. Then again, FFG is a US company. I would imagine its harder to get product in general in other countries.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 12:50:51


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


Then by all means try to purchase a K-Wing at the stock price right now. Sure, you'll find some anecdotally, but not in great numbers.

I'm a yuge fanboy, but even I have to grant that stuff being manufactured in the UK and sent out from there makes its way to retailers a lot faster than having to negociate a production slot with a Chinese factory, then having that stock sit on a boat for 2 months and then spread out from the US. I don't know how many people have given up on buying said K-Wing at this point, they just hope it'll get nerfed in the meantime.

That could be the biggest hurdle to any of their games' continued success.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 16:55:28


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Not all stuff manufactured in the UK is fast to arrive. Frostgrave takes months to restock, as do many Renedra-made minis and accessories. I don't know if Mantic is hard to restock or if local stores just still refuse to order more in.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 17:29:34


Post by: Bookwrack


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't recognize Nogghri off the top of my head, but it's nice to know that Thrawn is back.

Thrawn's personal bodyguards from the original EU trilogy.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 17:42:29


Post by: kodos


 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Then by all means try to purchase a K-Wing at the stock price right now. Sure, you'll find some anecdotally, but not in great numbers.
.

Depends on were you are
My LGS has at least 5 of them laying around
but there is also not a huge tournament scene here


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 17:43:26


Post by: The Warp Forge


 Kriswall wrote:

1... Armada works very well with 2 factions. X-Wing works very well with 3 factions (technically, it has 5, but 2 are compatible with 2 of the core 3). Not every table top game needs 40+ factions like 40k. I would argue that 40k has way too many factions which causes some core balance issues. I'd also be shocked if we don't see a 3rd faction covering "Scum & Villainy".


Sorry, but I'm really going to have to disagree with you on that one. Armada has a severe issue with factions as everyone wants to be The Empire. When I saw tournaments being held in my area I had only seen two rebel players at the occasional time. in about 8-12 player tournament everyone wants to be Empire because no one can resist a good Star Destroyer. There was overly lots of mirror matches. I don't even think Scum will even mix things up, they didn't in IA and I would see no different in Armada. If they did Clone Wars that would give them so much more to work with.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 17:55:58


Post by: Azreal13


That's not actually an issue unless you're saying there's imbalance between Rebel and Empire?

If players are simply choosing what they like, that only a problem for hardcore fluff bunnies who can't divorce playing a game based on an IP and the IP's stories themselves, and it isn't like a healthy percentage of 40K matches aren't fundamentally mirror matches of different flavours of power armour as well.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:04:32


Post by: AndrewGPaul


The difference is that 40k (and most other wargames settings) are designed to make battles between any two factions (including the same faction) thematically appropriate.
In Star Wars, by contrast, having Star Destroyers on both sides simply isn't something that's ever shown, unless you're a reasonably hardcore fan who's dug into the EU (and into the bits of the EU that are out of print, to boot). It's narratively unsatisfying. If I'm not playing a game that looks and feels like Star Wars, then there's no appeal.

X-Wing at least has the fallback that the game is fun; Armada, IMO, is too clunky and slow (and like Legion, falls very far short of the scope implied by the title ) to be fun as an abstract game.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:11:08


Post by: Azreal13


"Training Exercise"

Done.

Tournaments aren't the place to be worrying about narrative anyway.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:16:57


Post by: kodos


 The Warp Forge wrote:
Armada has a severe issue with factions as everyone wants to be The Empire. When I saw tournaments being held in my area I had only seen two rebel players at the occasional time. in about 8-12 player tournament everyone wants to be Empire because no one can resist a good Star Destroyer

And 40k has so many factions with a lot of possibilities and on tournaments you always meet the same list from the same faction

On a 12 player tournament having 10 of them with Girlyman, is not better than the X-Wing/Armada issue

So what is played on tournaments has nothing to do with how many factions are available


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:23:03


Post by: AndrewGPaul


 Azreal13 wrote:
"Training Exercise"

Done.

Tournaments aren't the place to be worrying about narrative anyway.


Which is why I don't go to them. The problem still arises, that everyone I know wants to play the Empire. If I'm reduced to "it's a training exercise... again" to explain the game, then the game has lost my interest, unfortunately. "My commander has rebelled against the Empire" is marginally better, but doesn't really fit into the Star Wars we all know, and when it's Darth Vader on one side vs Wilhuff Tarkin on the other, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you like the game, fair play to you, and I hope it does well enough to hang around. It doesn't appeal to me, though.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:28:21


Post by: Kriswall


 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Then by all means try to purchase a K-Wing at the stock price right now. Sure, you'll find some anecdotally, but not in great numbers.

I'm a yuge fanboy, but even I have to grant that stuff being manufactured in the UK and sent out from there makes its way to retailers a lot faster than having to negociate a production slot with a Chinese factory, then having that stock sit on a boat for 2 months and then spread out from the US. I don't know how many people have given up on buying said K-Wing at this point, they just hope it'll get nerfed in the meantime.

That could be the biggest hurdle to any of their games' continued success.


Anecdotally, the two shops I visit regularly have them in stock right now. I was unaware that there was a shortage. Then again, I don't play much X-Wing. It's possible that my shops sell more FFG than other shops and are getting a higher allocation of restocks. I frequently hear of retailers complaining that they can't get stock when the reality is that their distributor is simply prioritizing available product to their other accounts who buy more X-Wing stuff (or whatever product line). The result is that Store A is perpetually out of stock while Store B always has product on the shelf. The distributor perpetuates this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
"Training Exercise"

Done.

Tournaments aren't the place to be worrying about narrative anyway.


Which is why I don't go to them. The problem still arises, that everyone I know wants to play the Empire. If I'm reduced to "it's a training exercise... again" to explain the game, then the game has lost my interest, unfortunately. "My commander has rebelled against the Empire" is marginally better, but doesn't really fit into the Star Wars we all know, and when it's Darth Vader on one side vs Wilhuff Tarkin on the other, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you like the game, fair play to you, and I hope it does well enough to hang around. It doesn't appeal to me, though.


Sounds like your area is simply an anomaly. If you go to any sort of major event, you tend to see a mix of Imperial and Rebel fleets. It's rarely going to be 50/50, but it's also rarely going to be 90/10. If your area is consistently 90/10, you have a local player issue, not a game issue. Same thing happens with 40k when everyone wants to play Space Marines. In my area, 80% of the 40k guys play Imperial, 10% play Chaos and 10% play Xenos. I play Xenos. The overwhelming majority of my games are versus Imperials. It gets boring, but it doesn't mean 40k has a faction issue. It means I need to play with different people if I want variety.

Having said that, Armada simply isn't a narrative game. You get a mission objective card, but that's it. If you need a narrative, you'll need to provide it and not expect your opponent to necessarily be interested. If one faction consistently is chosen over the other across most major events, then you have a balance issue... not a narrative issue. I think Legion will also not be a narrative game. Just like Armada, we'll have mission objective cards. That's your narrative. Go stand by those crates. End of narrative. Try not to die. You're a Stormtrooper and those other Stormtroopers are shooting at you? Presumably, their leader (who looks suspiciously like Vader but can't be Vader as Vader is right next to you) probably told them to go stand by the same crates.

I don't think Legion will appeal to 40k players who avoid competitive play and spend most of their time coming up with names and detailed histories for each of their Space Marines. I think it'll appeal to the competitive 40k crowd who have no problem with Dark Angels and Space Wolves in the same army (they actively hate each other in the fluff at this point) if it gives them an extra sliver of a chance to win.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 18:59:16


Post by: Azreal13


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
"Training Exercise"

Done.

Tournaments aren't the place to be worrying about narrative anyway.


Which is why I don't go to them. The problem still arises, that everyone I know wants to play the Empire. If I'm reduced to "it's a training exercise... again" to explain the game, then the game has lost my interest, unfortunately. "My commander has rebelled against the Empire" is marginally better, but doesn't really fit into the Star Wars we all know, and when it's Darth Vader on one side vs Wilhuff Tarkin on the other, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you like the game, fair play to you, and I hope it does well enough to hang around. It doesn't appeal to me, though.


Nope, not a fan of Armada, or, more precisely, I didn't get enough out of a demo game to warrant the fairly substantial investment it seems to need to unlock its full potential.

My point is that criticizing a game for mirror matches when we're discussing it in the context of 40K which also, by dint of there being so many Marine players, also generates a lot of mirror matches, and probably a lot of cookie cutter lists in tourney play as well, when it's a result of player choice rather than faction imbalance isn't all that strong an argument.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 19:46:37


Post by: kestral


I'm looking forward to taking this miniature and giving it guns. If a new game system made that "feel right" like 40k, and makes it usuable (which 40K doesn't really with the decline of Counts as), I would switch. Otherwise, not happening unless someone else gets really into it and there are lots of fun games to be had. Then I'll play just about anything.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/13 19:55:10


Post by: Lance845


 kestral wrote:
For me the reason a star wars game will never replace 40K is the modeling. 40k's genius was the way it encouraged people's imagination to take flight during the early days by being both very open and very derivative. Invent your own IG regiment? Awesome, I'll get right on it, there are a zillion possibilities and lots of models you could incorporate. These here are my Chinese IG led by this Sun Zhu general figure I gave a chainsword and these are my banners with calligraphy.... . Invent your own stormtrooper company.... ...err, Ok. These are my special stormtroopers with nightfighting gear. No where near as interesting. Limited scope for creativity. Unless you can make your own obscure or wholly invented alien army I don't see much that I'd like to do. GW is foolish to try to shut down scratchbuilding and counts as - the game itself is not all that great.


I think you greatly overestimate how much the general game playing population cares about this.

What % of the player base makes up their own SM chapter? How many of those do more than a new paint scheme? Most players pick a faction, buy the game, build the models, and play with little or no thought to any custom anything.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/14 00:45:23


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


 Kriswall wrote:


Anecdotally, the two shops I visit regularly have them in stock right now. I was unaware that there was a shortage. Then again, I don't play much X-Wing. It's possible that my shops sell more FFG than other shops and are getting a higher allocation of restocks. I frequently hear of retailers complaining that they can't get stock when the reality is that their distributor is simply prioritizing available product to their other accounts who buy more X-Wing stuff (or whatever product line). The result is that Store A is perpetually out of stock while Store B always has product on the shelf. The distributor perpetuates this.




They have been almost impossible to find in the whole province, even MeepleMart has been sold out since at least june. Whenever Paul Heaver kicked it up a notch with a Miranda+Sabine build. I had to sell one of my own in order to fulfill a commission paintjob. So it's not just one distributor, FFG is out of them too. Your shops must have had them for a while. And that can break a game that is in its infancy.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/14 03:30:12


Post by: The Warp Forge


 Azreal13 wrote:
That's not actually an issue unless you're saying there's imbalance between Rebel and Empire?

If players are simply choosing what they like, that only a problem for hardcore fluff bunnies who can't divorce playing a game based on an IP and the IP's stories themselves, and it isn't like a healthy percentage of 40K matches aren't fundamentally mirror matches of different flavors of power armour as well.


Technically yes and no.

I agree its appears just to be player choice that Imperial appears to be taken overwhelmingly but at the same time with 40k whilst we do get different flavors of PA, the rules are different to give us a variety of different playstyles with said PA. Imperial you can only do Vader, Thrawn and Tarkin so many times before you see it as exactly mirror matches. One of the main criticisms I saw in 40k on this very forum was that in 6/7th ed. tournament players would travel from one side of the USA all the way to the other side, picked up Tau-Dar and all they did was fight the exact same list upgrades and all and they found that really boring. This is not a matter of narrative that other people have stated but more about replay ability and repetition. One of the great thing about wargames is that most people may have a core and then wiggle room to play around and ,make their list unique. FFG does not appear to do this on the competitive level due to how many exact mirror matches there are in Armada. You can only play so many times before you are either waiting for new stuff or just get bored, just like how competitive 40k players were back in the age of Tau-Dar.

No ones begrudged about people playing with what they like if that means that the playerbase overwhelmingly play Empire, however adding in say The Clone Wars I personally feel would give the game the much needed variety that people would want, not to forge narratives but to give a variety of models and dynamics that could make every game even more interesting, Empire Vs. CIS I can see already as a popular choice as well as Republic Vs. Scum, heck if we even delve into the TV series we could even get Mandalorians such as The Deathwatch taking on the Rebels, Pre Visla Vs. Chewbacca, Cad bane Vs. Boba Fett, etc. Captain Rex up against Darth Vader would make little narrative sense but tactics and replay ability-wise this would add so much more dynamism to make a tournament enjoyable to so many and avoid a potential pitfall of repetition the game could fall into.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/14 15:24:47


Post by: Kriswall


 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:


Anecdotally, the two shops I visit regularly have them in stock right now. I was unaware that there was a shortage. Then again, I don't play much X-Wing. It's possible that my shops sell more FFG than other shops and are getting a higher allocation of restocks. I frequently hear of retailers complaining that they can't get stock when the reality is that their distributor is simply prioritizing available product to their other accounts who buy more X-Wing stuff (or whatever product line). The result is that Store A is perpetually out of stock while Store B always has product on the shelf. The distributor perpetuates this.




They have been almost impossible to find in the whole province, even MeepleMart has been sold out since at least june. Whenever Paul Heaver kicked it up a notch with a Miranda+Sabine build. I had to sell one of my own in order to fulfill a commission paintjob. So it's not just one distributor, FFG is out of them too. Your shops must have had them for a while. And that can break a game that is in its infancy.


I'll take your word for it. No idea who Paul Heaver is. Sounds like a player did well with a particular build and then all the net listers broke FFG's supply chain temporarily for a ship that previously have low demand. My heart goes out to those poor, poor net listers.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/15 00:08:08


Post by: Mathieu Raymond


It's a good ship, made better by the recent addition of more bombs in the game. It's super hard to handle, though. I had to practice for almost two months before I could reliably get my bombs off where I wanted them.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/15 12:06:29


Post by: Scott-S6


 Kriswall wrote:

I'll take your word for it. No idea who Paul Heaver is. Sounds like a player did well with a particular build and then all the net listers broke FFG's supply chain temporarily for a ship that previously have low demand. My heart goes out to those poor, poor net listers.

This is a real problem though. The big differentiator for the FFG Star Wars games is that they provide a solid competitive scene where GW have always been weak. A competitive scene doesn't work nearly as well when players can't get the models they want.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/15 17:34:44


Post by: Kriswall


 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

I'll take your word for it. No idea who Paul Heaver is. Sounds like a player did well with a particular build and then all the net listers broke FFG's supply chain temporarily for a ship that previously have low demand. My heart goes out to those poor, poor net listers.

This is a real problem though. The big differentiator for the FFG Star Wars games is that they provide a solid competitive scene where GW have always been weak. A competitive scene doesn't work nearly as well when players can't get the models they want.


Have there been other issues, or is this the only real/recent example? I don't tend to hear people complain about not being able to get X-Wing or Armada product for an event. Every store I go to looks to have a full X-Wing/Armada section.

I would argue that, regardless of occasional product shortages, a competitive scene with consistent, official rules in all venues is superior to a competitive scene where each event requires a 'tournament pack' detailing the local house rules to be used and where table/terrain layout can be wildly inconsistent. You can't walk into Joe's Shmoe's House of Games and play a 'standard game' of 40k that would be more or less identical to the game you'd play anywhere else. You CAN walk into any gaming store and play a standard, as expected game of X-Wing or Armada. Legion will be like X-Wing and Armada in this respect.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/15 21:21:45


Post by: Scott-S6


 Kriswall wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

I'll take your word for it. No idea who Paul Heaver is. Sounds like a player did well with a particular build and then all the net listers broke FFG's supply chain temporarily for a ship that previously have low demand. My heart goes out to those poor, poor net listers.

This is a real problem though. The big differentiator for the FFG Star Wars games is that they provide a solid competitive scene where GW have always been weak. A competitive scene doesn't work nearly as well when players can't get the models they want.


Have there been other issues, or is this the only real/recent example? I don't tend to hear people complain about not being able to get X-Wing or Armada product for an event. Every store I go to looks to have a full X-Wing/Armada section.

I would argue that, regardless of occasional product shortages, a competitive scene with consistent, official rules in all venues is superior to a competitive scene where each event requires a 'tournament pack' detailing the local house rules to be used and where table/terrain layout can be wildly inconsistent. You can't walk into Joe's Shmoe's House of Games and play a 'standard game' of 40k that would be more or less identical to the game you'd play anywhere else. You CAN walk into any gaming store and play a standard, as expected game of X-Wing or Armada. Legion will be like X-Wing and Armada in this respect.

Yes, it's happened a bunch of times and you then end paying a good bit over retail to get them, if you can get them at all.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/15 23:09:01


Post by: Azreal13


The X Wing stock issues are being slightly misrepresented.

Essentially, back in the day, the game grew exponentially in a very short time, meaning FFG simply didn't have the capacity to meet demand. They very quickly started expanding that capacity, but for a while they simply couldn't make enough models to fulfill initial demand. This probably reached a head with the Falcon, which was wave 4 or 5? I saw one listed in eBay for something like 4x RRP, and it sold too.

As time has gone by, demand has normalized and the increased production has come online, and it has been very unusual for the same situation to occur, but because global re stocks come in waves, you do occasionally get a spike in demand between waves of a given model, meaning availability dries up for a while.

But the issues that plagued the game in its early days are much mitigated.

This isn't something any company is immune to, as anyone who plays Tau will remember with the update that featured the Riptide.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/18 17:45:29


Post by: Kriswall


 Azreal13 wrote:
The X Wing stock issues are being slightly misrepresented.

Essentially, back in the day, the game grew exponentially in a very short time, meaning FFG simply didn't have the capacity to meet demand. They very quickly started expanding that capacity, but for a while they simply couldn't make enough models to fulfill initial demand. This probably reached a head with the Falcon, which was wave 4 or 5? I saw one listed in eBay for something like 4x RRP, and it sold too.

As time has gone by, demand has normalized and the increased production has come online, and it has been very unusual for the same situation to occur, but because global re stocks come in waves, you do occasionally get a spike in demand between waves of a given model, meaning availability dries up for a while.

But the issues that plagued the game in its early days are much mitigated.

This isn't something any company is immune to, as anyone who plays Tau will remember with the update that featured the Riptide.


Gotcha... so this is largely a non-issue. FFG is just as susceptible as any other company to surprise spikes in demand.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/18 18:27:46


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Arguably they're worse off from them. And that's due to them getting stuff made in China.

If something GW sells out, I know I can typically get my hands on it in a week or three.

FFG? You're talking months in some cases.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/18 18:55:46


Post by: StygianBeach


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Arguably they're worse off from them. And that's due to them getting stuff made in China.

If something GW sells out, I know I can typically get my hands on it in a week or three.

FFG? You're talking months in some cases.


Yeah, it did not take GW too long to do the soft cover print run of the first 3 End Times books for Old Warhammer Fantasy.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/09/19 04:57:04


Post by: Stormonu


 StygianBeach wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Arguably they're worse off from them. And that's due to them getting stuff made in China.

If something GW sells out, I know I can typically get my hands on it in a week or three.

FFG? You're talking months in some cases.


Yeah, it did not take GW too long to do the soft cover print run of the first 3 End Times books for Old Warhammer Fantasy.


Or the Shadow War: Armageddon book "reprint" that had the PDF contents added to it.

Unlike the SW:A boxed set, which sold out so quickly a lot of people couldn't even preorder.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/11/30 16:49:34


Post by: EarloftheNorth


I was thinking about how many canon factions you could get in legion for the Empire vs Rebels era.....

Empire

Stormtroopers
Shoretroopers
Snowtroopers
Sandtroopers
Deathtroopers
Scout Troopers
Special Forces - Inferno squad from the latest Battlefront game.

if they are still canon

Imperial Army troopers
Imperial Navy troopers

Rebels

The security troopers from the consular ship in Episode 4
The Hoth base cold climate troopers
The Commandos in tropical gear
The rebel infantry from Rogue One.

Also the rebels are usually from a multitude of races, so they could milk that for a while.

Others

Mandolorian Clans
Tusken Raiders
Hutt Cartel Mercenaries.

There will probably be more once any more era films are produced, since there are usually units created in every movie.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/11/30 22:15:19


Post by: thekingofkings


ewoks, jawas, wookies, etc..


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/11/30 22:17:19


Post by: Grey Templar


They could go the Infinity route where each faction has a bunch of Sub-factions.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 03:02:31


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Guys name Marvo Jadoona.


Really, there's a lot of them, and they're all sandtroopers for some reason.







Wow, this game needs to find a fresh vein in an autocannibalizing franchise. Better bring in Caravan of Courage's giant to really shake things up.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 10:54:23


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Those aren't really factions, IMO - just different units in the Empire and Rebel factions.

I suppose having Mon Mothma's Rebels, the Lothal rebels and Saw Gererra's partisans would give you three factions, but only the last of those really makes sense fighting the other two, and even that's a push.

Having Sandtroopers fighting Snowtroopers makes even less sense.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 11:19:36


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Guys name Marvo Jadoona.


Really, there's a lot of them, and they're all sandtroopers for some reason.







Wow, this game needs to find a fresh vein in an autocannibalizing franchise. Better bring in Caravan of Courage's giant to really shake things up.


Slag off the Ewok films again, and I'll cut you!

(Loves those films I do.)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 11:30:42


Post by: Riquende


I posted this a while ago in the Star Wars/FFG subforum down the page, about how I'd personally do Infinity style subfactions:

 Riquende wrote:
What I'd like to see to combat the idea of limited factions is a series of sub-factions, much as Infinity does sectorials really. You could have limited availability of certain troop types of vehicles depending one which part of the army you were building into. They're long out of date, but I always liked the way the West End Games sourcebooks described the organisation of both the Alliance and the Empire. I think I'd probably go for something like this:

Rebel Alliance

Alliance Sector Command - this would be a 'normal' army, with a spread of unit qualities and decent access to older vehicles etc. What we've seen in the demos, basically
Alliance SpecForce - troops retained directly by Alliance High Command, these guys would be an elite army, with every unit highly statted for its role but not particularly multi-talented. The WEG sourcebook lists unit types as Infiltrators, Marines, Pathfinders, Urban Guerillas, Wilderness Fighters & Heavy Weapon specialists. They would probably have limited vehicle support
Alliance Intelligence Cell - mostly irregular forces with perhaps a small number of commando units as backup. I like the idea of 'civilian protestors' who can lay traps etc

Galactic Empire

Stormtrooper Corps - featuring the whole gamut of the boys in white, scouts, zero-G troops, the whole lot. No vehicles larger than a speeder bike to reinforce their fast assault role
Imperial Army/Navy - The basic troopers, this would be the subfaction to go for if you want an armoured assault, with little in the way of elite infantry but above average access to AT-STs
Imperial Intelligence - I wasn't really sure where to go with the third Imperial option, but I think this one would be interesting. You've essentially got 3 areas to look at - the ISB (& COMPNOR), the Ubiqtorate and the Inquisitorius. I think this could work with COMPNOR assault squads as poorly trained yet fanatical infantry backing up teams of intelligence agents and squads of force-using minor Inquisitors as seen in the Rebels cartoon

I mean, it won't happen, but that's how I'd do it.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 12:20:20


Post by: Chikout


Well GW just had what might be their best six months ever. More profit in 6 months than the entirety of last year which was already a decent year for GW. It is safe to say the 8th edition has done very very well for GW. If legion is to take the top spot it will really have to take off.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 12:28:53


Post by: auticus


The thing with 40k is its similar to World of Warcraft. Everyone is trying to kill it but people have invested so much into their 40k armies or warcraft characters that just throwing them out for another game is not feasible to a lot of people.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 12:41:48


Post by: Hollow


Nor desirable.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 15:38:13


Post by: thekingofkings


 auticus wrote:
The thing with 40k is its similar to World of Warcraft. Everyone is trying to kill it but people have invested so much into their 40k armies or warcraft characters that just throwing them out for another game is not feasible to a lot of people.



it also depends on whether they can really channel the popularity of Star Wars. It is obviously far and away a more popular setting (since most people that arent gamers have never heard of nor care about 40k) so if they can time it right and not flub it, should be a easy win. X-wing pretty much toppled 40k from its perch already.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 15:48:52


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Guys name Marvo Jadoona.


Really, there's a lot of them, and they're all sandtroopers for some reason.







Wow, this game needs to find a fresh vein in an autocannibalizing franchise. Better bring in Caravan of Courage's giant to really shake things up.


Slag off the Ewok films again, and I'll cut you!

(Loves those films I do.)



Hey, only those of us who enjoyed the films even remember them. If I slag, I slag out of love.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 21:55:38


Post by: EarloftheNorth


 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Those aren't really factions, IMO - just different units in the Empire and Rebel factions.

I suppose having Mon Mothma's Rebels, the Lothal rebels and Saw Gererra's partisans would give you three factions, but only the last of those really makes sense fighting the other two, and even that's a push.

Having Sandtroopers fighting Snowtroopers makes even less sense.


I suppose I should have called the different Imperials and Rebels sub factions, although I would argue that you're unlikely to see a lot of mix and match in any Imperial Stormtrooper force (beyond scouts and basic stormtroopers)......they are likely to be used to make separate armies, Snowtrooper Hoth army etc.

I also did include other separate factions......

Tuskens, limited to the one planet of course, but they literally hate everyone else (even other tusken tribes) and will fight Rebels, Imperials, local settlers, Jawas, Pirates etc.

Mandalorian, mercenaries willing to work for many different sides.

Criminal gangs (Black Sun), Pirates, Hutt Mercenaries etc. Its probable that the Imperials at least would spend as much time stomping down the criminal element as fighting Rebels.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/01 22:33:33


Post by: Chute82


Don’t forget the Star Wars Christmas special miniatures, oh how I need Lumpy and Itchy miniatures


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/02 00:58:12


Post by: phillv85


I'm not even sure why but it really doesn't appeal to me. I love Star Wars, but I don't think the factions excite me enough. As has been mentioned outside of throwing in smuggling cartels it's pretty much down to two. I know people have mentioned other races, but other than wookies they're going to be a bit naff, especially if this is hero focussed. I can't see Wicket giving Darth Vader a good hiding with his spear and slingshot.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/02 01:13:20


Post by: thekingofkings


phillv85 wrote:
I'm not even sure why but it really doesn't appeal to me. I love Star Wars, but I don't think the factions excite me enough. As has been mentioned outside of throwing in smuggling cartels it's pretty much down to two. I know people have mentioned other races, but other than wookies they're going to be a bit naff, especially if this is hero focussed. I can't see Wicket giving Darth Vader a good hiding with his spear and slingshot.


It is just a matter of what all they get and can do, If they can leverage all of what Disney owns (and EU like they are doing in X-wing) then there can be some potentially interesting matchups, hell Darth Maul vs Darth Vader


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/02 20:00:03


Post by: Mezmaron


Core Set miniatures:
*The Rebel contents contains two unique miniatures - Luke and the AT-RT. The rest of the models contain duplicates, leading to seven miniatures that are included twice.
*The Imperial side is much the same, with two unique Speeder Bikes, and one Vader miniature. The remaining models contain duplicates, meaning there are six miniatures that are included twice.

http://mezmaronslair.blogspot.com/2017/12/star-wars-legion-core-set-miniatures.html

Thoughts on this? I was hoping for more unique sculpts.




40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/02 20:33:16


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


I'm actually surprised they have so many sculpts for the 'basic' troop type (I expected 3 of each sculpt not 2)

(and with the CGI especially in the 2nd set of films you actually did see a bunch of duplicates on screen so its movie accurate)


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/02 21:32:55


Post by: thekingofkings


I am not having a problem with generic stormtroopers looking like generic stormtroopers.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/03 14:38:56


Post by: AndrewGPaul


Looks like enough so that each squad has no duplicate poses. Seems fine to me. Even with the coloured boxes to highlight duplicates, those photos look fine.

Depending on the moulding machinery, more poses could mean more sprues needed, increasing costs for little if any benefit.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/20 21:03:22


Post by: Rayvon


I can see it selling very well for the models, I know so many collectors of star wars armada but not one person that plays it, I suspect that those type of people as well as gamers will be buying in, but as for it taking the place of 40k, no way.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 05:21:20


Post by: thekingofkings


 Rayvon wrote:
I can see it selling very well for the models, I know so many collectors of star wars armada but not one person that plays it, I suspect that those type of people as well as gamers will be buying in, but as for it taking the place of 40k, no way.


Its very possible, I remember folks saying that "magic was just a fad and would never be bigger than D&D" , Star Wars is a much more popular IP than 40k, if they do a good job with the rules and support it, it could easily take 40k's place, especially in the US.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 14:17:45


Post by: kronk


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot?

Short term? Yes.

Long term? No.

Remember Star Wars RPG? Which one? West End Games? They had the license for a while. Then WotC had it. Now, FFG has it. For now.

Remember Decipher's Star Wars CCG? I do. Decipher had the license for a few years. LucasArts (or Lucas Films) decided that they wanted more money for a card license and rented it out to WotC for a few years.

Remember WotC's Star Wars miniatures? WotC had the license from 2004 to 2010. I can't speak to why it ended as I don't care and can't be bothered to google it.

Now FFG has the board license for at least a subset of game types. They'll continue to have it so long as they AND LucasArts both agree that it's financially viable. Then, it goes poof.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 14:23:38


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Added to which FFG don’t keep anything going long term. I’ve enjoyed Imperial Assault these last few years but the current expansion seems to be the last, there’s an App to support the game but it’s clear the product is being shelved for development.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 15:53:22


Post by: Sqorgar


 kronk wrote:
40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot?

Short term? Yes.

Long term? No.

Remember Star Wars RPG? Which one? West End Games? They had the license for a while. Then WotC had it. Now, FFG has it. For now.

Remember Decipher's Star Wars CCG? I do. Decipher had the license for a few years. LucasArts (or Lucas Films) decided that they wanted more money for a card license and rented it out to WotC for a few years.

Remember WotC's Star Wars miniatures? WotC had the license from 2004 to 2010. I can't speak to why it ended as I don't care and can't be bothered to google it.

Now FFG has the board license for at least a subset of game types. They'll continue to have it so long as they AND LucasArts both agree that it's financially viable. Then, it goes poof.

I don't really have anything to add that Star Wars Miniatures ended because Wizards of the Coast didn't renew the Star Wars license, and to also remember Star Wars Galaxies, which shutdown due to losing the SW license to BioWare.

Also, the WEG RPG and Decipher CCG were really top of the class and expanded the universe greatly, and a large part of why Star Wars remained relevant during its 25 years off. Wizards, I think, was very limited in what they could do with the Star Wars universe compared to those two, and while their products were largely subpar, it's also possible that there is an inevitable decline that Star Wars licensed products will hit once they've hit the limit of the surprisingly small license. I mean, you can do EU stuff, but it doesn't have the same recognition or selling power. Heck, even the prequels are avoided at all cost, making Star Wars basically a license of 3 movies and some fanservice.

FFG has the benefit of a few extra (subpar) movies, but how many Star Wars miniature games have there been? Three so far, if you don't include pnp RPGs or LEGOs, one of which being another FFG game that's still in production. Star Wars Miniatures is just old enough that you can get most of the almost thousand figures for pennies. How many times will people buy stormtroopers? And what happens when FFG runs out of stormtroopers? Is that why Imperial Assault became Legions at a different scale?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 19:59:39


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There’s also something interesting to factor in.

It seems order levels of Star Wars toys are down yet again.

Whilst not exactly conclusive (although I’ve got a complete collection, TFA figure were crap compared to immediately preceding lines, limiting appeal to collectors), it does suggest that the commonly held perception of a Star Wars license being a ‘if we release it, they will come’ moneyspinner may no longer be all that accurate.

And this is a game from a company known to drop lines half way through. And indeed, one who’s business practices aren’t necessarily all that well regarded.

Us nerds are a funny old bunch. To some degree, we’ll simply chuck money at stuff we like. But we’re also incredibly diverse. What pleases Nerd A, can turn Nerd B off entirely, even though both are heavily committed to the same base license.

Example I can immediately think of? Funkopops. My friend loves them. Not in a way ‘must buy every single one’ way, but in a ‘must have all of those from properties I even dimly approve of’. Me? They leave me utterly cold. I just don’t get them. They don’t do anything, and seem awfully cheap in terms of construction for what you’re paying.

In summary? Something being a Star Wars license is not in itself a recipe for success, and some could argue that Star Wars over exposure could be its biggest hurdle.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 20:33:28


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


For the drop in orders, I wonder how much that has to do with the IP versus the products themselves. For example, the micromachines released for TFA and Rogue One were subpar compared to previous micromachines ranges and especially compared to X-Wing minis and those Hot Wheels Die Cast ships (may they rot in warehouse hell). There are no micromachines for TLJ despite there being plenty of starship designs.

I can easily see the following explanation:
1). Company releases crappy toys.
2). Customers realize toys are crappy, don't buy so many of them.
3). Company concludes Star Wars is cold product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funkopops release a pheromone. If you are immune to it, please contact the resistance. We need every able body we can get.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 20:37:52


Post by: Sqorgar


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In summary? Something being a Star Wars license is not in itself a recipe for success, and some could argue that Star Wars over exposure could be its biggest hurdle.
The biggest hurdle is that everything Star Wars has already been done, and done better.

A Star Wars RPG? Eh, it's not as good as the West End Games one.

A Star Wars CCG? Eh, it's not as good as the Decipher one.

A Star Wars MMO? Eh, it's not as good as the SOE one.

A Star Wars miniatures game about space ships? Eh, it's not as good as X-Wing.

A Star Wars action figure? Eh, the 80s did it better.

A Star Wars movie? Eh, it's not as good as the original trilogy.

It's not enough to release a new Star Wars item, you are competing with every other Star Wars product released in that genre. So far, FFG has succeeded by bettering past works (Rebellion is better than SW Risk) or by doing a product without a recognizable SW parent (Imperial Assault, Destiny, X-Wing). Their pnp RPG seems passable at best, and Legion doesn't look like it will compare favorably to other Star War miniature games (even Imperial Assault) or miniature games in general. The Star Wars license is filled with best in class examples, and it's a tough legacy to live up to.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/21 22:23:42


Post by: Eldarain


I think the volitility of the license precludes it from any lasting dominance.

The mechanics of the FFG games have all looked strong so if it was just a question of figure/rules quality I think they might have had a chance. Less so now that GW isn't actively crapping on their fans though.

If nothing else this thread has reminded me how much I loved the Decipher CCG and am glad I kept my collection.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/22 10:13:25


Post by: Stormonu


 Sqorgar wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In summary? Something being a Star Wars license is not in itself a recipe for success, and some could argue that Star Wars over exposure could be its biggest hurdle.
The biggest hurdle is that everything Star Wars has already been done, and done better.

A Star Wars RPG? Eh, it's not as good as the West End Games one.

A Star Wars CCG? Eh, it's not as good as the Decipher one.

A Star Wars MMO? Eh, it's not as good as the SOE one.

A Star Wars miniatures game about space ships? Eh, it's not as good as X-Wing.

A Star Wars action figure? Eh, the 80s did it better.

A Star Wars movie? Eh, it's not as good as the original trilogy.

It's not enough to release a new Star Wars item, you are competing with every other Star Wars product released in that genre. So far, FFG has succeeded by bettering past works (Rebellion is better than SW Risk) or by doing a product without a recognizable SW parent (Imperial Assault, Destiny, X-Wing). Their pnp RPG seems passable at best, and Legion doesn't look like it will compare favorably to other Star War miniature games (even Imperial Assault) or miniature games in general. The Star Wars license is filled with best in class examples, and it's a tough legacy to live up to.


Before there was X-Wing, there was WEG's Star Warriors

Before there was Armada, there was WotC's Starship Battles

Before there was Legion, there was WEG's Star Wars Miniatures Battles and WotC's Star Wars Miniatures game

For every "Best in Class", there's been half a dozen Star Wars stinkers that have been forgotten. I think Legion will be on the better end of the table. I'll buy into it; it doesn't have to depose GW's 40K - it just has to be good enough to stand on its own.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/22 10:25:38


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
For the drop in orders, I wonder how much that has to do with the IP versus the products themselves. For example, the micromachines released for TFA and Rogue One were subpar compared to previous micromachines ranges and especially compared to X-Wing minis and those Hot Wheels Die Cast ships (may they rot in warehouse hell). There are no micromachines for TLJ despite there being plenty of starship designs.

I can easily see the following explanation:
1). Company releases crappy toys.
2). Customers realize toys are crappy, don't buy so many of them.
3). Company concludes Star Wars is cold product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Funkopops release a pheromone. If you are immune to it, please contact the resistance. We need every able body we can get.


That is a possibility - definitely limits the appeal to collectors. Tell you what, here's a trio of pilot figures from the recentish past.

A Legacy Series Rebel Pilot (I think this one is Wes Janson? Gets shot down at the battle of Yavin.



Then we have the single figure version of Poe Dameron from the TFA range (not the Black Series version)



Look at the difference between those two. Legacy Collection features greater articulation and far superior (and objectively so!) detail. Helmet is removable, the webbing isn't molded into the body. Both retailed in the UK for around £10. Guess which I'd rather buy? Guess which looks better in someone's collection, carded or uncarded?

Finally, the most recent one. Resistance Gunner Paige



For my money, she's the stand out figure from TLJ range. Removable helmet and breath mask, nicely detailed, would've preferred additional articulation (oh, and a holster for her Blaster).

The Legacy Collection was the pinnacle of Star Wars action figures. The right mix of breadth of choice, detail of figures and fairly reasonable price point. The more recent ones are simply cheap by comparison. Heck, if I hadn't bought one myself, I'd the Poe figure in particular was a knock off!



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/22 21:20:05


Post by: Easy E


@MDG- I hae seen some nerdy posts here on Dakka, but that last one maybe one of the top 10. Kudos my friend.

I wonder how that Poe Dameron figure compares to the original X-wing pilots from Kenner? They look pretty similar, but I haven't seen one in a long time.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/23 07:47:31


Post by: creeping-deth87


 Eldarain wrote:
I think the volitility of the license precludes it from any lasting dominance.

The mechanics of the FFG games have all looked strong so if it was just a question of figure/rules quality I think they might have had a chance. Less so now that GW isn't actively crapping on their fans though.

If nothing else this thread has reminded me how much I loved the Decipher CCG and am glad I kept my collection.


Hear, hear! Still have my 5 binders full of the Decipher cards tucked away in my closet. That game was truly something special. I'd probably still be playing to this day if Decipher never lost the license.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/23 10:45:22


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Yeah, the new Star Wars figures are very poor for the RRP. Very rudimentary articulation, given that they were multi jointed a few years ago, and with better detail. But I guess they just decided that making them cheap increased the profit margin. The price of action figures knocks me down though, £9-10 a pop is a lot for a 3 3/4” figure however nicely made.

The Decipher card game was vastly superior to what came after. But Lucasfilm decided the licence should go to Wizards, owned by Hasbro in whom I recall lucasfilm have shares. So you can imagine why they’d happily see the licence go to them. But the CCG wizards made didn’t amount to anything and within a couple years it was being dumped in discount bins and nothing was made for Revenge of the Sith. Simply short term greed on the part of Lucasfilm.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/23 11:09:47


Post by: chromedog


The black series 6" figures, however, are very nice, with good articulation and likenesses.

The last good likeness/posability 3 3/4" figure I got was an ep3 Commander Cody. Hands, knees, helmet came off, revealing clone head.

The worst ones for me were the "power of the force" extremely buff power-lifter physique figures from the 90s. Like some unholy offspring of a 3 3/4 SW figure and a he-man figure.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/23 17:02:07


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


The Star Wars command figures seem to hit the mark for my son and his cousins. Simple and cheap, you can get a huge force with vehicles for the price of a few storm trooper action figures. Of course, they are not poseable.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 06:16:51


Post by: Stormonu


Don't know how we got talking about Star Wars figures, but...

I certainly like the more articulate figures, and greatly dislike the return to the Kenner-like figure lack of articulation.

But, the regular figures are toys, better able to withstand the pre-teen antics of those actually playing with them. Seriously - the detailed figures we were getting for a while were fragile. I've had several come apart just attemping to pose them.

The Black Series have thankfully been retained for those of us who like to have the "quality" posable figures. I can live with that.

Besides, I'm about out of shelf space where I can display stormtroopers - there's only so many variations you can make of "white, skull-faced armor with color accents" anyways.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 06:37:38


Post by: Peregrine


I'm really surprised to hear praise for the old Star Wars CCG. IMO it was a mediocre game at best, with some massive design flaws that only got worse as the game went on. I don't know if the WOTC game was any better, since I never even read the rules for it, but I don't think the old one was much of a loss.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 10:54:12


Post by: Howard A Treesong


The old one was like an RPG, but a card game. You could train Yoda to fly an x-wing and make him attack the Death Star, or capture and carbon freeze rebel characters. It was hopeless as a competitive game to take seriously because of the vastness of the rules and the volume of niche abilities and activities, but it was a lot of fun.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 11:24:27


Post by: Peregrine


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The old one was like an RPG, but a card game. You could train Yoda to fly an x-wing and make him attack the Death Star, or capture and carbon freeze rebel characters. It was hopeless as a competitive game to take seriously because of the vastness of the rules and the volume of niche abilities and activities, but it was a lot of fun.


You just described exactly why it was a badly designed game IMO. It kept trying to do all these RPG-like things that worked awkwardly at best in the structure of a CCG. Like, sure, you could train Yoda to fly an x-wing and attack the death star, but what do you do if Yoda is discarded on turn 1 from a force drain? Or if your opponent doesn't bring a death star to destroy? You pretty much had to negotiate with your opponent about what events you wanted to happen, build decks specifically to work with the desired events, and probably introduce a bunch of custom rules ("start the game with Yoda in play, the dark side can't go to Dagobah until after the third turn") to reduce randomness and allow the events to actually happen. And then both players had to forget about winning by the rules of the game and focus on making the cool thing happen. You ended up with an RPG where, instead of buying a rulebook and playing the game, you had to get lucky and pull the RPG rules you wanted out of random packs.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 14:38:01


Post by: kronk


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
I think the volitility of the license precludes it from any lasting dominance.

The mechanics of the FFG games have all looked strong so if it was just a question of figure/rules quality I think they might have had a chance. Less so now that GW isn't actively crapping on their fans though.

If nothing else this thread has reminded me how much I loved the Decipher CCG and am glad I kept my collection.


Hear, hear! Still have my 5 binders full of the Decipher cards tucked away in my closet. That game was truly something special. I'd probably still be playing to this day if Decipher never lost the license.


Dude, let's play some decipher! I will break out my undercover spy/mining droid deck. Go on, deploy. I fething dare you!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 17:36:43


Post by: creeping-deth87


 Peregrine wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The old one was like an RPG, but a card game. You could train Yoda to fly an x-wing and make him attack the Death Star, or capture and carbon freeze rebel characters. It was hopeless as a competitive game to take seriously because of the vastness of the rules and the volume of niche abilities and activities, but it was a lot of fun.


You just described exactly why it was a badly designed game IMO. It kept trying to do all these RPG-like things that worked awkwardly at best in the structure of a CCG. Like, sure, you could train Yoda to fly an x-wing and attack the death star, but what do you do if Yoda is discarded on turn 1 from a force drain? Or if your opponent doesn't bring a death star to destroy? You pretty much had to negotiate with your opponent about what events you wanted to happen, build decks specifically to work with the desired events, and probably introduce a bunch of custom rules ("start the game with Yoda in play, the dark side can't go to Dagobah until after the third turn" to reduce randomness and allow the events to actually happen. And then both players had to forget about winning by the rules of the game and focus on making the cool thing happen. You ended up with an RPG where, instead of buying a rulebook and playing the game, you had to get lucky and pull the RPG rules you wanted out of random packs.


Well if you were really serious about doing this, you would have included more than 1 Yoda in your deck so that the unlucky Force drain didn't completely tank your idea. Light Side players had access to their own Death Star location so you actually didn't need to count on the other player to bring one. In fact there was an entire deck archetype, with its own objective card, built on doing the trench run. It was even a fairly strong competitive deck too. You couldn't actually deploy to Dagobah anyway, so getting there would be pretty tough to do by third turn regardless.



 kronk wrote:


Dude, let's play some decipher! I will break out my undercover spy/mining droid deck. Go on, deploy. I fething dare you!


lmao omg the mining droids were such silly nonsense, I completely forgot about those. I shall counter with my Ewok deck and we will have a battle of total mediocrity. Not a single character of ability >2 will hit the table! I shall send my Ewoks forth through your minefields and they will chuck their spears at anything that looks like a droid!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/24 21:44:30


Post by: Sqorgar


 Peregrine wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear praise for the old Star Wars CCG. IMO it was a mediocre game at best, with some massive design flaws that only got worse as the game went on. I don't know if the WOTC game was any better, since I never even read the rules for it, but I don't think the old one was much of a loss.
You go too far, sir. Not much of a loss? Getting rid of my Star Wars CCG collection was the biggest mistake of my gaming life (I was moving to Japan and shrinking my stuff). They are virtually impossible to get now and cost a fortune - largely because people (smarter than me) still keep the cards.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/25 12:34:52


Post by: Peregrine


 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Well if you were really serious about doing this, you would have included more than 1 Yoda in your deck so that the unlucky Force drain didn't completely tank your idea. Light Side players had access to their own Death Star location so you actually didn't need to count on the other player to bring one. In fact there was an entire deck archetype, with its own objective card, built on doing the trench run. It was even a fairly strong competitive deck too. You couldn't actually deploy to Dagobah anyway, so getting there would be pretty tough to do by third turn regardless.


Ok, sure, the details of a game I haven't played in ~20 years are wrong, but the basic point stands: too many of the cool things you could do required way too much advance planning and effort, and weren't really practical within the structure of a CCG.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2017/12/26 00:53:57


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Even then the cards were too expensive to get multiples of. But I remember my mum buying me a single booster of Premiere for Christmas and I pulled Darth Vader. Was overjoyed because I could never have got one any other way.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/04 22:11:36


Post by: odinsgrandson


 Stormonu wrote:


Before there was X-Wing, there was WEG's Star Warriors

Before there was Armada, there was WotC's Starship Battles

Before there was Legion, there was WEG's Star Wars Miniatures Battles and WotC's Star Wars Miniatures game

For every "Best in Class", there's been half a dozen Star Wars stinkers that have been forgotten. I think Legion will be on the better end of the table. I'll buy into it; it doesn't have to depose GW's 40K - it just has to be good enough to stand on its own.



I feel that you bring up a good point. We're not exactly delving into completely new territory here- the Star Wars label isn't enough to make the game a massive success. If you make a bad game and put Star Wars on it, gamers will still notice that it sucks.

But the brand does give it a leg up from the outset, and that's a big deal in tabletop miniatures games where momentum matters too much. Fantasy Flight's brand and distribution saturation will combine with the Star Wars brand here to give the game a good start.

If the quality of the minis and rules are what we've come to expect from FFG, then the game is sure to be a hit- at least in the short term- and I wonder about the long term. If FFG play their cards right, it could really be a strong contender for many years to come.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/04 22:47:36


Post by: Azreal13


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Even then the cards were too expensive to get multiples of. But I remember my mum buying me a single booster of Premiere for Christmas and I pulled Darth Vader. Was overjoyed because I could never have got one any other way.


I was big into the game, and probably had one of the larger collections locally. As a consequence, when some of the more casual players wanted to trade I'd be really hard pushed to find much I wanted from them, whereas they'd frequently find multiple cards they wanted, often that I had several copies of and no immediate use for. In those circumstances, rather than refuse the trade, I'd offer them the chance to buy me a booster for the card instead, that way cards found their way back into the play pool, they got precisely the card they want and, at worse, I ended up with a different rare card I had no use for.

Until one glorious day when a chap went down and picked me up a booster from the from the front of the shop, I handed him the card he wanted, then cracked open the packet to reveal a foil Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 10:03:26


Post by: iron_within88


That's.....alot of money for low budget models that are closer to those army men packets you buy from supermarkets for a few $ rather than games workshop quality.

Comparison

7 Stormtroopers in unit expansion is $24.95 USD
10 Dreadspears (dark elves) is $35 USD and vastly superior in quality.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 10:11:36


Post by: Mr Morden


 Sqorgar wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear praise for the old Star Wars CCG. IMO it was a mediocre game at best, with some massive design flaws that only got worse as the game went on. I don't know if the WOTC game was any better, since I never even read the rules for it, but I don't think the old one was much of a loss.
You go too far, sir. Not much of a loss? Getting rid of my Star Wars CCG collection was the biggest mistake of my gaming life (I was moving to Japan and shrinking my stuff). They are virtually impossible to get now and cost a fortune - largely because people (smarter than me) still keep the cards.


Really? are they - damn I recently gave a load of my cards away because they were just gathering dust!


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 16:24:50


Post by: odinsgrandson


iron_within88 wrote:
That's.....alot of money for low budget models that are closer to those army men packets you buy from supermarkets for a few $ rather than games workshop quality.

Comparison

7 Stormtroopers in unit expansion is $24.95 USD
10 Dreadspears (dark elves) is $35 USD and vastly superior in quality.



Games Workshop prices aren't bad across the board- but they're terrible in comparison to themselves.

For example, for that same $35 you can get ONE independent character (who roughly matches the guys in the box).

GW's quality isn't great across the board either. Most of their larger kits are pretty great, but a lot of their troopers are pretty dull (like the Space Marine scouts with their leather tupes).

I haven't seen the FFG stormtroopers in person yet. While I expect them to be PVC, I don't expect the quality to be all that low.

Basically, FFG has yet to really impress me with their minis, but they're not 'army men' quality.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 22:32:53


Post by: thekingofkings


iron_within88 wrote:
That's.....alot of money for low budget models that are closer to those army men packets you buy from supermarkets for a few $ rather than games workshop quality.

Comparison

7 Stormtroopers in unit expansion is $24.95 USD
10 Dreadspears (dark elves) is $35 USD and vastly superior in quality.


I dont see those as superior in quality at all, stormtroopers have a specific and iconic look from the 70's. they dont need alot. as for gw, those models are just over busy IMO and pretty crappy overall.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 23:37:02


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Peregrine wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear praise for the old Star Wars CCG. IMO it was a mediocre game at best, with some massive design flaws that only got worse as the game went on. I don't know if the WOTC game was any better, since I never even read the rules for it, but I don't think the old one was much of a loss.


So like X-Wing then ? ( I think I or Az13 have made the comparison between current bad FFG ideas and bad old CCG ideas)

I thought it was a fairly okay game,the main problem was lots of the fluffy gimmick 'story' decks had no chance against the focussed face smashing decks, the last few expansions was mega-rancor droppings however due to milking the cashcow extra hard before the licensing expired. The WoTC game was mediocre and just felt like a system they already had on hand and justed bolted Star Wars on


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/05 23:51:13


Post by: Azreal13


Fething pod racing.



40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/06 23:26:25


Post by: Gimgamgoo


iron_within88 wrote:
That's.....alot of money for low budget models that are closer to those army men packets you buy from supermarkets for a few $ rather than games workshop quality.

Comparison

7 Stormtroopers in unit expansion is $24.95 USD
10 Dreadspears (dark elves) is $35 USD and vastly superior in quality.


Ah... I guess the Stormtroopers have some wide open flat areas that aren't quite up to GW lover standards... skulls, spikes or runes on every available surface.

If a model looks exactly like the film version it is copying, why is it considered a poor model?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/07 00:00:42


Post by: Azreal13


I'm guessing people somehow think more details = more expensive to make?

It's the only thing that explains the constant justification people offer for GW's alleged higher "quality" and price when what they're actually defending is greater greeble density.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/07 02:39:46


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Has SW taking over 40k's spot already? Or is it happening soon?


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/07 04:59:57


Post by: SirStudent


No matter what happens GW will never be eclipsed by any company for at least the next 10 years. They are far too big to be eaten, BUT they will lose CHUNKS of their market.

Star Wars may be a popular IP, but it's going to take a combination of games from other companies (Warmachine from PP, Bolt Action from Warlord, etc) to "overthrow" 40k. Remember, 40k is the most popular game out there, and the only way to truly beat it is simply to be more popular than 40k, which is extremely unlikely in the wargaming area, even for Star Wars.

The best way to think of GW is simply as the Imperium of Man. It will always have competitors that will conquer it's worlds, but in the end it will all be nommed by the Tyranids.
You can put whatever preferred company as the Tyranids in this analogy, but point being GW will be slowly whittled away from the center stage. It's just going to take a LONG time.


40k stability- can Star Wars take its spot? @ 2018/01/07 07:57:23


Post by: iron_within88


 Gimgamgoo wrote:
iron_within88 wrote:
That's.....alot of money for low budget models that are closer to those army men packets you buy from supermarkets for a few $ rather than games workshop quality.

Comparison

7 Stormtroopers in unit expansion is $24.95 USD
10 Dreadspears (dark elves) is $35 USD and vastly superior in quality.


Ah... I guess the Stormtroopers have some wide open flat areas that aren't quite up to GW lover standards... skulls, spikes or runes on every available surface.

If a model looks exactly like the film version it is copying, why is it considered a poor model?


if i ever feel like watching star wars again ill make sure to keep an eye out for those obvious mold lines on the storm troopers armour they just painted over.