Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It pulls a lot from some very modern rules sets. I see it almost like Bolt Action 2.0 in many ways.

A big mistake I see many other players make is they setup terrain like you would a 40k table, which means terrible setups for actual tactical gameplay. 40k just has giant blobs of buildings and open streets as you try to awkwardly place your giant units in or around them.

Legion, much like Bolt Action, MEdge, Gates, and more have tactical terrain rules that encourage the use of terrain. Players really need to use more area terrain too, and that's even defined in the rules. Don't be afraid to place those chest high walls (barricades) around buildings like an outer wall. Put those marketplaces on the table.

Appending my next post:
First, anyone find some good list builders out there?

So I haven't read the full rules yet, too much time at work. However, someone pointed this out on the FFG forums:

GRAND ARMY
Players who wish to play a larger game may construct grand
armies instead of standard armies. A grand army follows all the
standard rules for army construction, but its total point value
is 1,600 instead of 800 and it may include additional units.
Additionally, battles between grand armies are conducted on
a 4' x 6' battlefield. During step 5 of setup, do not draw any
deployment cards, and during step 6 each player has only one
opportunity to eliminate a card. Finally, during step 8, each
player should deploy their units within range 2 of a 4’ edge of
the battlefield, opposite their opponent.

RANKS
Each grand army must include the following:

Commander: One to three commander units.
Corps: Five to ten corps units.
Special Forces: Up to five special forces units.
Support: Up to five support units.
Heavy: Up to three heavy units.

That basically sounds like a traditional wargame size. Full 4x6 foot table, only 1 deployment type, but double the units on the table.

With 40k I was sure I wouldn't want to play past 1000 points because anything more just made the alpha strike problem worse. Here, I'm very interested in trying large point value games.

I don't see any use for a 1600 point game for now
maybe later with more vehicles or larger models and more variation on corps units

also because most people would have not enough terrain for a large game and could get the wrong impression

800 points is fine (as it is for Bolt Action)

A big mistake I see many other players make is they setup terrain like you would a 40k table

definitely less this
http://chaptermasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_2732.png

and more this
https://countofaverland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/super-sized-deadzone-table.jpg

 kodos wrote:

definitely less this
http://chaptermasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_2732.png

and more this
https://countofaverland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/super-sized-deadzone-table.jpg

Yes! The deadzone table may be too much, but hey, I'd try a fight on that table. Actually, there's rules for fast and slow climbing, so sure.

Units really do survive quite well under fire when in heavy cover. Making you use those flanking and special weapon units to dislodge units. Seeing these crappy 40k non-terrain tables for SW kinda hurts.

All my tables are going to include alien forest or long grass zones.

Climbing is nicely not super concerned with how big the elevation change is so it functions about the same regardless of building height. It can accommodate a lot of terrain options, though I'm not sure if its efficient enough to be a good idea to build a table around climbing.

The rulebook states you should have a bout a quarter of the table covered in terrain. That amounts to about 4.5 square feet of solid terrain. A Malifaux table expects about a third terrain coverage on a table half the size (3 square feet) so you apparently want about a table and a half worth of Malifaux stuff on the board.

Yeah, the problem with any 28mm wargame nowadays is that tables look more like an Epic 40k or Battletech (6mm) battlefield. Lots of open dead space and basic chunky buildings that are just LOS blocking items. Those are killing fields that excercise dice rolling, not good thematic and tactical terrain, and no game should be judged on how it functions on a table like that.

With what can be done at 28mm, it's a travesty.

I have not yet played it, but the basic mechanics seem solid.

There are a few issues with how the ruleset is written right now. Like it being unclear how multiple sources of the same rule stack(General Weiss in an AT-ST). They clearly intend multiple sources to stack from language elsewhere, but it is not 100% explicit and that is necessary for a good ruleset.

There is also a hilarious number of typos in their general rule document.

Interesting that the large battle is played down the length of the board, rather than across the width.

What is "range 2", how much room does that leave between opposing forces at the start of the game and what are basic weapon ranges like?

Range 2 is 12". Each range band is 6"

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Interesting that the large battle is played down the length of the board, rather than across the width.

What is "range 2", how much room does that leave between opposing forces at the start of the game and what are basic weapon ranges like?

Your standard blasters are range 3 with pistols range 2 and grenades range 1. Heavy Weapon teams can go anywhere from one to four depending on weapon.

It's Star Wars, so will make a huge initial splash, but ultimately will quickly fall stale and formulaic with new expansions being better then the older stuff to get you to buy them. Adding individual characters to the game will cause difficulties later as there are far more Rebels then Imperial characters unless FFG dips heavily into expanded universe. I mean, seriously, General Veers? The guy that had like five lines in all of Empire Strikes Back? Can't wait until "Trooper K5468" makes his Imperial entrance next to Lando Calrissian.

People are going to either hate or love this game. Me? I hate it. Models are blah, a bunch of proprietary extra accessories required to play- dice, measuring template, cards- and game play that is neither innovative, or different. It's just familiar with play mechanics seemingly borrowed from other FFG games. If anything, FFG went the safe and familiar route with this game, and it's going to get stale fast.

And? Feel better for venting that you don't like X toy?

Because you described 40k there too.

There there... We know a hot new game coming out threatens your love of your current game, but guess what, people can like all sorts of things independently of another, or concurrently, without diminishing either.

I'll be keeping my Space Marine army, but while 8th edition of 40k gets played less and less in my group due to glaring gameplay issues they'll never fix, I've already convinced 2 players that don't play miniature games to try Legion.

But I'm still going to complete my space Marine army along side my rebel army, because 40k and Star Wars are both awesome.

 Vertrucio wrote:

 kodos wrote:

definitely less this
http://chaptermasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_2732.png

and more this
https://countofaverland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/super-sized-deadzone-table.jpg

Yes! The deadzone table may be too much, but hey, I'd try a fight on that table. Actually, there's rules for fast and slow climbing, so sure.

Units really do survive quite well under fire when in heavy cover. Making you use those flanking and special weapon units to dislodge units. Seeing these crappy 40k non-terrain tables for SW kinda hurts.

All my tables are going to include alien forest or long grass zones.

Yup. It makes having Blast a worthwhile thing since that ignores cover so grenades are a worthwhile upgrade, as is simply getting into melee.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Interesting that the large battle is played down the length of the board, rather than across the width.

What is "range 2", how much room does that leave between opposing forces at the start of the game and what are basic weapon ranges like?

Range segments are 6" each. Range 2 is 12", Range 3 is 18" etc. Range 3 is pretty standard.

Movement gauges are a little less obvious, but if you add a model on either side of them and measure front of base to front of base like a seasoned wargamer you'll find they're just as standard.

Speed 1 = 4" move for trooper model
Speed 2 = 6" move for trooper model
Speed 3 = 8" move for trooper model

This changes a bit with vehicles due to the larger base and need to stick to the facing on the tool, but it's pretty clear how those widgets were designed.

There are multiple deployment options that you actively pick from at the start of the game, but the basic 40k style long edge of the table deployment gives you range 1 (6") to deploy in on a 36" board. Troopers are generally Speed 2/Range 3 for a total threat of 24", which means they JUST reach if you deploy exactly across from one another on the line. It's also just enough to prevent being attacked in your deployment zone by stepping back a millimeter or deploying slightly to the side. It's still generally a good idea to have some cover in deployment zones to minimize damage to units that haven't had a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:

 kodos wrote:

definitely less this
http://chaptermasters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_2732.png

and more this
https://countofaverland.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/super-sized-deadzone-table.jpg

Yes! The deadzone table may be too much, but hey, I'd try a fight on that table. Actually, there's rules for fast and slow climbing, so sure.

Units really do survive quite well under fire when in heavy cover. Making you use those flanking and special weapon units to dislodge units. Seeing these crappy 40k non-terrain tables for SW kinda hurts.

All my tables are going to include alien forest or long grass zones.

Yup. It makes having Blast a worthwhile thing since that ignores cover so grenades are a worthwhile upgrade, as is simply getting into melee.

As tempting as the heavy blaster on the AT-ST is, I'm kind of starting to think the grenade launcher is more important to add Blast to its attacks. The short range is a bummer though.

Yeah, while the movement is in familiar increments, it is more rigid than other games.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, while the movement is in familiar increments, it is more rigid than other games.

In what way? You don't have to move to the end of the widget. It's only really any different with vehicles.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's Star Wars, so will make a huge initial splash, but ultimately will quickly fall stale and formulaic with new expansions being better then the older stuff to get you to buy them. Adding individual characters to the game will cause difficulties later as there are far more Rebels then Imperial characters unless FFG dips heavily into expanded universe. I mean, seriously, General Veers? The guy that had like five lines in all of Empire Strikes Back? Can't wait until "Trooper K5468" makes his Imperial entrance next to Lando Calrissian.

People are going to either hate or love this game. Me? I hate it. Models are blah, a bunch of proprietary extra accessories required to play- dice, measuring template, cards- and game play that is neither innovative, or different. It's just familiar with play mechanics seemingly borrowed from other FFG games. If anything, FFG went the safe and familiar route with this game, and it's going to get stale fast.

That pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about it.

FFG played it way too safe with this game and I am seriously doubting that it will last. The models are okay at best but that's one of the things that bothers me the most: it's 2018 and a triple A publisher with a blue chip IP isn't delivering models with the quality of stuff that's been out for years. The proprietary extras bother me too because it's clearly just a way to nickle and dime their customers, but that is the FFG way so whatever.

I hope that the game is successful and people enjoy it, but I just don't think it's for me, which is perfectly fine!

 LunarSol wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, while the movement is in familiar increments, it is more rigid than other games.

In what way? You don't have to move to the end of the widget. It's only really any different with vehicles.

You are limited to moving in a straight line with only a single turn of up to 90 degrees. This is far far more restrictive than simply being able to move in any direction up to a certain distance.

It may not seem like its more restrictive, but that is only if there are no obstructions in play. If you are dealing with something like the wall of a building or an irregular shaped rock that is impassable, then you start ending up with places you can't move that would otherwise be within the movement bubble.

Like say you want to move your unit leader to where he is just around the corner of a building you are walking up to. With this movement that will be impossible unless the halfway point on your movement widget is past the corner. because otherwise you will not be able to bend the stick around the corner.

Thats why this is a more restrictive movement system than others which simply use actual tape measures and distances instead of fixed widgets.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You are limited to moving in a straight line with only a single turn of up to 90 degrees. This is far far more restrictive than simply being able to move in any direction up to a certain distance.

Let me restate this: Infantry are not required to move the full amount on their movement template. They don't have to worry about turning.

It's only vehicles that worry about that as they should.

 Vertrucio wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You are limited to moving in a straight line with only a single turn of up to 90 degrees. This is far far more restrictive than simply being able to move in any direction up to a certain distance.

Let me restate this: Infantry are not required to move the full amount on their movement template. They don't have to worry about turning.

It's only vehicles that worry about that as they should.

I am fully aware of that. But you are still limited to moving in a straight line along the template with your base centered on it's axis.

If there are obstructions or other impassable objects that prevent the template from being placed at a certain angle, you will find there are places you can't move to.

Lets say there is a 2 inch by 2 inch impassable object. It is impossible for your unit leader to move from flush up against one facing of the obstacle to flush against the opposite side of the obstacle. This is because the template cannot bend enough to do that since the template cannot overlap impassable objects.

The rules specifically say, in cases such as barricades, just hold the measuring tool above the model where it would normally go, or just move the intervening terrain while moving, and just place the moving model anywhere it could normally move.

When moving over barricades (aka low walls) they also say that your movement is reduced by one.

Or at least, that's the way all the batreps I've watched handle it, including ones who are paid to explain the rules to you.

Sure, but you can’t hold it above impassable terrain or a building.

This just in! This is a special report with Kal Brockman coming to you LIVE in the field with ace reporter Grey Templar, who's crack investigation team has revealed a heinous act of "uh, well yeah. I mean, kinda of course, right? That's just, y'know, how it is. Duh." !!!!!

Thanks to this breaking report we've now just found out that impassible terrain may sometimes limit movement in a wargame! That's right, you heard it here first: physical terrain pieces may very occasionally limit how toy soldiers move around certain uncommon terrain pieces. IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU! This is a shocking development that, previously, only everybody and their mother knew about! Join us for the full story at 11, where we'll have exclusive commentary from local police chief Capt. Obvious himself, now back to you in the studio, Bob.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

FFG played it way too safe with this game and I am seriously doubting that it will last. The models are okay at best but that's one of the things that bothers me the most: it's 2018 and a triple A publisher with a blue chip IP isn't delivering models with the quality of stuff that's been out for years. The proprietary extras bother me too because it's clearly just a way to nickle and dime their customers, but that is the FFG way so whatever.

I hope that the game is successful and people enjoy it, but I just don't think it's for me, which is perfectly fine!

The models are similar to PrivateerPress plastics and Warmachine is also still around

And we don't know how old the game/models really is as there is the possibility FFG kept it in the back until they saw the right moment for realease (not befote a new 40k Edition comes out and not directly after, Mantic failed here with Warpath)

Than FFG is still just in Boardgames and the Minis are Boardgame quality, maybe the upgrade it to Tabletop quality

The guy from the local club said, people start the game because of Star Wars and stay because of the good rules


I am more into modelling/painting as into gaming which is the reason why I don't really like 40k any more as I want good ruled for those games I play (if I would play 3 times a week it would be different).

So Legion looks good to me because of the rules while for the models I wait until Wave 3/4 but for now I would more likely buy Mantic Rebels/GCPS Troopers and Enforcer to use them instead of the FFG models (best would be if that would be tournament legal too)

 kodos wrote:

for now I would more likely buy Mantic Rebels/GCPS Troopers and Enforcer to use them instead of the FFG models (best would be if that would be tournament legal too)

You know my core set turned up yesterday and even though I described the miniatures to a friend as "Very much like Deadzone, but every model being like the best DZ sculpt possible", it didn't even cross my mind to filter my Rebs into Legion to make up at least 1 more Rebel squad. GCPS would make fair Imps or even homebrew units representing stuff like Corporate Sector Authority Espos. I can't find any Legion/DZ scale comparisons online so I'll have to root around the hobby room later to dig out my DZ.

I'm hopefully getting some test games in over the Easter weekend.

I was first disappointed after I saw that aliens are just alternative heads
than I realized that the heavy weapon in the Deadzone Rebel starter is very similar to the Legion one and saw an opportunity for easy model swap and more diversity in the Rebel army (4 times identical troops look to uniform it)

Marionettes would be a good base for battle drouds

 kodos wrote:
I realized that the heavy weapon in the Deadzone Rebel starter is very similar to the Legion one and saw an opportunity for easy model swap and more diversity in the Rebel army (4 times identical troops look to uniform it)

I'm very happy with the idea that, for Rebels especially, not everyone is going to be equipped with a BlasTech A280, or whatever model name is listed in whatever the canon reference book is now. As long as there's a strong correlation to what the unit is carrying (my personal rule for proxies is that my opponent should never be confused in a game and have to ask me what someone is equipped with).

Hopefully FFG release spare base packs at some point (or some enterprising third party takes up the slack).

 Vertrucio wrote:
A little tired of these silly comparisons, even if valid. Comparing it to the value of generic military is fine, but it's pretty disingenuous when it's main competitor is scifi. Nothing can touch the value of generic military historicals, but that's also the reason why the majority of people don't touch those games, they're generic.

Any concern about how long lived the game could be is the same argument you can level at any wargame set in any eta. The napoleonic era lasted a set amount of time, and yet, people are still playing Napoleonics, and making new miniatures for the same armies. Can you people stop using this tired argument in every single thread?

This is literal thread pollution.

Asked for first thoughts, I gave them, you are free to take or ignore - suggest you read the rest of what I wrote which notes that while expensive thats not the full story.

Its main competitor is likely video games or other forms of spending disposable income more than other games as such.

Note also if the "majority" of players don't touch historical games how exactly can they afford to be such low cost? presumably Legion will sell more stormtroopers, what with it being a more popular subject so they should be cheaper - then add the license costs etc so they will be more but shouldn't be this much more.

They are priced like this because it will likely sell, to maximise revenue before people move on and FFG move on to something else.

Would also note that the era of Napoleon had slightly more than two factions, more than two or three iconic units in each and hence can provide a much greater spread.


Have to say though, if this was 15mm or an actual skirmish game (i.e. not something stuff like AT-ST will join), but focussed on one maybe two squads I'd be all over it - as it is, its another 25-35mm game trying to be company level on a table far too small to shift models.


May wend up with it for the various other reasons I noted, the rules look decent, indeed apart from the "value" question which is pretty subjective to individuals anyway the game looks pretty decent

I love Star Wars (original trilogy), but the lack of factions makes it hard. So often you'll have Empire vs Empire, and everyone likes special characters, so who has the Vader clone? What Warhammer AOS/40K, Warpath/Kings of War and WarmaHordes have going are the sheer number of army choices you have. Even the short lived Marvel game by Knights gave you 5 different armies; and they started with 3. Batman gives you, well, Batman and every rogue in his gallery has a team to use. I eventually burned out on X-Wing, and I feel like even though this would be JUST as awesome to start, it would suffer the same burnout.

I’m gonna be the person who says I’m super excited about this game.

I used to play 40k because I liked the models and the depth of the game was enticing. But I went for a few years after each new codex and said to myself, “self: I don’t like where they are taking this. I’ve got to vote with my money.” And until Xwing came out, I didn’t have an outlet that interested me enough to stop buying 40k stuff.

I successfully quite 40k with the Xwing “nicotine” patch, but I still had the cravings to do my own painting. At least I started to have faith in fantasy flight regarding keeping things fresh, up-to-date faqs, and game balancing.

Legion offers me a chance to do painting, and let’s me vote with my money for a company that I personally have more faith in (vs GW for example).

I’ve played 2 games so far, and I have to say the rules are simple to learn but obviously complex to master. Choosing the right unit to activate, choosing the right card for initiative order, holding a unit back to the end of the turn, planning your “random” token stack so you have more control. Choosing the right target to suppress at the right time. I think this game has tons of potential. And FFG has already shown some willingness to use fringe Star Wars references to add complexity and depth to each faction it decides to use.

I can’t see ffg investing this much effort into a game that they hope to just sell a few core sets and then abandon.

-mark

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I love Star Wars (original trilogy), but the lack of factions makes it hard. So often you'll have Empire vs Empire, and everyone likes special characters, so who has the Vader clone? What Warhammer AOS/40K, Warpath/Kings of War and WarmaHordes have going are the sheer number of army choices you have. Even the short lived Marvel game by Knights gave you 5 different armies; and they started with 3. Batman gives you, well, Batman and every rogue in his gallery has a team to use. I eventually burned out on X-Wing, and I feel like even though this would be JUST as awesome to start, it would suffer the same burnout.

Until there's more Commanders available, I'm tempted to take my Luke model I kept when we traded Core sets and run him in an Imperial army as Luuke.