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.

Hello!

So, ever since finishing BioShock Infinite and finding out that there's a tabletop game with pretty similar art style and design I were interested in starting a Dystopian Legions army to play it but.. well, yeah, as everyone knows the game is very new and even though the developer already confirmed that they're making three more factions and expanding existing ones this year, it still seems to be a very risky investment so I'd love to hear any opinions of people who are familiar with the game, especially if they could compare it to other titles out there such as WarmaHordes, Infinity or 40k and list the flaws and awesomes of that system.

If the system turns out to be nice and fun to play, I wouldn't mind buying stuff to support the developer, but I am afraid that it might end up similar way to the poor AT-43 or any other game that just died out for it's own reasons.

Any and all info regarding the system and gameplay will be greatly appreciated.

 Klerych wrote:
If the system turns out to be nice and fun to play, I wouldn't mind buying stuff to support the developer, but I am afraid that it might end up similar way to the poor AT-43 or any other game that just died out for it's own reasons.

I suspect that the system will be around for at least a while. This is just one of several games that Spartan Games publishes. And it's not even the primary game in this particular setting. Spartan Games publishes Uncharted Seas (a fantasy naval combat game), Firestorm Armada (a space combat game), Dystopian Wars, and Armored Clash, in addition to Dystopian Legions. They're also working on the release of a ground combat game for Firestorm Armada. Dystopian Wars and Armored Clash are part of the same setting as Dystopian Legions, but at an entirely different scale - one where the tanks in Dystopian Legions are the smallest things on the table (and are represented two per base). Armored Clash uses the same figures as Dystopian Wars, but is designed exclusively for ground combat (with some air mixed in) with a lot more forces. And version 2.0 of the DW rules is coming out at the end of the month.

So Spartan has been around for a little while. They're still expanding, and they seem to be doing well.

Whether Dystopian Legions specifically will survive, I can't say. But the publisher doesn't look like it's going to go out of business next year.

Well, that's a bit of relief to hear(or read). I was somewhat surprised by the aggressive expansion of Spartan franchise games but I heard that Dystopian Wars are getting more and more popular nowadays..

Wish there was someone who plays/played the Dystopian Legions and could share his opinion on the system itself as no amount of hype or determination would make a bad game good. If it is nice, though, I will gladly buy the crap out of some miniatures as I would love to make a BioShock-themed FSA army based on the Founders.

Only problem is that with the way that Spartan Games makes so many games, their quality control goes out the window in terms of gameplay for them.

However, the quality of their miniatures is still top notch.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Only problem is that with the way that Spartan Games makes so many games, their quality control goes out the window in terms of gameplay for them.

Well, that is my main concern - I love the aesthetics and design of the miniatures, but no amount of good looking will ever make up for the system being bad.

Well, I've been playing Spartan's games for the last 2.5 years, and although they do have a high amount of randomness, I have been having much more fun than in the 14 years that I played Warhammer 40k and my brief stint with Warmachine.

Dystopian Legions is very fun, with a greater focus on the overall strategy than say 40k.

Legions relies upon developing an overall plan for how to activate your units each turn, and managing a pool of command points to perform actions and abilities above and beyond the standard moving and shooting.

One of the big differences that I find with Legions and some of the other games is how vehicles are treated. While in 40k they really can do a lot of damage yet will easily explode throughout the game.
In Legions the vehicles are restricted in their maneuverability and fire arcs, and they will be lucky to kill more than 2-3 infantry models, although they are normally better off against heavy units such as the Teutonic knights and/or bikes. BUT the vehicles are much more tough than tanks in 40k and will normally last the game. But I find they are much more characterful because they are tough, yet a skillful opponent can work to keep their impact under control.

My only issue currently is that the game is 1.5 years old, and Spartan hasn't done very good marketing and getting the game out in the minds of gamers. It took a year for the first four armies to really feel fleshed out with field guns, tanks, and infantry/mobile options. We are expecting the next few factions available this year though with Antarcticans, Russians, and French forces PLUS some expanded options for the current factions.

Spartan's support of their games, as mentioned is the big problem.

DW was fun for a first few months we played, then we realized that the system was shallow, there were no included scenarios, and the rules were a mess.

To top it off, there was no support from Spartan, just more and more releases into this broken system. This is very typical of SG, honestly it's why I won't touch another one of their games.

Sure, they've finally released an updated rulebook, but considering that they've been reusing the same basic rules system for all their games, you'd think it could be refined more than it is.

Well, now you're crushing my dreams, guys! Is it really that bad? I guess proxing the game with Warmachine miniatures to get the grasp seems to be the safest bet unless I decide to buy some minis just for their looks.

What about balance and gameplay fun in Dystopian Legions, roadkizzle? Is the game fun to play in less competitive and more.. narrative style? Does the game feel.. I don't know, cool, when you play it? I don't expect the same level of immersion as with LotR/Hobbit or any other skirmish game but if the game feels crude and the weapons/units don't feel thought-out there wouldn't be much fun with it. Are the basic rules easy to learn like those in 40k or WarmaHordes?

 Vertrucio wrote:
Spartan's support of their games, as mentioned is the big problem.

DW was fun for a first few months we played, then we realized that the system was shallow, there were no included scenarios, and the rules were a mess.

To top it off, there was no support from Spartan, just more and more releases into this broken system. This is very typical of SG, honestly it's why I won't touch another one of their games.

Sure, they've finally released an updated rulebook, but considering that they've been reusing the same basic rules system for all their games, you'd think it could be refined more than it is.

Now. I personally feel you are really not that close to the point. DW has been continuing on the system with the campaign books both expanding the fluff and providing a large selection of scenarios.

DL has exact same "scenario" system that 90% of all game systems use, in objectives each player fights for control of. The difference is that 40k has a few random options on who can capture them other than basic troops, and every War machine game I've played or observed has ignored them because it's just easier to assassinate your opponents warcaster, IMO making that game much more predictable and boring.

I really don't understand people lambasting SG for messy rules, while I know it was extremely confusing getting through the Warmachine rules with my Menoth army, with so many special rules creating non-obvious and ill defined exceptions.


That said, Dystopian Legions is a very different game from Warmachine, with less of a focus on big game changing characters, and small deviations in statistical outcomes which in my experience provided for a much more deterministic gameplay with more similarity to my statistical optimization homework than an actual test of military tactical/strategic planning.


@Klerych, the game use objective markers for its "scenarios" as War machine, WH40k, Dust Warfare, and any other miniature wargame I've seen, but unlike Warmachine there isn't an automatic "I Win" button that's easier top get to than the objectives.

The balance between factions is generally good although in my time primarily as an FSA player with stints playing both Prussians and Britannians I am fairly certain the FSA has a bit of a harder time getting the win, and will probably struggle in a competitive environment against good players. The biggest issue is the FSA have shorter range, and are therefore unable to take advantage of good protective terrain as easily, and don't really have the tools to flush the enemy out when they get access to a nice tough building/redoubt/ruin.

That said, I've found when playing and using distraction units and mobility to split my opponents forces I've been able to win the majority of my games.

It may require a bit of a gentleman's agreement to not set up a number of easily fortifiable hard cover terrain pieces close to the FSA opponents deployment zone.

I stand by my statements about SG and it's previous game DW.

DW started with no scenarios in the book, needed a new revised book just to get some basic scenarios and something resembling a layout, and now needed a 2.0 version to update the rules to something that will actually hold people's interests for longer than a few months.

That may sound like support for the game, but it's really just trying to shore up a lack of key gameplay elements that should have been there in the first place.

Plenty of the rules were messy, and we're not just talking about model specific rules here. The whole small flyer rules were horrible, all sorts of weirdness with the core halving mechanic, and more.

This is the kind of treatment you can expect from SG. Eventually, it seems that their games get better, but that takes years, and meanwhile you'll see them jump to yet another game or release instead of fixing the problem they created.

Dystopian Legions may have a different fate than DW, but from SG's track record and the way DL is lacking a lot of the big push that SG's previous products had, I'm confident in my warnings about the game and SG in general.

DW did have some issues when it first came out, but I personally feel the lack of scenarios was more of a byproduct of the game being based on a naval wargame. Outside of campaign style story based scenarios (which are not the best things to base the majority of pick-up games on) there was more difficulty in creating generic scenarios than on infantry based ground games.

I personally always feel that it's a very poor idea to hold a grudge and make your permanent judgement spouting vitriol for a company over some poorly worded rules and the lack of a few gameplay elements that you feel are "key".

The games have grown greatly, and Dystopian Legions is a VERY enjoyable game with a large amount of strategic options available than the majority of similar games.

You won't go out far giving the game a decent shot with some proxied models even. I'd caution you to play a decent sized game though because if you just play at 100 points with two units you really will not see the actual strategies available. You really need to have at least 3, preferably 4 or more units to get the most out of the game.

It's up to SG, not me, to make the proper amends in a timely manner. You call it a grudge, I call it consumer protection and saving time and money.

My job is to warn other consumers of potential pitfalls. I provide the necessary anecdotal evidence against a potential waste of money, which is what the OP was asking for.

You can make all the excuses you want for why the game didn't have a standard feature across many waragames, but it's not the players' job to do the work of the game designer, nor should players accept the usual rationalizations for not doing the work.

Anything less, and it's basically the typical GW stockholm syndrome where players expect so little of a company, they think any token effort is amazing, and lack of effort in some areas to be not important.

I hold myself to these standards while designing my game (which is why it's taking so long). I can hold other studios with more resources than I to the same.

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's up to SG, not me, to make the proper amends in a timely manner. You call it a grudge, I call it consumer protection and saving time and money.

My job is to warn other consumers of potential pitfalls. I provide the necessary anecdotal evidence against a potential waste of money, which is what the OP was asking for.

You can make all the excuses you want for why the game didn't have a standard feature across many waragames, but it's not the players' job to do the work of the game designer, nor should players accept the usual rationalizations for not doing the work.

Anything less, and it's basically the typical GW stockholm syndrome where players expect so little of a company, they think any token effort is amazing, and lack of effort in some areas to be not important.

I hold myself to these standards while designing my game (which is why i aking so long). I can hold other studios with more resources than I to the same.

First of all. Unless you are employed by a consumer protection agency of some sort I doubt your job is actually to protect consumers from making potential pitfalls. Now I do admit that you may actually have one of these jobs... But I truly don't think that the consumer protection companies are concerned with people choosing to download a free rulebook for a game (which includes your beloved scenarios) to try it out with their existing models because the company producing it released a very different style of game three years that omitted creating additional rules for varied scenarios and had some poorly worded rules.

I hope you understand that I don't have a sort of "GW Stockholm Syndrome". After leaving 40k after 14 years of playing it I went searching for a new miniature game to take it's place. During my search I went through Warmachine, Dust Warfare, Infinity, Anima Tactics, and Malifaux. I didn't look to in depth at Flames of War because I haven't been fond of games at smaller scales, and the pricing was much to high for me.

I found that I was really uninterested in skirmish games as anything other than a sporadic distraction between bigger games, Warmachine with the game centering around the Warcasters, their game changing feat abilities, and crafting combos through list building just made the game feel like statistics homework.
Dust Warfare was fun although my friends and I felt that they had abstracted it just a bit to far, removing just a bit to much flavor.

Dystopian Legions and Dystopian Wars have just provided fun games with as much strategy and depth as you care to use.

I am not telling anybody they should go out and waste their money investing in a system they won't enjoy. That's exactly why I recommended to download the FREE rulebook that does include the same scenarios all other ground warfare games included, and try it out with their currently owned models.

I just don't feel that it's fair that you try to scare people from a game they may fully enjoy because a game you tried out three years ago didn't have scenarios.

I don't think it's fair that you try to present only a positive view of SG, to turn your argument around.

People have to know about the past because this DW was not the first game where they messed things up for their player base then skipped off to release another game as the problems languished. They had 3 games where they did this, DL is potentially one more stop on that chain.

This is a forum, there will be plenty of people that will post different opinions. It may not be my "job" if you want to pathetically argue about real employment, but it is my responsibility as a gamer to my fellow gamers to provide warnings where appropriate, just as you will want to provide recommendations where appropriate.

It's SG's "job" to overcome the doubts by going above the call to get players into the game, and individuals can choose whether they have or have not done so.

Consider that the OP had to come here and post the question about the game in the first place shows that SG was more work to do on the marketing of the game.

Um...

Can you both agree to disagree? Over half the posts in this thread are now the two of you going back and forth.

I own and have played Dystopian Legions many times (only against my brother as he is the only person I know that owns it). It is a very fun game and the models are very nice. That being said, there isn't any support from the company in a league or tourney setting. Heck they don't even go to Gencon to promote their 5 games. I just recently filled out a survey saying as much. All of their games are a lot of fun, but Spartan's support is limited to releasing new models and constantly changing rules in the game to make it less complicated or fixing broken rules that players have found. My LGS has stopped carrying Uncharted Seas and Firestorm Armada due to lack of interest. They still seem to be pushing Dystopian wars and legion pretty hard, so if you can get other people involved in your area, it could grow.

With a game like Dystopian Legions, I would buy the game based on the models. Let me explain...

With smaller game companies, you're not always going to get the best game support, expansions, etc. It just goes with the territory. Also, the community is much smaller, so you're not going to have an active tournament scene, or huge playerbase anyway. The game might grow, or it might die.

The bright side is that there are other rulesets (In Her Magesty's Name, The Sword and the Flame, Colonial Adventures, etc) that you can use the miniatures in. Even if the company support disappears, or you find you just don't like the rules anymore, you've still got lots of options for play.