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.

 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.

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).

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)

 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.

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.

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

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

Too Fat Lardies' various games make use of it, in different ways IIRC.

 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.

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.

 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.

I know plenty of people who spend insane amounts of money on both games, so I don't know how much they're competing.

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.

 -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...

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.