Jump to content

lologrelol

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    501

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lologrelol

  4. Posted

    On 12/3/2020 at 1:21 AM, Darth Sanguis said:

    See above in the post for our terrain. Plenty of LoS blockers and heavy cover. 


    I can't be definitive, but it seems to me part of the problem is LoS blockers can be circumvented by setting up firing lanes or scouting to angle around them. The last time this happen GG was blocked from the deploy, but scout 3 and 2 respectively on 2 units made enough of him visible to land the shot. 

    That terrain is really nice, but honestly still a little too open.

    While map 1 has some really great big pieces, a lot of the board is still very open, and the terrain is placed in a way that allows big diagonal firing lanes. Which makes it hard to hide.

    Map 2 has more medium terrain, but there's windows and holes in all of the buildings, so there's very few places to hide.

    Both tables need more medium sized terrain in the middle-ish sections of the boards to allow units to move up.

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Khobai said:

    If Vader has to hide all game he will never be able to strike. Hes speed 1.

    Forcing melee characters like Vader to hide doesnt work in legion.

    Its better to just not take characters like Vader.

    Vader is an outlier. Most characters are speed 2.

    Hiding a melee character until the opportune moment can win games.

    Most games require you to move towards some part of the battlefield. If you cannot assault that part of the field, it is hard to get that objective, unless your terrain is very open.

  8. Posted

    7 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

    1c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders in the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.

    2c.) It has been used to heavily wound or eliminate commanders within the first 2 rounds on multiple occasions.

     

    How is this happening? Do your players stand their characters out in the open at the start of the game.

    Jedi should be hiding till the right time to strike.

    Terrain can heavily affect games as well, so it would be interesting to see what sort of tables you play on.

  12. Posted · Edited by lologrelol

    Honestly, I don't know who was the final authority on this game; but, there is a lot of imbalance in Legion that should never have gotten through in the first place.

    Maybe its because I've played minis games for a long time, or am an amateur games designer, but some things I noticed straight off the bat were:

    • Heavies were extremely over-costed, mostly because some objectives couldn't be taken by them and they couldn't dish out quite enough to make back their points.
    • Heavy weapons were too expensive on squads, making it easier for people to min max their activations by taking minimum squad sizes.
    • Strike teams were a silly choice due to their efficiency (but I can see a case for them being there).
    • Refresh weapons, and refresh abilities, were too inefficient, because units like to get every action they can get. Most players saw that only refresh things that auto-refreshed some how, were good.
    • Action economy was king, so units that were able to benefit from this would do very well.
    • Units with high speed were really good only if they were also melee units, or could take objectives.
    • Vehicles and creatures were gimped from half the objectives. Why? A tank crew can get out of a vehicle and activate something. It just really makes people wary of going with lots of these units. Players should not feel hindered in list building like this.
    • Lots of the characters were way too expensive for what they did.
    • Bounty was unreliable, and secret mission was way stronger than it.
    • Line of sight and cover felt weird. You should have to measure range and LOS from each model in a unit, not just range from the leader. Cover to the center of the model is often too hard to get. It makes people set up their models in these weird formations to chain cover on simply immersion breaking angles. Also, seeing the unit leaders of units stand way out from cover is also immersion breaking.
    • Rules felt too clustered/disorganized/spread out, in the RRG. I would have preferred something more concise.
    • All models should have been treated as volumes, rather than looking model to model. It saves so many arguments.
    • Forests and other types of area terrain should be unified into a single consistent type, that provides both cover and difficult ground. Having some types of area that do not just automatically do both can be confusing to the tournament player, making it hard to prepare for that type of terrain, and practice for it.

    There's probably other things, and I could go into more depth. But most of the above my friends and I figured out after only a few games of each relevant rule upon its release.

    I liked Alex as a designer, sad to see him go. I still had the above critiques though.

    Shadrack, Tris87TJ, Memorare and 2 others reacted to this

  14. Posted

    15 hours ago, NeverTellMeTheOdds said:

    Which means it makes even less sense... maybe it’s to help them sell the inevitable updated card packs...

    I'm not sure. I thought they didn't need a points boost, but we have to work with what we've got.

    Fortunately Obi and P1 clones got decreases, which essentially means most lists that include all three will still be about the same.

  15. Posted

    51 minutes ago, Khobai said:

      

    Good. Why should clones get something to replace something they shouldnt have even had in the first place?

    GAR is not the weakest faction now, not even close. lmao.

    Imperials are still the weakest faction. They were the weakest faction before and their best unit just got nerfed. And none of their buffs are particularly meaningful. Making Vader or Dewbacks cost 15 points less doesnt make them suddenly good. And none of the Imperial heavies are on the same level as the AAT like we were told they would be. The only buff that actually matters IMO is Boba Fett costing less which will see him getting played more but still wont make Imperials top tier.

     

    Yes I definitely agree GAR aren't the weakest. My clone list actually got cheaper on the whole.

    Tris87TJ, Ilostmycactus, tdcthulu and 1 other reacted to this

  16. Posted

    23 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

    Still trying to figure out the justification for ARC changes, since they haven’t seen any real tournaments yet.

    It's only a small points increase. I'm sure they will still be a very solid unit.

    tdcthulu and lunitic501 reacted to this

  20. Posted

    The easiest way to do this faction is to give each commander an affinity with certain units.

    E.g. A mando character is good with mando units, jabba is good with his house guards and gangsters etc.

    This way they can throw all these cool units into one faction, but we will see 'themed' lists because players will want to play mostly units that work with their commanders.

    Scum and Mercs is just an easy way to get a lot of minor factions into the game, in a way that mostly makes sense.

    Caimheul1313 reacted to this

  21. Posted

    I'm a clone player and I don't really like standby sharing that much.

    I can understand why it's there. I like how the faction functions by being able to 'lock down' sections of the board.

    BUT

    All my opponent's hate it. I don't like seeing the look of such dissatisfaction on player's faces from playing what is just a game.

    It's not a fun ability to have to fight against.

    Clones with aim/dodge/surge token sharing is strong enough.

    I think the game will be healthier without standby sharing.

    weebaer, Vector Strike, Caimheul1313 and 2 others reacted to this

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Khobai said:

    And my point was that the Airspeeder needs to cost more and be made better. Not stay bad and cost less.

    They could lower it to 125 points but it still wouldnt get used. Id rather see it cost 150-200 points and actually be on par with other heavies.

    It's just easier to adjust points down, rather than add things that aren't on the unit cards. So I suspect they will stick with lowering cost.

    Derrault and lunitic501 reacted to this

  25. Posted

    7 hours ago, Khobai said:

    Please share with us the magical understanding that makes airspeeders good.

    What great knowledge have you uncovered about airspeeders that the best players in the game havent been able to figure out.

    I really want to hear this.

    I think he's just saying it does have a purpose in some circumstances.

    I think it would probably be really good in a big game setting on a big board. It's just hard to justify such a large target, that moves pretty far on the relatively 'small' tournament sized boards.

    For the tournament game, it's optimal points cost is probably around 125.

    Derrault reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...