Jump to content

TheDeathwatch

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheDeathwatch

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

90 profile views
  1. I think I'd like them to go further and actually restrict the number of mercenary/scum units you can take. Maybe one for each unit type (corps heavy etc), or maybe a maximum %age of the overall army. If they are supposed to be a small part, then they should be a small part, to keep it more of a Rebel/Empire list with a couple of different units rather than risk it looking like 4 DTL/Z6 squads and a generic commander in a Scum list. Of course, if it becomes a full faction then all bets are off!
  2. The way its going, we wont even have all this wave out by Gencon! Cant wait though. Even if the prospect of painting even more white is daunting!
  3. I've played in the GW 30k/Heresy scene a little as well as 40k, and there was always a perception within that community that they played 'fluffy, narrative' lists and that it wasn't a competitive game, but its reached the point that you still need to bring certain units to be able to stand a chance at winning, which has ultimately killed my enjoyment of, and desire to play in, that system. (yeah, i know there are wider range of unit types and GW/FW rules aren't always the most balanced!). But there is a risk in saying 'We aren't like 40k therefore we are more casual and less competitive'. FFG makes competitive games. Some seem more balanced (Legion) and others less so (X-Wing 2.0 seems to be more swingy/polar), but they try and design each unit to be balanced, to make it appeal to gamers and generate sales. I'm not sure that GW's model is that tight! To put it in context, I have a colleague at work (a 40k player) who has won 90+ of all his games and insists hes not a competitive player, but measures everything in its points efficiency. How much damage it can put out compared to what it can absorb? What are the competing options in that slot in his list? Whether or not he likes the look of that unit has no relevance to whether he will use it. He takes multiple lists to the club nights, tweaked slightly to different opponents, but will complain about anyone who he believes is 'list tailoring' for opponents. His opponents list is really strong if he didn't table them until turn 3 or 4, and is using a 'broken' combo somehow if they win. My regular Legion opponent and I build to theme (so an Endor force would consist of things that weren't on Endor in the canon), but if we were to take a list and lose to him, he'd be full of advice as to how to make the army better by just taking unit X regardless of theme. Is he competitive? No, as far as hes concerned because he always has a unit that is slightly sub-optimal for him, and uses an army that isn't considered top tier in the competitive tournament scene. But to me? Yes, hes competitive. He just equates competitive to being one of 'those guys', slowplaying, bending the rules, calling a judge every vaguely contentious issue etc. This is completely true. I am not a competitive player at all. I don't want to lose every game, but i'd rather find a list that suits my play style and persevere with it for a while to understand how it works and have fun using that. I think the terms mean different things to different people and are often difficult to quantify. Play with a fun and relaxed attitude and it doesn't matter how competitive you are, your opponent and you should both be having fun. After all, I'm sure that's part of the reason we play these games! (and to escape wives/partners/children/real life!!)
  4. Myself and two friends are using these rules to play small games to learn Legion. We've come from GW background so don't have any issues with the deployments/scenarios, though i can see that it lacks some of the variety of the full game. Definitely good for a starter/slow grow league as you can start with one half of a core set and another unit (plus you get to start of with Luke/Vader chopping stuff up with a light saber, which is fun!)
  5. I think there is a difference, but at an event you will see serious competitive players and casual players. Though its important to differentiate between competitive lists and players. There certainly is a difference in unit choice. I don't think you see a competitive player take a T-47 in a Rebel list if they are trying to win an event. You might see a casual player take it to the event. Equally, you might see a 'Competitive' player take an unusual list with some traditionally non-competitive elements to try something out, as the competitiveness of a unit will vary as the meta/terrain changes. In short, yes there is a difference, but that doesn't make one 'better' than another, or mean they are not cross compatible. They are natural consequences of a wargame.
  6. While many lists might involve spamming 'cheap' units, that will be because they are the most efficient units, combined with the need for Core units. You need 3 core units in a list. But core are also a good way of having units that you can put on an objective so 4-5 isn't uncommon. And if you need them, then you take the most efficient version (generally DLT for Storms and Z6 for Rebs). Sniper teams are cheap(ish) and give additional activation's to help the activation war. Though now you have the emergence of Death Troopers who are more elite, and can chuck out a lot of fire power. From listening to podcasts and me limited experience, the tables you play on will also affect the units that are 'good'. The proportion of LOS blocking terrain (at least of infantry size models) seems lower in Legion. There might be lots of light/heavy cover, but not as much that stops people being able to see. More LoS blocking terrain would make units like Royal Guard and Wookies more effective as it allows them to avoid taking the damage while they close range. I'd seriously recommend putting some models on the table and playing. Proxy stuff if you need to to get a feel as to what is good in your meta, as i'm sure you have experienced from 40k, Meta's are different in different areas.
  7. And therein lies the question..... Its an SKU code (essentially a code for a product). There are products with codes either side and this is a 'missing' one that people have been trying to assign to some product for a while. Popular theories are that its for either a Rogue One starter or some sort of Rebel/Resistance/Partisan Aces with a 'fix' for the X-Wing.. Really though, no one knows....
  8. Like many on here i've been a SciFi fan for more years than i can count. I've been primarily a Warhammer/40K gamer for 20 odd years, as its easy to get hold of in the UK, and i loved the background. Whatever i play it will always be heavily based on the fluff/enjoyment i get from the story/characters. Cue University where i end up working part time for GW and build a group of close friends. We go our separate ways after uni and Warhammer tournies are a good excuse/reason to meet up again. WH dies and I'm looking for another game, just as my son gets into Star Wars. Bounce through a few other game systems then discover that there is an X-Wing scene near me. Grab a few bits and start playing. Have even managed to play a few games with the starter sets with the wife. My son is 4.5 and so far I've just been getting him used to shooting and moving, not worrying about actions or dials too much. Really want to try Imperial Assault too (some fantastic minis to paint!), but think that might be too involved for him at the moment!
×
×
  • Create New...