Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
koraldon

Should have been named star wars: squad

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Manchu said:
  • Vader is 200 pts
  • 2x Speeder Bikes for 90 pts
  • 4x Storm Troopers for 44 pts

so about 444 for the Empire before non-reinforcement upgrade cards

  • Luke is 160 pts
  • AT-RT is 55 pts
  • 4x Rebel Troope4s for 40 pts

and 355 for Rebels - keep in mind, AT-RT laser canon upgrade is 35 pts alone

if standard games are 1000 pts, I very much doubt that is 1000 pts counting both sides!

The core box has two 7-man infantry squads per side, each including two heavy weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Darth evil said:

this game should have been either 20mm or 15 mm to really get the Legions feeling, now it's just a 40k with star wars

I think this is FFG's product to go 'head to head' with 40k. It sits in the exact same retail space and corresponds to GW's game on almost every point.

FFG vs GW

I like it.

J--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dice lord said:

I'm not sure that full scale, army sized ground combat was what the Rebels were about in the OS. Even the Hoths plain battle was just a forlorn hope of stalling so they could regroup (run away).

Squad sized feels right for this.

 

Yeah. The might of the Empire is supposed to be such that any battle bigger than small operations (like Endor) would be already a loss for the rebellion (see Rogue One).

The Rebel Alliance is supposed to have better chances in space because the Empire fleet is spreaded among the galaxy which in turn would give a better chance for the rebellion and is based on surprise attacks (Death Star II space battle).

Well... at least thats the idea that George Lucas and the writers of the EU wanted to give.

For full scale armies gutting each other out the Clone Wars are much better (until Order 66).

Edited by Kentares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kentares said:

Star Wars Armada is misleading???

Another good laugh today... and I expected another boring day in here.

I'll accept the change to the name of this when they change Armada to "Star Wars: Just About Enough Ships to Chase One Rogue Freighter Into an Asteroid Field"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

I'll accept the change to the name of this when they change Armada to "Star Wars: Just About Enough Ships to Chase One Rogue Freighter Into an Asteroid Field"

So you can already accept. That was already done. See Empire Strikes Back for more in which the Empire chases a modified YT-1300 Corellian Freighter through an asteroid field... 

That was a perfect example of a scenario in Armada so... dont see a problem there.

Edited by Kentares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deathseed said:

(shrug)

As with any war-game, it's really just up to the players how big a battle they want to play/collect.

For most wargames, that is correct. For FFG wargames, I very rarely see anyone playing anything other than the suggested 'tournament' size game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Kentares said:

So you can already accept. That was already done. See Empire Strikes Back for more in which the Empire chases a modified YT-1300 Corellian Freighter through an asteroid field... 

That was a perfect example of a scenario in Armada so... dont see a problem there.

That's the joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kentares said:

So you can already accept. That was already done. See Empire Strikes Back for more in which the Empire chases a modified YT-1300 Corellian Freighter through an asteroid field... 

three Star Destroyers with no escorts is an armada? oookay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

three Star Destroyers with no escorts is an armada? oookay...

How convenient you forget that each one carries an assortment of fighter/bombers to level a city (not to mention the Destroyers weapons which blow up the asteroid field and have shields that can sustain several impacts from said space rocks).

So an armada of 3 Star Destroyers (with said complementary fighters/bombers) is pursuing a modified YT-1300...

A Star Destroyer in Star Wars isnt an aircraft carrier of the 20th century on earth.

In addition look in a dictionary what the word "Armada" means.

Edited by Kentares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kentares said:

How convenient your forget that each one carries an assortment of fighter/bombers to level a city (not to mention the Destroyers weapons). In addition look in a dictionary what the word "Armada" means.

man. they all say "a large fleet of warships." I'll help you out there. three carriers is not a large fleet.

Merriam-Webster has this to say about the largeness of that large fleet:

"In English, the word usually has historical overtones. The Great Armada of 1588 was a 120-ship fleet sent by Philip II of Spain in an attempt to invade Elizabethan England"

Thus, when I heard "Armada," I was looking forward to big fleets of ships instead of the 2 to 5 ship X-Wing squads I'd been flying. What I got was three to five big ships that take three times as long to finish a game. :(

So, frankly, I can understand the OP's point on being disappointed with army size after hearing the name "Legion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youre going to fetch an example from 16th century!? Ahahahah

Again how convenient you skipped the info Tirion gave in the first page of this topic where he wrote what means the word Armada (read again the topic).

Theyre not carriers. Theyre not wet navy ships. Theyre certainly not from the 16th century.

Play Armada using 100k each side so you can say that Armada plays like... an armada.

You want a strategy game not a tactic one. Go play Rebellion where each ship represents an armada...

Edited by Kentares

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kentares said:

Youre going to fetch an example from 16th century!? Ahahahah

Again how convenient you skipped the info Tirion gave in the first page of this topic where he wrote what means the word Armada (read again the topic).

Theyre not carriers. Theyre not wet navy ships. Theyre certainly not from the 16th century.

Play Armada using 100k each side so you can say that Armada plays like... an armada.

You want a strategy game not a tactic one. Go play Rebellion where each ship represents an armada...

Also take a look at the campaign if you want every larger games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kentares said:

Youre going to fetch an example from 16th century!? Ahahahah

The very event that brought the word "Armada" from Spanish into the English language? yes. yes, I am. words don't just coalesce out of thin air. I believe there was a post about the word "Legion" and its relation to the Roman Empire, so I'm way more modern than him. :)

Edited by skotothalamos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I have no interest in this game, but that is only because of several factors which, while not unique to me, certainly aren't universal.  I have a rather large collection of the Wizards of the Coast Star Wars minis; LOTS of Stormtroopers.  After putting together a simple roster sheet for listing out forces and their stats, I've eliminated any concern over cards cluttering the table no matter how big the battle gets.  Hence, my urge to have a squad/skirmish scaled Star Wars game is already satisfied, and in a manner that allows the entire table to serve as playable space, rather than leaving part of the table open to housing cards.

Furthermore, from FFG's corner of the universe, X-wing and Armada both have demonstrated the dangers to a game based on using upgrade cards which border on deck building, which it already looks like this game will be doing as well.  With their quicker release schedule, Wizkids' Attack Wing also exhibited the dangers of this model.  Once players start playing with the available upgrades and finding the most efficient, synergetic builds, diversity drops and the dreaded stale meta begins to form.

Especially in a game that should have a lot of moving parts on the table (over a dozen pieces per side), I think its better to keep the rules on most of those pieces pretty simple and straight forward, limiting upgrades to BUILT IN effects from command pieces.  Nothing purchasable.  I don't mind if Vader adds special rules, to a limited extent, to his force, but I don't like when you have additional mechanics that add more special rules to Vader, which he then passes on to further modify the units under his command.

This kind of game I think works best if most pieces have basic combat stats only: movement rate, attack/damage, defense, hp/durability.  The more you add, the more likely it is that broken combos will inevitably follow.  Leave it to elite units and command units to modify squad performance, and to behave themselves above and beyond the bounds of normal units.  Vader should obviously be able to single-handedly take out large numbers of Rebel troops; look at Rogue One.

Anyway, that's just to say this game is not for me.  Other people may find the mechanics and the new miniatures appealing, and to those individuals, I say: "May the Force be with you."  I hope those who are interested in Legion enjoy it, and I hope it remains successful so that their hobby will enjoy at least a few years of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Darth evil said:

this game should have been either 20mm or 15 mm to really get the Legions feeling, now it's just a 40k with star wars

Pretty sure that was the plan.

Considering how 40k is suffering currently due to expensive everything, edition change grumpies, and multiple repeating pr missteps over the years, it's not like they aren't ripe for some poaching.

That's probably the whole idea. My 40k table, terrain, carrying cases, modeling and painting supplies are all still usable.

Additionally most available off the shelf terrain is roughly at the 28mm scale. Yes 15mm is available, but it tends to lean more historical. So less open support for sci-fi at that scale.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Xargonaut said:

Where did you get this information from? Beasts of War have been told during their private demo session that the official army size is 1,000 pts.

http://www.beastsofwar.com/star-wars-legion/coming-tabletop-ffg/

From one of the guys that actually created the game. Also, beasts of war will have it correct now because they actually came and demoed it today so their info is fresh. In fact if you want to learn more about the game keep an eye out for their video. Just ignore the really tall derpy looking guy in the FFG shirt explaining the rules. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2017 at 0:06 PM, player1750031 said:

For most wargames, that is correct. For FFG wargames, I very rarely see anyone playing anything other than the suggested 'tournament' size game.

And that's entirely up to them. Nobody (outside of the actual tournament scene) is twisting their arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...