Frostgrave, Halo Ground Command and other tabletop minis

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Those look great @Hahma , way better than mine! These are the first real minis I've painted so I'm just learning the ropes for now.

I've played Legion about a half dozen times now. It's fun but it's like most minis games in that it's more of a light dice chucker with some pretty basic strategy and tactics thrown in. It's nowhere near as deep as FFG's miniatures/board game hybrid games like X-Wing and Armada, and, although it's very different, isn't even close in depth to HeroScape. I'm enjoying it as much for the hobby aspect now, the gameplay is fine but lacks depth. I can't see tournaments being too popular for Legion. It's a great casual game with friends though! I can't wait until the fall when I can have a few beers at my FLGS while playing it with buddies, I think that will really make it shine .

Also, it doesn't help that the people I've been playing with complain about every single bad roll they have while remaining silent about their amazing rolls. If there's one thing I have zero tolerance for in life, it's people who complain about dice. You bought into the game. It has dice. Deal with it.

Thanks OrcElfArmyOne!

While I haven't played it yet, I can't imagine it's going to have less depth than Heroscape. I mean, Heroscape is about as basic as it gets, though I still have fond memories of it.

I've played Armada a couple times and X-Wing a good bit for awhile after it first came out and I wouldn't say they had much depth either.

I would say that miniatures games like Guild Ball and Infinity have depth, as in having a lot of decisions and strategy.

With regards to Legion, I certainly don't expect it to be much more than a light minis game, and really don't expect it to be more basic than Heroscape, X-Wing or Armada.

After getting the 2 Duros finished painted this weekend, I'll have my first core set fully painted. I certainly don't expect much depth from this amount at all, just like there wasn't any with core sets of Scape, X-Wing or Armada. But I suspect that when I get the 2nd core set done, the 2 airspeeders and AT-ST done, there will be more options. Then when I get my Snowtroopers, Veers, Leia, Fleet Troopers, Han Solo, Rebel Commandos, Bobafet and Imperial Scouts, there will be plenty of depth, or at least enough for me.

I think part of the depth will stem from list building as with any game like this, but also the many different table setups allowing for different challenges in movement and line of sight. There is also the Defining the Battlefield step right before the game, where players have options to eliminate cards that determine the deployment zones, conditions and objectives. So, those seem to be neat choices that add depth because you are going to try to have the cards that end up being used be as favorable to your army build as possible.

The use of Command Cards adds some depth as to which card to play, because other than Standing Orders, you won't get any of those cards back once played. So there could be different decisions that have to be made as to when to play which one, depending on the deployment zones, conditions, objective and table setup. Add to that, new commanders will add more Command Cards to choose from, and the option to play 2 commanders. But still only having 7 cards out of all of them can make some of those pre-game decisions tough.

I wouldn't judge the game too much at this stage, because there is only a handful of units and cards that have even been released up until now. Sure it's a dice chucker like many table top minis games are, but also like other minis games, taking advantage of cover will be huge, army building will be huge, deployment choices will be important, and good tactics will be important. Anyone that is just throwing minis out there and playing without thinking isn't really playing the game.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by Hahma

Thanks OrcElfArmyOne!

While I haven't played it yet, I can't imagine it's going to have less depth than Heroscape. I mean, Heroscape is about as basic as it gets, though I still have fond memories of it.

I've played Armada a couple times and X-Wing a good bit for awhile after it first came out and I wouldn't say they had much depth either.

I would say that miniatures games like Guild Ball and Infinity have depth, as in having a lot of decisions and strategy.

With regards to Legion, I certainly don't expect it to be much more than a light minis game, and really don't expect it to be more basic than Heroscape, X-Wing or Armada.

After getting the 2 Duros finished painted this weekend, I'll have my first core set fully painted. I certainly don't expect much depth from this amount at all, just like there wasn't any with core sets of Scape, X-Wing or Armada. But I suspect that when I get the 2nd core set done, the 2 airspeeders and AT-ST done, there will be more options. Then when I get my Snowtroopers, Veers, Leia, Fleet Troopers, Han Solo, Rebel Commandos, Bobafet and Imperial Scouts, there will be plenty of depth, or at least enough for me.

I think part of the depth will stem from list building as with any game like this, but also the many different table setups allowing for different challenges in movement and line of sight. There is also the Defining the Battlefield step right before the game, where players have options to eliminate cards that determine the deployment zones, conditions and objectives. So, those seem to be neat choices that add depth because you are going to try to have the cards that end up being used be as favorable to your army build as possible.

The use of Command Cards adds some depth as to which card to play, because other than Standing Orders, you won't get any of those cards back once played. So there could be different decisions that have to be made as to when to play which one, depending on the deployment zones, conditions, objective and table setup. Add to that, new commanders will add more Command Cards to choose from, and the option to play 2 commanders. But still only having 7 cards out of all of them can make some of those pre-game decisions tough.

I wouldn't judge the game too much at this stage, because there is only a handful of units and cards that have even been released up until now. Sure it's a dice chucker like many table top minis games are, but also like other minis games, taking advantage of cover will be huge, army building will be huge, deployment choices will be important, and good tactics will be important. Anyone that is just throwing minis out there and playing without thinking isn't really playing the game.

Except we have evidence in the form of tournament stats that heavily suggest otherwise for HeroScape, Armada, and X-Wing. All three are maybe 1% luck of the dice. Out of close to 150 Scape tournament games (100 of those at the GenCon skill level) I can remember losing one game and winning one game due to luck. That's it. Matchups definitely have their hands in a significant percentage. The rest is strategy and tactics, and Armada and X-Wing are both even deeper when it comes to that. We shall see if Legion has that depth.

For X-Wing, I am a Tier 2 player, mainly because I always switch up my lists and don't play enough (I've played more games of Scape in tourneys than games of X-Wing overall). It shows in my tournament win rate: exactly 50%. Compare that to the win rate of Paul Heaver or the Howards, and things line up. Compare that to my much higher skill level at Scape and my corresponding much higher win rate in Scape tournament games and it once again proves the depth. Compare that to the win rate of Dok and, once again, things line up.

I hope Legion will prove me wrong and I'll find some extra layers of depth past just command card usage and army building. As of now, I don't really feel I outplayed in my wins or was outplayed in my losses. It feels like both my opponent and I played at about the same level, and I had a tough time pinpointing more than a couple minor mistakes made in each game for each side.

Also, you're mistaking depth (vertical) for variety (horizontal). YuGiOh has a ton of variety but still lacks depth. Same with Pokemon. More units aren't going add that much depth to Legion's actual gameplay.

[Hahma]

[quote=OrcElfArmyOne;2194180][quote=Hahma;2194177]

Originally Posted by OrcElfArmyOne

Except we have evidence in the form of tournament stats that heavily suggest otherwise for HeroScape, Armada, and X-Wing. All three are maybe 1% luck of the dice. Out of close to 150 Scape tournament games (100 of those at the GenCon skill level) I can remember losing one game and winning one game due to luck. That's it. Matchups definitely have their hands in a significant percentage. The rest is strategy and tactics, and Armada and X-Wing are both even deeper when it comes to that. We shall see if Legion has that depth.

For X-Wing, I am a Tier 2 player, mainly because I always switch up my lists and don't play enough (I've played more games of Scape in tourneys than games of X-Wing overall). It shows in my tournament win rate: exactly 50%. Compare that to the win rate of Paul Heaver or the Howards, and things line up. Compare that to my much higher skill level at Scape and my corresponding much higher win rate in Scape tournament games and it once again proves the depth. Compare that to the win rate of Dok and, once again, things line up.

I hope Legion will prove me wrong and I'll find some extra layers of depth past just command card usage and army building. As of now, I don't really feel I outplayed in my wins or was outplayed in my losses. It feels like both my opponent and I played at about the same level, and I had a tough time pinpointing more than a couple minor mistakes made in each game for each side.

Also, you're mistaking depth (vertical) for variety (horizontal). YuGiOh has a ton of variety but still lacks depth. Same with Pokemon. More units aren't going add that much depth to Legion's actual gameplay.

So if Scape, Armada or X-Wing had a grand total 4 or 5 unit types available for each side to choose from, they would still be really deep games? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

I have no doubt that people that play "lifestyle" games a lot will gain more skill. That skill will come in many forms, but controlling dice rolls probably isn't one of them, other than playing units that allow some mitigation of die rolls. But people will still whiff defense rolls and lose units no matter how good a player they are.

Other than the lack of current army build choices, I guess I don't see what you think is the major difference with Legion, considering it shares many aspects of other FFG games with dice, actions to mitigate dice, upgrade cards etc. So how are people that make Legion a "lifestyle" game not going to get better skill wise, like they do with those other games mentioned?

At the end of the day, they are all going to be affected by dice rolls. Though for the most part, the good and bad rolls should balance out, where both sides get the benefits and penalties of them. So then it's left to the matchup aspect of army builds and actual tactics and strategy on the table.

[Hahma]

The 2 rebel Duros from my first core set are done, and thus are all the models from my first core set.