Thoughts on SW: Legions?

Michael Barnes wrote: Runewars has some assembly too- but definitely no modeling options. The figures were also teeeeeeeerash.

All considered, I think I would likely buy a Destiny booster box over any Legion stuff.

My FLGS had RUNEWARS on clearance for 50% off.

I want to add to other comments regarding ffgs track record.

But lifestyle miniature games need a bit more care in how they are produced in this day and age. This isn't 1989 rogue trader when infamous examples of grav tanks made of deodorant bottles are acceptable anymore.

The consumers DEMAND that a company stick with a product in a serious way, and not become a flash in the pan fad that they drop on the first sign that the consumers aren't ravenously devouring it.

We spend far too much of our own time, which is more precious than money, in a hobby surrounding these games, and we want the same level of dedication from the producers of these games.

This is why, no matter how delicious an IP that FFG is peddling in this form, should be not just viewed through suspicious eyes, but just be completely overlooked.

There is a very looooong list if minis games that ffg have dropped or we're able to utterly destroy because they decided to no longer distribute them.

Mutant Chronicles.
AT-43
Cadwallon
Battlelore (all three)

One could even argue this is true with x-wing as well, their one and only successful example of their foray into this realm, because you seemingly must keep up with releases in order to remain competitive and this causes consumer exhaustion.

I know a lot of locals here who I met through being mutual minis wargamers that are now employed by ffg. Seriously some of the best modellers and painters and tacticians one would hope to see across a table. But they don't play ffg wargames. When Kevin Wilson was employed there, you saw him playing the steampunk naval game whose names escapes me at the moment.

But ffg wants a piece of that pie, of course. Yet they seem to ignore the one major requirement we have if we are to actually persue their wares in that niche.

We lack bonafide confidence in their abilities.

Without that, you get people like Edulis posting on forums, hoping beyond hope that they can drum up interest in a minis game that they have interest too.
But the end result will always remain the same until ffg gets that confidence from their consumer base.

Ffg throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks is actually hurting them in the long run, because each failed attempt further erodes that confidence.

Sorry, but I don't care how good this game is. Ffg lack the leadership chops with the foresight to make such a product line work, despite literally dozens of their own employees having combined centuries of experience in table top minis wargames.

Not surprised. I’ve been watching this industry long enough to know a non-starter when I see one. And I do see that with Legion.

The movement in RW was HORRIBLE. You could accidentally wheel a formation into a terrain piece and take damage. Combines with the way orders and initiative worked, you could also crash into other units. They tried to do the X-Wing template movement, but it does not work for walking, land-based armies. It works for vehicles with velocity/speed/turning limitations fine. But not a bunch of dudes just hoofing it.

I have a ton of Imperial Assault and I very much prefer grids over rulers. So my only thought on Legions is that its not for me.

It sounds like this game won't be popular with 40k players!

Good post, Ufe. It's very hard to trust FFG on these games given their history and the fact that these games are outrageously expensive to get into---big investment vs. high risk is not a good combo. And that's not a rep that's going away soon given how many FFG minis games are buried in the ground

I very much appreciate what FFG did with Armada. They got the core game out and finished with the first two waves. If that thing had gone south, they would have a very full, complete game that no one could argue with. But instead it did well, so they have the chance to do more specialized oddball releases. I think this is a smart move and could build trust. Like, hey, we want this line to work badly. But even if it doesn't, we're committed to putting together a great core product in our first 3-4 release waves that will come out guaranteed.

CC’s comment is right on the money.

It is funny that once you survey FFG’s releases, there really is only one miniatures game that has had traction- significant traction, granted- and that’s X-Wing.

But X-Wing had a couple of things going for it:

- it was at the time the only accessible and widely available space battle game
- it had prepainted, preassembled miniatures
- it required virtually no additional accessories, books or materials other than an optional playmat.
- it did not attempt to replace 40k or WHFB; it wasn’t hard to justify being into both
- it came out at a time when there was a hunger for a return to classic SW.

It was also effectively a hobby miniature game without he hobby, and in 2013 that was a perfect storm sort of product. Legion misses on every single one of those advantages, including the classic SW one- we have PLENTY of great SW games and product on the market.

It’s also telling that FFG tried to duplicate all of the above with Armada and it has flailed for years. Granted, I still think it is a far better game (and X-Wing is awesome) but it goes to show that FFG too often locks itself into a “we can print our own money” mindset and that is when the flop product starts to roll out.

This is all really interesting, because it shows that solid design is not enough to sell games like these. Most people really only have room in their lives for a single minis game, and when you keep on throwing out new games that will appeal to the same audience, you are stretching yourself mighty thin.

I think that Diskwars is a terrific game, one of their best releases in several years. Part of that is because of its affordability and its ease of storage. But even that was DOA, which is a shame.

"...but it goes to show that FFG too often locks itself into a “we can print our own money” mindset and that is when the flop product starts to roll out."

Battlelore was a very good example of this. All ffg had to do, was somehow continue the product as Dow had produced it (easier said than done, I know) after they purchased it.

Yet instead, on the first day they opened the ffg event center, Peterson unveiled his mystery game. It was GoT themed battlelore.

The crowd went silent in confusion as to why they were even remotely supposed to be excited by this.

Instead of recognizing that AGoTs pull is because of the drama and intrigue, Peterson thought he could just slap a popular ip onto a design without taking that into consideration.

And instead of listening to the criticism, no matter how constructive, CP did his usual fingers in ears routine because his ego is too fragile to listen to anything other than beaming praise. Pride before the fall.

The only thing that broke the crowds silence was Steve Horvath breaking into applause to lead the crowd. Painfully awkward doesn't begin to describe that reveal and it's entire product run.

All this is showing the weakness of depending on serialized purchases. It's a pretty steady revenue stream, but people only have so much room and interest for products like that. I know that FFG does have a stable of good standalone games, but they could really stand to make that their bread and butter again. Failed minis lines is not a good look.

That's where I don't blame ffg. That's mainly our fault as consumers.

A decade ago we all salivated over expansions to our fave games, and ffg was more than happy to provide.

But it reached a tipping point somewhere, perhaps when ffg made an expansion for the expansions that they produced for Arkham horror, that it was all just too much.

X-wing promotes expansion buying,not just for the models but more importantly for the cards they come with. That bit becomes hard to swallow after a while as well.

But you can do serialized products right as long as the consumer doesn't feel they have to buy them. We have too much predatory loot boxes and dlc mindset in marketing-think nowadays to get it right.

I do find it kind of funny that you could sub out FFG for GW in much of this discussion and the dialogue would still work.

If we talk about the DOA status of Shadow War, or the barely supported Warhammer Quest, what about Blood Bowl - I know more Armada players than BB players. Necromunda didn't even launch with more than two Gangs when the main selling point is a campaign mode with your group. What?

But I do agree on the examples given for FFG. They didn't support Battlelore 2E enough, and jacked around with Mutant Chronicles and Cadwallon.

They did support Battlelore Westeros though, that thing had a ton of expansions. And they have poured a ton of support into Runewars, despite it not doing extraordinarily well.

charlest wrote: I do find it kind of funny that you could sub out FFG for GW in much of this discussion and the dialogue would still work.

If we talk about the DOA status of Shadow War, or the barely supported Warhammer Quest, what about Blood Bowl - I know more Armada players than BB players. Necromunda didn't even launch with more than two Gangs when the main selling point is a campaign mode with your group. What?

But I do agree on the examples given for FFG. They didn't support Battlelore 2E enough, and jacked around with Mutant Chronicles and Cadwallon.

They did support Battlelore Westeros though, that thing had a ton of expansions. And they have poured a ton of support into Runewars, despite it not doing extraordinarily well.

This is a good point, but those are sort of different in the sense that none of us ever figured they were trying to make something that would stand alongside Age of Sigmar or 40K. GW keeps the main thing the main thing much more effectively than FFG.

What I can't get over is how many of us actually really like a lot of these failed games. Design is not the issue for FFG, at least not totally.

The difference between gw and ffg is quite simply models.

Gw went on record long ago stating that they are a model company that happens to make rules to use their models.

So even if you don't play thier games (which were, quite frankly, largely horrible designs) you could still surround yourself in nice models that gw photographic marketing leads you to believe will look just as good on your shelf.

Ffg doesn't enjoy this same retreat for their minis games.

For me personally their message is too fractured. I can't keep which game is which straight in my head. And frankly, when I spend the time to figure it out I'm buying just one, whichever interests me the most. Their products are competing against each other instead of competing against Stronghold titles or GW titles.

I'll grant that I'm not exactly looking to figure it out, but I shouldn't have to. FFG's job is to catch my attention, and instead I'm seeing a huge wall of product that isn't unified. And I'm thinking that there's going to be another title out in the Fall that's on this same subject because there always is . . . maybe I'll wait to see what that is instead. Might be better.