Make Objectives (and tournaments) Great Again!

It’s no secret that high-level tournament play has begun devolving into “boring,” noninteractive games that come down to counting kill points or rolling dice to determine a tie.  This of course is not the fault of the players, but rather the objective cards that are over-incentivizing late game action.  The end result is players understanding their win conditions, not overcommitting and utilizing as much of their army as possible at the right time.  In short, being good competitors.

I take no issue with competition, but I do tire of watching and participating in games where we spend roughly half the game poking and jockeying for position because there’s nothing to pursue other than kill points and round six scoring.  Games like this are intense while played, but are a symptom of battlecards that are not forcing interaction and allowing players to sit on their haunches.  I believe games of Intercept the Transmissions are inherently less fun than games of Bombing Run or Payload.  Furthermore, a two and a half hour game of Key Positions is a darn travesty in a tournament format.   Playing an entire game where the only opportunity to score is nestled at the end of six rounds is not how I want to spend my time at a tournament, I want to actually play the game! So then, what is my solution to these issues?

Shorten the game to five rounds.

Now then, shortening the game by a full round will obviously require a rework of the objectives and I'll gladly get to that in a moment.  But first I’d like to elaborate on the advantages a shorter game would give us.  A shorter game offers three notable benefits:

1. We’re gonna spend less time jockeying for position and more real time actually fighting for those positions.  Reducing the surplus time available in the game forces engagement sooner and with a reworked objective deck should produce a more clearly defined winner. 

2. A five round game of Legion can have its timer cut down to only two hours of game time.  The biggest problem for tournament organizers is finding a way to produce a clear champion after only three rounds of play in a day.  By cutting each round down to only two hours we can almost “buy” ourselves a fourth round with the time we’ve saved (.5 x 3= 1.5).  Four round tournaments will be longer than three round tournaments, but I think the upsides far outweigh the cost of scheduling that fourth game.  In my estimation a fourth round would only add an additional hour to the overall tournament day (+30 minutes of game time, +15 minutes between rounds and +15 minutes of run-off time at the end of round).  Furthermore, that extra hour is going to be spent actually playing the game, not just waiting on other players to finish their rounds.

3. This proposed shorter game of Legion would be far more welcoming for new players who understandably balk at the length of a six round, 2.5 hour game. It’s hard to play a single game of Legion on a weeknight and most players (myself included) are happy to play three games of Legion in a month.  For as much time as we invest into this hobby, a single game a week is painful and turns away prospective players who’d rather play two games of Killteam or four games of Magic in the same timeframe.  I also know well the price of being a newbie at your first tournament.  Inevitably you’re gonna get wiped in one of your games and spend an hour or more reflecting on the length of Legion and wondering why the game needs to be so long. Couldn’t we have just designed it to be shorter?  

I won’t spend more time elaborating on the advantages of a five round game, but I do believe there are more than what I've already listed.  Furthermore, I believe we are well positioned to begin playing faster and more active games of Legion due to “recent” changes in the rules. These changes are:

1. The new cover system.  The CRB release last year brought us a new system for determining cover which allows players to (in most circumstances) determine cover in a matter of moments and therefore speed the course of the game up markedly.  The new cover ruleset is a mixed bag of feelings for me (if you’re familiar with Kyle Dornbos’s stance than you’re familiar with mine) but after a year of use AMG shows no signs of modifying it.  So then, let’s find a way to use this speed boost to our advantage and play more games of Legion in a single day.  

2. The changing impact of force users.  Aside from the Republic’s Jedi, most force wielding heroes have begun falling off in popularity when it comes to objective play.  The various nerfs over the last year to Force Push, Force Choke, Deflect and Burst of Speed have made force users less common on the battlefield and less powerful in their ability to warp the game state through objectives.  These changes have by no means made them irrelevant, but they’ve certainly taken a slice of efficiency out of the classic playstyle (especially for Maul and Vader). I believe their decrease in power has cracked open the door of opportunity for a new objective deck that can be more interactive without the fear of “Jedi” dominating every time.  (I will caveat here and say that the introduction of Inquisitors to this game and the possibility of three Force Push upgrades at once may cause me to reverse my stance on this point, but until they are released it’s too early to say.)  

3. The ever-escalating arms race.  Dice pools seem to be constantly climbing these days and, aside from the Republic, defensive tech is not keeping pace.  Our ability to kill things is as strong as it’s ever been which primes us perfectly to shift the focus away from low-scoring games focused on kill points and instead focus on games with more objectives scoring throughout.  If players are spending less time playing the gunline game then perhaps we’ll free ourselves from the fire-supporting, Force Barrier-ing nonsense that rewards stagnant playstyles.  

The New Objectives

And now for the fun part!  I believe the current objectives fall into three categories: the good, the bad, and those that need tweaks.  For each troublesome objective I'm going to list the current issues it brings to the game and then my proposed fix to make these objectives more interactive and less of a stalemate.  The good objectives don’t need any help, so I’ll simply elaborate on how they will benefit from a five round game instead.  And lastly, the “tweaker” objectives are just a minor change or two away from being perfect and balanced in the new five round format.  

The Good

Breakthrough

I’m of the belief that this objective is fine as is.  In fact, I’ve begun bringing it in trooper-centric lists just to avoid playing Vaporators whenever possible.  Yes, it favors vehicles, Mandolorians and Pathfinders; but that’s fine.  Every objective will have an innate tendency to benefit one play style over another and that’s what I love about this game.  Even in a trooper vs. trooper game Breakthrough is still a more fun objective than Key Positions or Vaporators; and if you’re up against a Clone gunline then this objective forces them to stop sharing and start walking.  

In the context of a five round game I think it's purely “stonks up” for this objective since we’ll be cutting ourselves down from three rounds of “spare time” down to only two.  Six of the deployment battle cards place you at range four of your opponents deployment zone, with Danger Close bringing that down to range three and Long March increasing it to range six.  A trooper moving speed two will need five move actions to safely make it into the opposing deployment zone.  This means they’ll spend half of their actions walking if they want to score, allowing plenty of opportunities to shoot each round as they move.  Like every objective in the game, Breakthrough will reward faster movement and scouting forward.  That’s A-OK since players are spending their points in order to bring those abilities with them.  Other than increasing the pace of play I see Breakthrough doing just fine in a five round format.  

Bombing Run

Bombing Run needs no changes to function seamlessly in a five round format.  Much of what I just said about Breakthrough applies here as well.  However, bombs can be dropped within range one of a deployment zone making the movement required even less than that of Breakthrough.  This means that movement is somewhat freed up and can meander a bit in its beeline if you want to look for cover on your way.  Furthermore, in order to detonate all three of your bombs you’ll need to be dropping them by round three or earlier since only one bomb can be detonated per round.  

In short, this objective accomplishes what we’re looking for.  A shorter game at the cost of less positioning but you’ll be fighting for those positions sooner.  Not much is gonna change and speeders and Mandalorians will still love this objective.  

Recover the Supplies

I’m going to get ahead of myself a bit here, but in many ways Recover offers us an example of what a reworked Vaporators game would function like.  Each player has two “safe” objectives to interact with and then a central objective that the game will likely focus on.  The central box offers that pivotal third victory point that players need in order to secure their victory and avoid counting kill points.  The cost of pursuing that box is pricey, but the reward is victory.  I think Recover favors Jedi, Mandos and delivery trucks but is overall a good objective that needs no reworking.  

The Bad

Sabotage the Moisture Vaporators

It’s been said a million times already, but I’ll write it out again for this article: this objective needs a fifth vaporator.  Of all the objectives that need reworking, this one is the most egregious.  Moisture Vaporators ends in a tie nearly every time and relies on kill points to sort out the victor.  Furthermore, players are downright punished for bringing this objective in their battle deck since a tie in kill points gives the game to the player who didn’t bring the bid.  A properly built objective should not be so blatantly one-sided.  My solution to this objective is simple: roll a red die to determine who won, then go to lunch early.  Just kidding, we should give the people what they want.   It's not original to me, but I’m glad to implement it: introduce a fifth objective that is costly to claim, but rewards victory.  

I think placing an additional vaporator in the center of the map is a great spot while still providing an element of nuance that’ll differentiate this objective from Recover the Supplies.  Instead of grabbing a box and running, you’re instead going to stay and try to “tap” that vaporator a second time.  If you make your dash early enough in the game, you may catch your opponent unaware while their troopers are out of position securing their “home” objectives.  

The second change I’d implement is another common solution for this objective that has been said many a time on a variety of podcasts but I believe was proposed by Kyle Dornbros.  Players should be required to place their objective tokens within range two of their opponent’s deployment zone.  This means that instead of looking for safe places to hunker down with your own objectives (the way Recover works) you’ll instead look for inopportune spots to force your opponent to walk into.   The purpose of this change is simple: force players to expose their forces in order to score.  If both players are allowed to have safe “home” objectives then it’s likely they’d avoid going for the middle objective altogether.  If they are both playing offensively oriented lists then it would be a death trap for any units that made a move towards the center.  If we remove the safe “home” objectives while also introducing a fifth objective in the center, then conflict is sure to take place, units will die, and someone will need to sacrifice men in order to win through traditional means.  

Intercept the Transmissions

The second-most infamous of the bad objectives is Intercept.  Intercept is tied with Key Positions for the most popular objective played, but is far from a good objective.  It has elements that I love (trooper focused, double scoring rounds, three scoring opportunities) but it still ends in kill points far too often.  Unfortunately, the way scoring works in this objective lends itself to slow games with very little interaction until the final two rounds.  Player A and Player B each have their own “home” objective that is relatively safe behind the bulk of their army.  The players will relegate a wounded or cheap unit to babysit that objective and then concentrate the remainder of their forces on the central point.  Barring any wild haymakers or skew lists it is unlikely either player will capture their opponent’s “home” objective.  With this in mind we can essentially ignore the points scored on “home” objectives since they will cancel each other out for the purposes of gaining an advantage. The situation we are trying to avoid is as follows:

Player A will capture the central objective on rounds 2 and 4 earning themselves a net score of 2 over their opponent.  Player B will then score the central objective on the final round (when it scores double) bringing their own score to parity with that of Player A and bringing the game to a tie.  

I’ve been a part of many discussions about how to fix this objective and the most common solution proposed is the one Ryan Sliwoski champions: only the central point should score double on round six.  I respect Ryan’s opinions dearly and agreed with his solution until I had to rethink it for the purpose of a five round game.  I think the key issues with Intercept (whether in a five or four round game) lies with the fact that the central objective does score double.   Like we discussed a moment ago, the “home” objectives will essentially cancel each other out in most games.  Therefore, the fact that they do score double means practically nothing for the sake of gaining an advantage.  (I am speaking here about a game in which neither player contests their opponent’s “home” objective.  If you ever successfully contest it, then this entire situation never arises.) 

I believe the fix for this objective is, in fact, the opposite of the common solution.  If we really want to fix this objective, then we need to remove double scoring from the central point while keeping double scoring on the “home” objectives.  One of the redeeming attributes of Intercept is that players who have lost in the first two scoring rounds can swing for the fences on the final scoring round and hope for a win.  Removing double scoring from the central objective still allows for this while simultaneously avoiding the possibility of tying the game.  With this new rule Player B (from our circumstance above) would lose the game 5 to 6 if they used the same game plan we described earlier.  But, if in the final round, they score their “home,” the center and tie their opponent’s “home” then Player B will win the game 5 to 4.  If, of course, they take their opponents “home” objective then they’ll win in a blowout 7-4 victory.  Such an aggressive play is difficult to pull off, which is precisely why Player B will be fighting for the center objective the first two times it scores.  By removing the possibility of a tie (the biggest issue in Legion) we force players to engage.  If we force players to engage, then things will die earlier and we should be able to avoid counting kill points only scored in round six.  The objective is labeled “Intercept the Transmissions,” not “Wait for round six then collect just as many emails as your enemy.”

Before we move away from this objective, we should touch on what it would look like in a five round format.  I’d like to propose we have scoring on rounds 1 and 3 and double scoring for “home” objectives only at the end of the game.  Now before you reach for the comment button, let me explain why I think scoring on round 1 is a good idea.  The first is that it’s simply the best way to divide 5 by 3.  The second is that it’ll give more viability to units like Mandolorians, scouting Ewoks or Infiltrators.  A speed three move from the closest deployment zone will allow a trooper to contest the center with an action left to spare.  If a Mando or hero takes the objective in the first round, then they can simply fall back and do it again in round three.  Contesting a point on round one isn’t the craziest idea in the world, and if you don’t want to do it, then play turn zero accordingly.  If we play the objectives sooner, we can play the game sooner. 

Payload

I’ve saved the best (of the bad) for last because payload is my favorite objective in the game. Despite its current issues I still find this objective both interactive and fun.  As far as I’m aware, I’ve never taken a list to a tournament that does not have payload in its battle deck.  I’d like to propose three updates to this objective that will help it in both a five round game or in our current rules set. 

The first would be a change to its silhouette. Currently, it cannot move over anything taller than a barricade. I’d like to see the cart updated/upgraded to a notched base trooper silhouette (they do after all, use the same base already). I know many would like to see this silhouette changed to a height one movement instead, but I believe a notched base silhouette would not only be more in keeping with the spirit of the developers choice, but would also flow well with my second proposed update.

My second proposition is to increase the scoring range of the cart.  Current scoring triggers at range two and increases in points from 1-3 as the bomb cart closes in.  I’d like to increase the initial scoring zone to range three and then raise the points rewarded accordingly.  At range three you’d score one point and when in base contact you’d score four.  This allows for more delineation in scoring which thereby avoids going to kill points as often as we currently do.  With all of these proposed updates, the goal is to keep the game state from being written in stone for all six rounds.

Proposition three comes from one of my local players Brian Schmoyer.  Instead of allowing the game to be so wildly influenced by differences in terrain, remove the terrain requirement.  Rather than marking a piece of terrain with an objective token, just use the objective token.  The directions should read as follows: “Then, starting with the blue player, each player places an objective token matching their opponent’s color on the tabletop beyond range one of any deployment zone.”  This rewrite eliminates issues with vertical terrain selection as well as terrain scarcity.  As a reminder, the term “beyond” means entirely outside.  This is the same terminology used for Recover and Vaporators, so expect good players to place the objective tokens as close to their deployment as possible.  This means that instead of being at the mercy of the table, players instead are relying on the deployment cards.  Terrain issues will of course still play a role in this objective, but that’s part of the DNA of Payload.  

The reason I want the bombcart to be limited to a notched base silhouette for vertical movement is to force horizontal movement choices.  This is so that players cannot simply draw straight lines to their objectives and have to plot their course around the terrain.  I understand that scoring at range three will be relatively easy to accomplish, but let’s not forget that your opponent gets to pick where you push that cart to.  And just like the changes discussed in the other objectives, if an objective is easy to score then it’s likely getting “canceled out” by your opponent’s easy scoring as well. 

Those That Need Tweaks

Key Positions

I feel almost guilty for not putting this objective in the “bad” section, but after much debate I decided to alter this objective as little as necessary.  Key Positions is from the core set, it's easy to understand and is a staple of the competitive and casual scenes.  My only gripe with this objective is the length of the game and the “uselessness” of rounds 1 and 2.  But if we’re shortening our game by thirty minutes and a full round then we’ve halfway fixed the problem already.  I originally considered adding a fourth objective to Key Positions, but I understand that mastering a gun battle still has its place in this game.  We could add a second scoring round, but then we open ourselves up to the possibility of ties while also detracting from what makes Key Positions unique.  Furthermore, a true wargame like Legion deserves to have an objective that rewards killing things as a means to ensure victory.  If you enjoy cagey games that rely heavily on positioning and picking your opponent apart slowly, then rest assured Key Positions isn’t changing too much.  

The following tweak was recommended by our own Richard Lavery: terrain pieces chosen by the players should be beyond both range one of the edge of the battlefield and range one of deployment zones.  This minor tweak will force both armies to the center faster and open the possibility of assaulting your opponent’s chosen Key Position.  The shrunken battlefield will also allow players to bring every unit into the fight where previously a lesser unit would be sacrificed to “puppy-guard” duty in the backfield.  Condensing our battlefield should allow this objective to feel right at home in our shortened game length.  Key Positions is already a balanced objective with only three victory points up for grabs, if we pick up the pace a bit we can keep this objective from feeling like a slog when played multiple times in a single day.  

Hostage Exchange

Hostage Exchange is in a good spot minus a single caveat.  More so than any other objective, Hostage Exchange is dominated by force users.  In many players' eyes this objective is the force user objective.  I’d like to diminish the strength of force users in this objective so that it can see more play among lists of all types.  

Therefore, my only tweak to the list is as follows.  On the “Hostage” card (the one equipped by the units) add the following text: You cannot be moved by enemy effects.  This shuts down Force Push and Vader’s Might and is exactly what I'm looking to accomplish.  Rather than the game being about how I can move my opponent’s units, it’s instead about how I can move my own.  

Force users will still be powerful.  Yoda’s Guidance will still work its magic, New Ways to Motivate Them will still work, Palpatine will still Pull the Strings and everyone can still use Force Barrier to protect friendly hostage carriers.  But now we’ve placed an emphasis on bringing units like Padme, Leia, Moff Gideon and Cody who can provide additional opportunities for the movement of friendly units.  The end result is a slight nerf to the force wielders that will open up the objective to being more than a single dimensional game.   Hostage Exchange is no longer a “bring a force user or don’t bring this objective” choice.  By leveling the playing field a bit, we can make this objective more commonplace for lists of all kinds.  

The Elephant in the Room 

Could an objective rework skew the point value of current units? 

Memes aside, it very well could.  But if AMG took measures like the ones I've prescribed then I'm sure they’d recognize the need to update things accordingly.  Some units may be more viable in a shorter game, while others need as many rounds as possible to make up for their inflated cost.  If reworked objectives is what it takes to get a general balance update then I'm all for it.  Some command cards will also need tuning (Annihilation Looms) while others may become slightly harder to trigger (Idiot’s Array).  But overall I see very few problems emerging in this manner.  

I believe these new objectives, in conjunction with a shorter game, will free us from the biggest issue that faces Legion tournaments today: ties.  If we set aside two full days to play legion, we should be able to play more than six games.  Furthermore, we should not be relying on SoS to determine a champion when we’ll likely have multiple undefeated (it’s a battle for another time, but SoS needs retooling to be combined with Order of Loss).  By increasing our games played we can determine champions faster, get in more rounds of Swiss and gain a “truer” understanding of rankings at the end of two days.  Who knows, maybe we could even move away from a single elimination format for the World Championship?  

These newly proposed objectives will also drastically reduce the chance of counting kill points while hopefully eliminating games that can both begin and end in a stalemate; i.e. being tied in army building points while playing Vaporators.  A well balanced and healthy game shouldn’t need draws and won’t experience ties the way we currently do.  Legion is so close to being perfect, and I, in my infinite wisdom, have provided the perfect solution.  (Sarcasm intended)

Thank you SO MUCH for reading.  I hope this article didn’t come off as a complete homebrew and a waste of your time wherein I rambled/complained about boring tournament experiences.   Very few of these ideas are original and I stand here on the shoulders of giants who've been having these conversations and developing solutions long before I was doing either. All I've done is synthesize solutions offered with elements from other games to create my dream Legion format. I’d be delighted if you'd try out my format and let me know what you think!  To this end I’ve included a link below that includes images of my revised objective cards for you to print out.  Hopefully my intent on each objective is clear and easily followed. 

That’s all for now, but if you’ve never read this blog before then I’d encourage you to check out our other articles as well as our battle report videos.  If you didn’t care for my writing style, then don’t worry!  I don’t do all the writing around here; we’ve got a whole team of smart cookies that’ll teach you how to succeed in the current six round format!  

Until next time, remember to Make Objectives Great Again! 

Print your own copy of The Carolina Ruleset cards here.