Jump to content

The Hamburglar

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. This whole convo is a trap. Sekac, you started out by comparing this to and complaining about Infinity’s silhouette rules, which are extremely clear from a mechanics stand point. Your diatribe about these rules not being well-written is pointless, because you would still not like the change if it wasn’t as poorly written as you’re purporting it is.
  2. Citing 40k as some sort of benchmark for game mechanics, seriously? They have pretty much no vision design-wise (short of making money), and definitely no interest in actually improving their game, just changing it to justify new editions. These changes are often arbitrary, sometimes flip flopping previous changes, or even contradicting previously stated/implied goals. For instance, wasn’t an initially stated 8th edition goal to get rid of all the books you needed to play? How is that working out? Aside from Legion and Infinity I don’t think I’ve picked up a new miniature game within the past 15 years that didn’t use some sort of abstracted cylindrical LoS (i.e. - silhouettes, templates, etc). It’s definitely more common than not, assuming the game in question uses 3 dimensions. The fact that someone upthread actually argued that it’s a players problem for choosing to take a kneeling model shows how wildly different folks opinions can be. Is this fix perfect? No, but I think it’s definitely a step in a better direction.
  3. Isn’t it fun how “my own preferred way of playing” suddenly becomes “common sense” in these situations? Heard the same complaints from a vocal minority when Infinity made the switch to silhouettes. Same as with that game, folks will grow accustomed to the change or quit, and the game will be all the better for it. It’s not the nineties anymore, time to get on board with modern streamlined LoS mechanics. However, I do agree that this is a half measure. It should have included multiple cylinder profiles, extending the rule to all models.
  4. I feel like WYSIWYG is barely being talked about in this thread. It’s mostly about proxying, with a bit of conversion discussion. WYSIWYG = accurate representation of a units weapons/equipment on a model. Proxying = representing a unit with a different model than intended. Conversion = representing a unit with a model that has been altered by swapping parts with other models, or adding scratch built elements. There’s often a lot of overlap/mixing of the three elements, but there is a distinction. Maybe I’m reading the wrong organized play document, or perhaps I overlooked a section, but the Legion rules seem clearly restrictive in this regard. Products/components are tied to rules. The only modification/alteration specifically allowed is how a player chooses to paint their models. I’m not saying I agree with adhering to this in practice (this is where giving TO’s the power to decide comes into play), but I’m also not seeing where so many of you are getting that Adepticon’s rules are somehow more restrictive (aside from the painting requirement).
  5. What you’re saying is true about a slight and consistent difference in base size. However, that’s not what we’re talking about. A square 40mm base has a diagonal measurement of about 56mm. That’s far more than the 1-2mm you’re misrepresenting it as, regardless of whether you’re talking about having different size bases than your opponent, or even the margin of error inherent in the measuring process. Also, you’re ignoring the important part, which is the lack of consistency, and the fact that you as the controlling player have greater agency over that inconsistency. As you activate your models (as part of their movement/activation), you get to decide where you want to orient that wider frontage (for blocking), or the additional range (for attacking). Finally, you mention the similar emphasis other games place on this (true to an extent), but I’d argue that Warmachine has specific characteristics that make it far more impactful than most. The game often combines relatively short threat ranges with devastating consequences. Most other game systems don’t present frequent scenarios where allowing an enemy to get within a distance as short as 8”-12” of a certain model means you can outright lose the game. Also, most other games don’t require you to pay as much attention to positioning and blocking in order to capitalize on or defend against this potential threat. No offense, but I feel like your comments are just wrong, and coming from a lack of familiarity with Warmachine’s rules. It sucks you couldn’t use your models, but instead of ragging on them you should understand that what you were asking those other players (whether you understood it or not), was “hey guys, do you mind if I play with models that would make it really easy for me to cheat?” I get the feeling that most of your experience is with mass infantry games, and not smaller scale skirmish systems? If so, it would make sense that you’d hand waive something like this as inconsequential, because in mass infantry games that’s more often the case. You’re moving more models (greater margin of error), often moving those models faster, making attacks from longer ranges, and pulling individually painted wound markers at a greater rate.
  6. I haven’t played in many years, but as I recall base shape is extremely important in Warmachine. It has a huge impact on both lof (seeing and obstructing) and range (engaging in CC, making ballistic attacks, casting spells, etc). Measurement is extremely important, with an emphasis on being as precise as possible. By simply rotating a square based model, you gain the ability to change its effective base size. This changes what your model can see, what your model can obstruct lof to, and what the range to/from your model is. It’s such an abstract rule set that those players’ card board cutouts would actually lend themselves better to gameplay than your inappropriately but attractively based models. For someone with such a strong opinion on painting in order to play, I’m surprised you’d put such little emphasis on actually learning a game’s rules before playing (I guess we all value various aspects of the game differently). I would hope that those players would have bothered to explain some of this (who knows, maybe they did try, but you couldn’t get past the idea that someone wanted you to play the game the way they thought it should be played). Then again, it probably doesn’t matter, because I don’t think you would have enjoyed that game anyway, and you obviously didn’t think much of the people you’d be playing it with.
  7. There's nothing unreasonable about pointing to potential issues with the game and sharing an opinion, especially if FFG may not have considered those issues carefully and haven't ruled on them definitively. Does FFG monitor their forums and social media (I don't know)? With the game in it's infancy, it seems like the best time for constructive criticism. It's simple really. If TLOS is truly the way FFG wants to go with Legion, it forces them to have a stricter policy regarding the basing and modeling issue. If they want to allow freedom and creativity in regards to modeling and basing, they need to rethink the LoF rules. They have the choice between cultivating two very different hobby cultures. As a customer, I'd like to know which type of game I'm buying into. In the meantime, people have minis they need to base in order to play. I don't think anyone wants to find out the way they've gone about doing so is against rules that didn't exist at the time they based them.
  8. I don't think that's a fair assessment. These days, lots of miniature games account for this by assigning a height that's not dependent on the physical characteristics of the model. I can't think of a single miniature game I currently play that doesn't do this (Infinity, Malifaux, DC Universe, Heavy Gear, etc). This not only solves the OP's issue, but it also allows players and even the game's own sculptors a measure of freedom in how they depict models (scenic bases, dynamic poses, etc). You can take this however you like. Maybe mini-gamers are just as oblivious to common sense as other gamers, but I like to think of it as mini-gamers expecting clarity just as much as other gamers do. Personally, I think "common sense" would dictate that you write these things into your rules from the start. Maybe the perceived problem isn't due to the player base lacking proper miniature gaming experience, as much as it is the designers?
  9. Is the standard height for generic trooper Runny McRunerson intentionally different than generic trooper Standin McBlasterson? Because they're physically different, but their stats aren't. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.
  10. Why isn't there simply a standard trooper height, or even multiple height categories to eliminate this problem completely? The HH-12 Storm Trooper model is about a head shorter than the DLT-19. In general, there's height variation with all the Storm Troopers (I'm assuming this is the case with other units, but I only have ST's in front of me). I seriously doubt their was any consideration put into the game balance of this when designing the minis. If FFG can play fast and loose with mini heights, why can't players? Just like when I go to shoot that HH-12 or another player goes to shoot at it, I'd assume either player has the right to request that the standard height base/mini be used.
  11. Personally, I'm not worried about matching the table, I'm worried about units looking silly on bases that don't match their in-universe role/environment or having an army of mismatched basing styles. Take Imperials. So far, we have Storm Troopers, Speeder Bikes, and AT-ST's that look fine on pretty much any surface. Now, throw in the soon to be released Snow Troopers, and perhaps something something like Shore Troopers. Finding a cohesive yet appropriate basing design that fits all of those just got a bit more difficult. The nature of the way units are designed in the Star Wars universe (i.e.- toy line logic) puts the notion of serving the mini at odds with that of creating visual coherency. Despite the fact that I enjoy modeling bases, I'd actually prefer to go with the coherency of clear acrylic, because I don't know what units I'm eventually going to run along side each other. It doesn't help that SW:L seems like the kind of game where a new unit could competitively supplant one you've purchased the full availability of, and even themed an army around. So, back to my previous example, say I go with Hoth themed snow bases because I like Snow Troopers and they perform well at the moment. Then, a year from now, Shore Troopers come out, and they're a more optimal choice. Do I re-base my Speeders and AT-ST's? Run Snow based Shore Troopers? Run snow and coastline themed bases in the same army? This is not a consideration you typically have to make with other miniature games. The faction or sub faction chosen typically informs the basing aesthetic, not the individual units.
  12. My default answer to participating in tournaments involving most miniatures games is "yes." For the most part, I find tournaments to be an enjoyable part of the hobby. At this point, I'm not sure what constitutes an "official" tournament for this game, or whether any tournaments I'd be likely to participate in would count as such. This is more about getting a read of the room before I decide on whether I'm going to stay in it or not. I'm less concerned about what the organized play rules say, and more concerned that a majority of players (particularly any TOs) would blindly follow such a potentially strict basing rule that has minimal to zero in-game relevance. If my basing choice relegates my participation to pick up games, I probably won't bother with it.
  13. Why would you want to look at that over gray plastic? I mean, I'm fine if that's what a player wants to do or that's the level they're at skill-wise, but I don't see the point in forcing it. Also, we'd all know that seeing a quick and sloppy paint job across the table is just as likely to be a result of forcing someone to paint as it is the person taking the initiative to do so. You'd be forcing people to have the same painting ethics you do, not inspiring them.
  14. Sorry to bring up an oldish thread, but I'm really curious about this topic, as Legion is potentially my first FFG game and I would prefer clear bases due to the range of unit themes. Many Star Wars units relate to specific iconic theaters of battle, or have uniforms that link them to specific planets/environments. Collecting the entire range of either faction and maintaining a consistent basing theme that actually makes sense with all of them is going to be quite limiting, and even a bit difficult (for instance, do you base your Snow Troopers to match your Endor themed Speeders and Storm Troopers, or do you base them each to fit the environment they come from and run an army that lacks a cohesive aesthetic). I'm concerned about the comments pointing towards the rigidity of FFGs basing restrictions, those seeming to toe the line despite the lack of relevance, and wondering if this is actually reflected in most player's opinions/experiences? For instance, the chances are extremely rare that a 2mm height discrepancy would make a difference in a game that uses relatively minimal terrain like Legion does. The past five to six years I've primarily played Infinity, a game where tables are packed with terrain of varying height and elevation, and LoF is extremely important. Even so, something as small as a 2mm height difference would rarely cause problems while playing that game. Also, how difficult is it to visually determine that two criss-crossed lines on a base are at the required 90 degree orientation? Being that they'd be clear, you could simply place it on top of a standard base, and show your opponent there is no issue. Are typical FFG players (or more importantly TOs) so concerned about strictly following basing guidelines that they're willing to ignore the lack of any logical rationale for those guidelines? Or, are they so paranoid of potential abuse that they'd rather have less flexibility in how their armies look? I'd really like to know people's thoughts on this, because I'm concerned that this may not be the right game for me if this is in fact the case.
  • Create New...