Jump to content
NeonWolf

New Tournament Regs

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, bwingstrike said:

What about the new jetpack models? 

What about them? Are you asking if I think their jetpacks should count as extraneous? If so, I'd say yes. Basically just body parts should count.

If you're asking if I think they should be easier to shoot, also yes. Soaring around like a bird has it's advantages, benefitting from cover is not among them. I think models in the sky should be easier to spot than ones hiding on the ground, I think models kneeling should have a harder time seeing and being seen than those standing, and I think R2-D2 is smaller than Chewie.

Ruining the immersion of a game by deciding that every model is actually just a twin size battle-mattress is just lazy.

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sekac said:

What about them? Are you asking if I think their jetpacks should count as extraneous? If so, I'd say yes. Basically just body parts should count.

If you're asking if I think they should be easier to shoot, also yes. Soaring around like a bird has it's advantages, benefitting from cover is not among them. I think models in the sky should be easier to spot than ones hiding on the ground, I think models kneeling should have a harder time seeing and being seen than those standing, and I think R2-D2 is smaller than Chewie.

Ruining the immersion of a game by deciding that every model is actually just a twin size battle-mattress is just lazy.

But then surely no-one who takes part in tournaments would use the flying stands as they would be penalised for having cool looking models.

In my head I would see them jumping from cover to cover in a battle not just constantly fly around making themselves an easy target. 

I agree that R2 should not be the same size as Chewie that's a bit wierd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DewbackScout said:

I'm fine with the line of sight template ... even if the size (42mm x 27mm) seems oddly arbitrary (why not 40 x 25)?

It's 27 mm wide because that's the width of the small base. The template basically just gives you the height of the volume. The actual templates are apparently 43 mm tall for some reason, even though the book says 42.

Share this post


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

But then surely no-one who takes part in tournaments would use the flying stands as they would be penalised for having cool looking models.

Maybe, maybe not. I primarily play warhammer 40k which is a true line of sight system. Ridiculous when someone is firing a gun from the top of their back banner, but they can be shot there too. Some models have massive wings, some are jets on 6" tall flight stands, some are little tiny things easy to hide. Things still get taken if they're good.

Mostly, it just bothers me from a game design standpoint. Did they not consider light sabers or potential flying models when they came up with their original LoS system? I feel like you maaaybe would make it 2 games into play testing before those situations.

The bottom line is they designed a game that doesn't fit the models they've designed. Their solution was to make their own models unnecessary to use with their own game. The models are only there so you can remember which cylinder is which. 

But the fundamental logic of it is absurd. The end of Luke's lightsaber sticks out so they decide to subtract that, then triple his total targetable area in the trade off? What makes more sense, Luke dies because he got shot in the lightsaber, or because someone saw the air 2 feet from his head and shot that instead? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Maybe, maybe not. I primarily play warhammer 40k which is a true line of sight system. Ridiculous when someone is firing a gun from the top of their back banner, but they can be shot there too. Some models have massive wings, some are jets on 6" tall flight stands, some are little tiny things easy to hide. Things still get taken if they're good.

Mostly, it just bothers me from a game design standpoint. Did they not consider light sabers or potential flying models when they came up with their original LoS system? I feel like you maaaybe would make it 2 games into play testing before those situations.

The bottom line is they designed a game that doesn't fit the models they've designed. Their solution was to make their own models unnecessary to use with their own game. The models are only there so you can remember which cylinder is which. 

But the fundamental logic of it is absurd. The end of Luke's lightsaber sticks out so they decide to subtract that, then triple his total targetable area in the trade off? What makes more sense, Luke dies because he got shot in the lightsaber, or because someone saw the air 2 feet from his head and shot that instead? 

The "fundemental logic" is that all models are equally bad or good now, and none are punished for having a cool pose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, arnoldrew said:

The "fundemental logic" is that all models are equally bad or good now, and none are punished for having a cool pose.

We were only "punished" because they did a bad job of deciding on a LoS system to begin with. They had a system that might sometimes "punish" you for using cool models. Now they have a system that punishes you for using models.

Kinda threw the baby out with the bathwater.

If the specifics of a model's shape and size was either always good or always bad, I would understand the reason for the change. Tall or dynamic things are harder to hide but easier to shoot with, small things are easier to hide and harder to shoot with. There's advantages and disadvantages, so why are removing those necessary?

Trust me, as an Infinity player, I can tell you, there is nothing that pulls you out of a game like a model killing another model that it can't see at all. I lose my motorcycles in Infinity all the time because their silhouette is about a half inch taller than the model, since the same silhouette is also used for taller things. Definitely feels worse than losing a model because they only saw a small part of it. 

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Sekac said:

We were only "punished" because they did a bad job of deciding on a LoS system to begin with. They had a system that might sometimes "punish" you for using cool models. Now they have a system that punishes you for using models.

Kinda threw the baby out with the bathwater.

If the specifics of a model's shape and size was either always good or always bad, I would understand the reason for the change. Tall or dynamic things are harder to hide but easier to shoot with, small things are easier to hide and harder to shoot with. There's advantages and disadvantages, so why are removing those necessary?

Trust me, as an Infinity player, I can tell you, there is nothing that pulls you out of a game like a model killing another model that it can't see at all. I lose my motorcycles in Infinity all the time because their silhouette is about a half inch taller than the model, since the same silhouette is also used for taller things. Definitely feels worse than losing a model because they only saw a small part of it. 

First of all, being able to shoot well is not a benefit for melee models. Second, at least in this game, being able to shoot is not as good of a pro as being able to be shot by everything else is as bad of a con. When the cons outweigh the pros so absolutely, that means what you are discussing is a negative trait. Cool poses and such should not be a negative trait.

Edited by arnoldrew

Share this post


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

First of all, being able to shoot well is not a benefit for melee models. Second, at least in this game, being able to shoot is not as good of a pro as being able to be shot by everything else is as bad of a con. When the cons outweigh the pros so absolutely, that means what you are discussing is a negative trait. Cool poses and such should not be a negative trait.

First, almost everything became a much bigger target overall. Their thin gun barrels and such no longer count, but the total targetable area is MUCH larger for most models. So if being large is bad for melee units, that problem is much worse now. 

Which is why having only parts of the model where being shot could result in injury or death is a much better system. It isn't perfect but it accomplishes their goal a heck of a lot better than what they came up with. Wookiees continue to be large, R2 continues to be small, nobody is 3 times wider than the actual model, nobody dies because they got shot in the gun, nor because they got shot in the midichlorian aura surrounding them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sekac said:

lose my motorcycles

Why are your motorcycles staying still? Shouldn’t they be in motion all the time? Oh wait, they are pieces of plastic. 

 

Our models represent a unit. The silhouette represents the potential space that unit would occupy. For now, they decided all small base trooper minis will use the same silhouette.

when we play games thematically it’s important to be imaginative. I can imagine that R2 tries to rocket boost over part of the battlefield, lifting him to Chewie’s height, and gets hit with an unanticipated shot.  (I’ll admit that them being equal silhouettes bugs me) 

IRL when a soldier is behind cover, that does not make them immune. 

 

The most most important piece here is to clearly communicate with opponents your intent. In casual games, discuss silhouette use ahead of time. Design and place terrain in a way that provides LOS blocking terrain for troopers (this is actually easier now that they are uniform!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sekac said:

First, almost everything became a much bigger target overall. Their thin gun barrels and such no longer count, but the total targetable area is MUCH larger for most models. So if being large is bad for melee units, that problem is much worse now.

I don't know if I would say worse, but the fundamental thing of importance is that they are all now the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kardek said:

I prefer to use comic book backing boards. That's what I used to make the tokens for that x-wing fan made campaign.

That also works, I hadn't thought of those. I was mostly listing things people may already have lying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I don't know if I would say worse, but the fundamental thing of importance is that they are all now the same.

Only for small bases.

Apparently none of the size, shape, or cool conversion issues exist for anything larger. If you want to convert a speeder to have an extra tall flying base, there are absolutely no issues that can arise from that. Or if there are, that is a punishment you apparently deserve.

41 minutes ago, smickletz said:

when we play games thematically it’s important to be imaginative. I can imagine that R2 tries to rocket boost over part of the battlefield, lifting him to Chewie’s height, and gets hit with an unanticipated shot.  (I’ll admit that them being equal silhouettes bugs me) 

I'm okay abstractions. Any LoS system is inherently somewhat abstract. I think the goal should be to require the least amount of mental gymnastics, while not overly negatively impacting game play.

What requires less mental gymnastics, imagining that Luke hasn't activated his saber while seeking cover, or imagining that he's moving in such a way as to be occupying every inch in an area 3 times his size simultaneously?

You make a good point, that we must be okay with abstractions. What you didn't do is explain how their choice of change was a good one. What about "pretend small bases are cylinders, and everything else is actually the size and shape the model is" is better than "pretend this guy behind the wall is actually trying to hide"?

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your forgetting one thing.  Use the silhouette only if there is a question of can he be seen and intended for miniatures like Luke.  Not sure why LOS isn't just reduced to miniature's "body" and ignoring backpacks, rifles, sabers, pistols, antenna, and what ever else they carry.  I do see the silhouette as including the things like Luke's light saber as being targeted and that's why he got taller. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sekac said:

What you didn't do is explain how their choice of change was a good one.

Yeah, I think the jury I’d still out on that. My play group is certainly divided on the idea, but we primarily play casual anyway. Seems like we are moving toward:

  1. talk to each other before and during the game regarding use of silhouettes
  2. communicate clearly  intent in movement and positioning (I’m moving so the top of the silhouette will be able to get Rex in LOS/to keep Rex from having LOS)
  3. don’t intentionally create “gotcha” moments

Competitive Play has the potential to have dicey situations occur, but at least this system makes it less subjective in LOS and what part of a model can be hit. 

I’m looking forward to seeing how the new system plays out. 

 

Frankly, the bigger announcement in the article is the points system for margin of victory. I love how they did it! No more advantage for having a Bye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John79 said:

I think your forgetting one thing.  Use the silhouette only if there is a question of can he be seen and intended for miniatures like Luke. 

That's not what the document says. In a tournament, it MUST be used for determining LoS. So people will skip it if it's obviously a clear shot. But, by rule, both the attacker and defender need to use those for every shot.

Which means it's in your best interest to check that for every trooper you move and are trying to hide out of LoS. It will inevitably slow the game down because our trooper models are effectively just stand-ins for our cylinder armies, it's just played the opposite way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, DewbackScout said:

Glad to see strength of schedule go, but their MoV scheme rewards "baby seal clubbing" ... getting randomly paired against a significantly weaker opponent and trouncing them is better than a hard-fought game between players of near equal skill. Since I don't have a better idea, though -- it's still an improvement, and at least we aren't totaling victory points like they do in Armada.

I'm not that concerned about it because it will only come in to play in the case of ties for tournament standing.  

If I got 4 wins and you got 3, our MOV won't even be a thing we worry about.  

TOURNAMENT POINTS Players earn tournament points at the end of each round. At the end of a tournament, the player with the most tournament points wins the tournament. In the case of a larger event, they are instead used to determine who makes the cut to elimination rounds. Players earn tournament points as follows:
• Win = 1 tournament point • Loss = 0 tournament points

TIEBREAKERS If two or more players have the same number of tournament points, tiebreakers are used to determine each player’s standing within that group. Tiebreakers are used in the following order until all players within that group have been given a standing.

AVERAGE MARGIN OF VICTORY: A player’s average MOV is calculated by adding their MOV from each of their games together and then dividing the sum by the number of rounds in the tournament. The player with the highest average MOV among the players with the same number of tournament points is the highest-ranked player in that group. The player with the second-highest average MOV is ranked second among those players, and so on.

EXTENDED AVERAGE MARGIN OF VICTORY: A player’s extended average MOV is the average MOV of that player’s opponents. To calculate this value, add together the average MOV for each of the player’s opponents and then divide the sum by the number of opponents. The player with the highest extended average MOV among the players with the same number of tournament points is the highest-ranked player in that group. The player with the secondhighest average MOV is ranked second among those players, and so on.

STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE: A player’s strength of....

(tournament regs pages 10-11)

Edited by Zrob314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

That’s how it works in other ffg games too. You score better by beating your opponent by a bigger margin. A close game doesn’t help your ranking much in xwing unless it’s a win and you just needed the W. MoV is based on the difference of what was destroyed so a lopsided game scores better than a close one.

Which rewards players for playing weaker opponents... it’s typical FFG thinking they’re more clever than they are. SoS wasn’t perfect, but it was much better than this terribleness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, NeverTellMeTheOdds said:

Which rewards players for playing weaker opponents... it’s typical FFG thinking they’re more clever than they are. SoS wasn’t perfect, but it was much better than this terribleness. 

Strength of schedule arbitrarily rewards or punishes you based on how other people performed.  Margin of victory is at least something you have some influence over.

Share this post


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

Which rewards players for playing weaker opponents... it’s typical FFG thinking they’re more clever than they are. SoS wasn’t perfect, but it was much better than this terribleness. 

But you have no say over pairings, so not really. It can, but it more rewards you for putting in effort to keep a close game (if you’re losing), and if you have the win in the bag already it pushes you to keep playing because you want to give up less MoV.

Neither is perfect, but at least there’s some player agency in this one.

Share this post


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

Which rewards players for playing weaker opponents... it’s typical FFG thinking they’re more clever than they are. SoS wasn’t perfect, but it was much better than this terribleness. 

So SoS that is complete random is great? Care to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Sekac

Honestly the LoS change will have a big negativ impact on the tournaments. Everything will be slower because you cant just place your troopers behind a rock and go on the other side of the table to look if nothing can be seen. You instead have to stick that silhoute to each and every Trooper and check LoS - to bad if its on range 5 and on the other side of the table.

 

And why even make everyone the same? Your kneeling trooper cant see anything behind the wall? Well thats the unit you included in your list, play around it. Same goes for snipers and other units with long weapons, just place it backwards and the problem is solved in 90% of all situations - in the other 10% you just cant place it that way because thats the disadvantage of that mini (or just discuss it with your opponent ofr other options).

And yes, i see the problems with Arcs and Grievous - why not do this change specifically for this units? This allows nice models for problematic minis while keeping the overall feel of troopers the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, XExEcUtOrX04 said:

And yes, i see the problems with Arcs and Grievous - why not do this change specifically for this units? This allows nice models for problematic minis while keeping the overall feel of troopers the same.

Thinking about it a bit more (and with a couple beers to grease my mind gears), I think the best solution would've been including the new silhouette and saying "when determining LoS to a small base model, place this silhouette template behind the model. If any parts of the model extend past the silhouette, ignore them. If the model is on a flight stand and no part of the model would be within the silhouette, then treat the silhouette as the model for targeting  purposes."

This:

1) Completely solves the dynamic pose, extended weapons, cool conversion issue in exactly the same way as the change they made.

2) Doesn't expand every small base to a cylinder.

3) Allows the model's actual size and pose to affect the game to some degree.

 

Is there any reason this isn't objectively better than their solution? Perhaps the dev team should only write rules after being awake for 32 straight hours and drinking 2.5 beers. I'm in da zone!

 

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John79 said:

I think your forgetting one thing.  Use the silhouette only if there is a question of can he be seen and intended for miniatures like Luke.  Not sure why LOS isn't just reduced to miniature's "body" and ignoring backpacks, rifles, sabers, pistols, antenna, and what ever else they carry.  I do see the silhouette as including the things like Luke's light saber as being targeted and that's why he got taller. 

Because that would make too **** much sense and require people to use common sense and basic reasoning instead of trying to game the system to win at all costs.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...