Jump to content
NeonWolf

New Tournament Regs

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Sekac said:

So it only changes the issue from "Grievous can hide behind himself" to "Grievous can hide behind anything 47mm tall and wider than the thickness of a sheet of paper". 

This is getting ridiculous. Noone in his right mind will play it like that.

You know, this wouldn't be the only rule that isn't written down but is still followed by everyone.

Maybe we can find a consense:

Yes, you're right, that the rules don't state how the template has to be angled. No, there won't be any abuse because the picture makes it clear how it should be angled and how it is intended.

Everyone happy now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. FFG should write rules better. The community shouldn't be cleaning up their messes because they can't be bothered to do it well.

And even though people will be playing it how they intended, it is still a very lazy solution. They just traded one problem for other problems and made the game more complicated in the process.

I'm not sure what there is to be happy about here.

 

Share this post


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

Nope. FFG should write rules better. The community shouldn't be cleaning up their messes because they can't be bothered to do it well.

And even though people will be playing it how they intended, it is still a very lazy solution. They just traded one problem for other problems and made the game more complicated in the process.

I'm not sure what there is to be happy about here.

 

If it bothers you that much, then I recommend sending in a rules question/comment via the customer service on this website. The emails go to the designer of the game, and seems to be how FFG determines what are FAQs and need clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

If it bothers you that much, then I recommend sending in a rules question/comment via the customer service on this website. The emails go to the designer of the game, and seems to be how FFG determines what are FAQs and need clarification.

Thank you for that suggestion, I just may. Got a lot more spare time these days...

Share this post


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

Nope. FFG should write rules better. The community shouldn't be cleaning up their messes because they can't be bothered to do it well.

And even though people will be playing it how they intended, it is still a very lazy solution. They just traded one problem for other problems and made the game more complicated in the process.

I'm not sure what there is to be happy about here.

 

I tried to meet you halfway, but it is clear that you just want to argue and vent your anger. I would recommend doing some kind of sport or just a pleasant walk outside. Please consider it, this would spare us a lot of grief. If your unable to do that feel free to complain to the devs, but please keep your toxic behavior out of this forum. I don't want to disallow you to state your opinion, but I think you made your point very clear by now and this isn't adding anything anymore to the discussion.

Edited by Staelwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, smickletz said:

Sounds like you are not interested in competitive play either which is good b/c the silhouette only applies to competitive play (I.e. win at all costs). 

Correct, I'm not. I loathe it and find it full of acrimonious opportunists that will use every ounce of cheese available to win a game of toy soldiers, fun and good humor be damned.

Share this post


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

I tried to meet you halfway, but it is clear that you just want to argue and vent your anger. I would recommend doing some kind of sport or just a pleasant walk outside. Please consider it, this would spare us a lot of grief. If your unable to do that feel free to complain to the devs, but please keep your toxic behavior out of this forum. I don't want to disallow you to state your opinion, but I think you made your point very clear by now and this isn't adding anything anymore to the discussion.

How is being critical about rules toxic? 

Your solution to problem relies 100% on the community to fix it and 0% on FFG being better at rules writing. In what sense is that halfway?

I'm not angry and so don't need to vent about it. I'm being critical of it because it is the most poorly conceived and executed LoS of any game I've ever encountered. It's the most complicated, most vague, most internally inconsistent, and logically flawed system I've seen.

They started by just grabbing the 8th edition 40k. Then they realized they didn't like how it impacted one of the very first models they made for the system (not sure why they couldn't figure that out in play testing before the game was released, but whatever), so they just copied a section Infinity, but wrote it much worse, and said "oh and also this, too." It's a system that's slightly abstract for some models (small bases), extremely abstract for some models (R2-D2), and not abstract in the least for everything else. It's absurd.

Saying that isn't toxic. Saying that, hopefully, gets the community to hold them to a higher standard than "the worst LoS system out there".

I don't think that's an unreachable goal.

 

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


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

they should just say the LoS counts for anything up to the mini's head and the edges of the base (so pretty much a cylinder with holes

For LoS we play any body part counts, but weapons or antennas dont. Works out fair. Not sure if we'll bother with the template

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, buckero0 said:

This whole post is probably why i would never attend or play at a FFG tournament.

It's called Suck the Fun out of everything

For reports I have heard the SWL tournament scene is very friendly. Not my scene as i'm not interested in min-max the 'best' list, and would rather play a narrative scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On April 7, 2020 at 11:46 PM, Sekac said:

You really don't think people would use flying Arc troopers simply because 1 or 2 models in the squad would larger than the rest? 

I'm curious, do you feel they're unusable now that all of their models are that size as they are now? Or are they only bad if a portion are that size? Because half the squad in cover still gives you cover (and you can kill the flight stands first). 

People have made that point multiple times on here and it ranges from an irrelevant to bad point. Yes, we have to accept abstractions, not a single person has suggested or implied otherwise. Legion now has, the most convoluted, illogical, and poorly thought out LoS system of any game I've ever played. "Accept abstractions" does not explain away, objectively bad rules writing.

The fact that their new LoS legally allows you to hide Grievous behind Grievous illustrates that it is, the worst LoS system any game has ever penned.

A half-considered half-measure is probably the nicest description they deserve. 

 

People keep using the word "objective" about things that are arguable based on personal preference and thus not objective at all.  Could we maybe not do that?

 

edit:  and then I caught up with the rest of the thread and realized this was back when things were relatively reasonable.

Edited by Vlad3theImpaler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Yeah. It’s literally the worst linguistic  mistake ever. 

Meh, the figurative literal was good enough for Mark Twain, Jane Austen, Vladamir Nabakov, Charles Dickens, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace and others so maybe misusing objective is objectively, literally, worse.  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

People keep using the word "objective" about things that are arguable based on personal preference and thus not objective at all.  Could we maybe not do that?

Fair enough.

Can you tell me how forgetting to specify the orientation of their new template is an example of good rules writing?

Do you think there are people that think ambiguous rules are better than clear ones? Perhaps there are, but I've never once heard that in all my years.

There just is no internally consistent logic to it.

Imagine if they came out with a Jedi riding a speeder at some point.

They say they don't want to punish models for lightsabers sticking out on small bases but totally willing to punish models for lightsabers sticking out on medium bases. 

Same for conversions. Conversions done on small bases shouldn't hurt you, conversions done on anything larger and you deserve the consequences. 

This came about because they didn't like their own rules but they couldn't come up with a good solution for how to overhaul it entirely, so they just put minimal effort into the easiest aspect to change.

Edited by Sekac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Ultimately I blame the community not the publishers for this. I don’t want them to try to keep up with this level of spoon-feeding. It’s just a game, not a multi million dollar contract. 

Don't worry, they haven't kept up with it.

It's more like a parent running out the door to work.

"There's food in the pantry, figure a meal out for yourself!"

Share this post


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

they should just say the LoS counts for anything up to the mini's head and the edges of the base (so pretty much a cylinder with holes

while I prefer this solution it causes an issue with boba and all the flying minis coming out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience with FFG, they tend to make a blanket ruling, gather feedback, then modify that ruling based on the feedback. This is actually a really commendable practice. Right now the silhouette rules are in the "blanket ruling" phase and could be changed in the future based on feedback from actual use. With the current worldwide-ish quarantine it will be hard to gather feedback since there aren't going to be any tournaments for at least another month (in the U.S.).

I think a potential change that may improve targetting small base trooper minis/models would be the only count parts of the model that are within the silhouette as a target. You would only need to check the silhouette if you were able to see part of the mini/model to begin with. This would eliminate the ability to shoot R2 when you can't see any part of the model and still allow for the "abstract" that models on flying bases actually land at the end of their movement. Not a perfect solution but a potential improvement.

I don't currently have any recomendation for using the silhouette for drawing LoS from a mini/model. I think that will take some actual practical feedback to see if it needs to change.

Share this post


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

Don't worry, they haven't kept up with it.

It's more like a parent running out the door to work.

"There's food in the pantry, figure a meal out for yourself!"

I feel like their rules are oppressively over-written. To each their own. I come from the tradition of gamer rulebooks that don't even function without house rules though.

Share this post


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

I feel like their rules are oppressively over-written. To each their own. I come from the tradition of gamer rulebooks that don't even function without house rules though.

Totally off topic but I think this can be attributed to modern war games trying to emulate video games instead of either A) telling a story or B) emulating actual warfare. Historical wargaming is obviously doing both of these while competitive wargaming does neither.

Edited by NeonWolf
autocorrect is dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sekac said:

Can you tell me how forgetting to specify the orientation of their new template is an example of good rules writing?

I'm sticking with that your misunderstanding of the way the template is to be orientated is willful on your part.  

From the article: With that in mind, the physical trooper miniatures themselves will no longer factor into competitive line of sight rules. Instead, we have created a silhouette representing a universal standard trooper size, designed to be placed against and behind a trooper’s base to determine line of sight to and from that miniature.
Just so we're clear, because the orange handle bits protrude out from the side, they will interfere with the template being placed "against" most models in they way you suggest.  

You also refuse to acknowledge that they provided two pictures pictures that clearly show how the template is to be orientated against a mode, one of them clearly showing how its width is the same as a small base diameter, and their two sample templates to print off also clearly show the silhouette of a B1 Battle Droid indicating the orientation.  

The idea of a target practice silhouette is pretty universal in our culture (or at least those cultures that also play war games about space wars) and anyone who tried to make a serious claim that this template can be placed with only the thinnest side adjacent to the model (or rotated 90 degrees, or laid flat on the ground, or anything else) would be viewed as operating with malicious intent.  

I have complained loudly about lack of clarity in FFG rules, but you're not arguing from a position of good faith here.  

Share this post


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

I think a potential change that may improve targetting small base trooper minis/models would be the only count parts of the model that are within the silhouette as a target. You would only need to check the silhouette if you were able to see part of the mini/model to begin with. This would eliminate the ability to shoot R2 when you can't see any part of the model and still allow for the "abstract" that models on flying bases actually land at the end of their movement. Not a perfect solution but a potential improvement.

The only problem with this is how it works with the LOS hash mark.  Kneeling, crouching or otherwise not upright models would receive a defensive advantage while also getting an offensive advantage for being able to fire from a position above the eyes on the model.  

I think creating a "small" template for astromechs, pit droids, ewoks, jawas, ugnauts and such would be a good idea down the road (say 30mmx27mm), which according to my calipers would keep them from fully hiding behind a barricade anyway.  I do think small (not crouching) units should get a defensive advantage, but lets keep in mind that they're not as invisible as you might think they are.

R2-D2: 27mm
R4 (Imp Specialists): 30.25mm
R5(Reb Specialists): 29mm (from top of dome) 32.25mm (from top of periscope)

Rebel Sniper: 35.75mm
Imperial Sniper: 34mm

FFG Barricade: 26mm (middle) 28.5mm (sides)

Astromechs clearly visible behind a barricade
SDdf3Y1.jpg

R2 can, from the exact right angle, hide behind the sides of a barricade completely, but it's a very small blind spot for attackers.  Even then any unit with more than one mini will be able to get around the angle for a shot. 
Z2lYgdd.jpg

Edited by Zrob314

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...