Im as casual as can be and still really appreciate clear and fair rules for games.

Also I want as much control over how I build my models as is reasonable. And I’m a little concerned about the bothersome details of physicality.

In the watch it played video the fine details of movement and model placement were explained.

The example showed it being illegal to place a figure where the base would fit but the miniature would not. The speeder bikes were used as an example here.

So my bother is. Will people be allowed to mount a speeder bike to a base using only the official stand?

what if someone wants to mount the bike using a ball magnet like folks do with x-wings?

what if I want to cut transparent bases for my models?

Will these fairly common modifications be allowed in FFG events.

On the flip side will players get an unfair advantage from modding? Would swivel mounts for speeder bikes become the most competitive option?

With Xwing LoS isn't an issue as you can use 46675 peg under the mini. For that matter the ship is sometimes removed completely from the base. Usually center of base is used which doesn't make customization a big deal.

I saw one guy build his AT-ST completely as tall as the model would go with the articulate legs. Without a clear idea I can see this also being abused. It's the official base and model but totally build unrealistic.

I dunno...

With regards to base contact verses mini contact. the RR states:

Base contact refers to a miniature’s base physically touching
something on the battlefield, typically a piece of terrain, another
mini, or an objective token.
• If the bases of two minis are touching each other, those
minis are in base contact.
• If a mini’s base is touching a piece of terrain or an objective
token, that mini is in base contact with that terrain or token.

So thats pretty clear. As to custom bases, they would have to be very exact to the proper base dimensions to be legal (as is have spares handy to prove that)

The only iffy bit is that its true Line of Sight, so modding could have an advantage. But as the standard poses for models have different head hights, its a grey area (and probably one of the first updates the RR will receive)

54 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

Im as casual as can be and still really appreciate clear and fair rules for games.

Also I want as much control over how I build my models as is reasonable. And I’m a little concerned about the bothersome details of physicality.

In the watch it played video the fine details of movement and model placement were explained.

The example showed it being illegal to place a figure where the base would fit but the miniature would not. The speeder bikes were used as an example here.

So my bother is. Will people be allowed to mount a speeder bike to a base using only the official stand?

what if someone wants to mount the bike using a ball magnet like folks do with x-wings?

what if I want to cut transparent bases for my models?

Will these fairly common modifications be allowed in FFG events.

On the flip side will players get an unfair advantage from modding? Would swivel mounts for speeder bikes become the most competitive option?

Actual height of models is used for line of sight.

It seems that anything modifying the height would be (obviously?) tournament illegal.

56 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Actual height of models is used for line of sight.

It seems that anything modifying the height would be (obviously?) tournament illegal.

Then what about my point with the AT-ST?

I like the solution used in infinity where models have a size profile and generic stand ins for line of sight.

im hopefull transparent bases will be allowed but it’s not a deal breaker.

Maybe something general like “AT-ST always draw line of sight from the top of range one ruler.”

Its tricky. I’m not sure my idea works.

Taller means more LOS, but that works both ways. Also, the taller the model the harder it is to get cover. Seems to me its fine to make a model taller.

29 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Taller means more LOS, but that works both ways. Also, the taller the model the harder it is to get cover. Seems to me its fine to make a model taller.

isnt cover worked out by the hight of the model as well? Or is that another game system?

22 hours ago, Nihm said:

Then what about my point with the AT-ST?

That seems to be the risk one takes in posing their figure in a less than optimal stance. On the flip side, a shorter AT-ST pose would also require less tall terrain to be line of sight blocked vs enemies. At the right angles a group of infantry on high terrain could have heavy cover from short walls that would only provide light cover to enemies at equal elevation.

A fun terrain would be something with high walls that can be scaled, but which completely obscures a hollow in between, allowing the choice of scaling the sides to cover the interior, or moving in from entrances at either end. It would make for some interesting choices if there were one of the objective tokens were placed there.

Or you could leave the at-st poseable and have it up when you need to attack over a wall and then pose it lower when you need to avoid being shot.

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

At the right angles a group of infantry on high terrain could have heavy cover from short walls that would only provide light cover to enemies at equal elevation.

that's not how cover works in legion. Cover is either light or heavy, But it is so in all situations. There is no "that unit can only see X% of the model so its in heavy cover and this unit can see Y% of the model so it gets light cover."

57 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

that's not how cover works in legion. Cover is either light or heavy, But it is so in all situations. There is no "that unit can only see X% of the model so its in heavy cover and this unit can see Y% of the model so it gets light cover."

You’re right, I had thought there was a distinction between (for example) the low stone wall and the high stone wall, but both are heavy cover.

9 hours ago, TylerTT said:

Or you could leave the at-st poseable and have it up when you need to attack over a wall and then pose it lower when you need to avoid being shot.

This might be okay for friendly games but I seriously doubt that it would be allowed in any kind of formal tournament. Too much opportunity for abuse. Since FFG designs their games to be played competitively I wouldn't ever expect to see something like this implemented.

5 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

This might be okay for friendly games but I seriously doubt that it would be allowed in any kind of formal tournament. Too much opportunity for abuse. Since FFG designs their games to be played competitively I wouldn't ever expect to see something like this implemented.

In particular, that kind of shenanigans would just get you kicked out by the judge for unsportsmanlike behavior.

If you can put a speeder bike in locations because of the way you based it differently than the "standard" way (ie magnetizing it), then that in my opinion would fall into the category of "modeling for advantage" which is typically against tournament policies.

20 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

If you can put a speeder bike in locations because of the way you based it differently than the "standard" way (ie magnetizing it), then that in my opinion would fall into the category of "modeling for advantage" which is typically against tournament policies.

This is true. A pitty cause I really wanted to put a ball magnet in the Airspeeder for the cool factor