Warmachine uses a standard sized cylinder for each base size when measuring line of site regardless of the models shape.

I'd like to see Legion move in that direction for certain things.

19 minutes ago, BenBot said:

Warmachine uses a standard sized cylinder for each base size when measuring line of site regardless of the models shape.

I'd like to see Legion move in that direction for certain things.

This is not really correct. The cylinder isn't used for LoS, actually the game uses it for virtually nothing. Instead it basically just boils down to models only blocking LoS if the base size is equal to or larger than the defender with some super janky rules for elevation (you can draw LoS over a model that is not elevated as long as their base size is not larger than yours and within 1" of the target. Models not elevated don't block LoS at all to elevated models)

The system is very 2dimensional and I mean that literally as the game is frequently played with 2D terrain because it interacts best with the rules.

My tk421 conversion. Aka stormtrooper luke.

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:14 PM, Yodhrin said:

This is going to be a real issue if FFG take that line - they've released a game that appeals to traditional hobbyest wargamers as much as their existing audience, if they turn around and basically outlaw all the things that hobbyists like to do(conversions, counts-as, custom bases etc) for "official" play a decent chunk of them are just going to walk away again. They might not care, of course, providing they flog a few extra boxes of models to them first, but if FFG were hoping to keep those new customers they might end up surprised just how important something as small as using a certain kind of base or being able to make a custom character model for their army leader is to a lot of people.

I'm with you for conversions and custom bases. IMO count-as is a problem for tournaments.

Just now, DerBaer said:

IMO count-as is a problem for tournaments.

Why?

I've seen people being so confused by opponents count-as figures, that the whole game went downhill. This is not fair. Therefore, e.g. a Stormtrooper should never count as a Scout on a tournament.

Furthermore, that's a business thing: For sales FFG couldn't care less, if your original figure is modified. If you have your WotC Stormtroopers count as Legion Stormtroopers, FFG wouldn't like that.

Counts-as isn't for using your Stormtroopers as scouts, it's for using your scratchbuilt Jawas as Rebel Troopers, or your converted Lando as Han. It's for bringing units that FFG don't make into the game using the profile of an existing unit. I think the best option is to simply have the TO make the call, and if there's any doubt the TO should be contacted prior to the event to make sure the counts-as units in question are ok.

That's a tough call for the TO. The question is, where to draw the line. I've been to a warmahordes tournament, where one player had a whole army of count as models. He played GW Orks counting as Druids. And I rather have count as models prohibited completely, than see anything like this again...

4 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

Counts-as isn't for using your Stormtroopers as scouts, it's for using your scratchbuilt Jawas as Rebel Troopers, or your converted Lando as Han. It's for bringing units that FFG don't make into the game using the profile of an existing unit. I think the best option is to simply have the TO make the call, and if there's any doubt the TO should be contacted prior to the event to make sure the counts-as units in question are ok.

I've seen and used "Counts-as" both for creating a custom model to represent a specific unit, or for using models with different rules than they should have.

In a casual game, as long as the "Counts as" makes sense visually and is self consistent I don't mind much. So Banthas as Speeder bikes I'd have a bigger issue than Jawas as Rebel troopers. So long as ALL Jawas in your army are Rebel troopers (or the ones that are Fleet troopers are really obvious) then I don't have an issue personally, and cheers on you for flexing your modeling muscles.

Modelling Jawas as anything though causes cover issues though, as Jawas are significantly shorter than standard models. With true line of sight and the 50% rule on cover, changing the height of the unit that significantly can require houserulling, or just apply RAW to the Jawa models and accept that they have an easier time getting cover.

As for TOs, the official tournament rules specifically state the following:

Quote

each player is required to use the components included in official Star Wars: Legion products

...

• Players may paint their miniatures and official terrain products. They cannot modify a mini or official terrain in any way that would create significant confusion about which unit or terrain type the mini or terrain product represents.

• Players cannot modify minis or use bases to significantly alter their size, height, or shape

Therefore, players should not expect to be able to play with their Counts-as units that are significant alterations, or are not created from the official model. Head swaps to change Han to Lando would probably be fine (as long as a Lando model is not official released), especially as Lando DOES wear Han's clothing at the end of ESB. However once a Lando commander is released, then there might be some problems, depending on the nature of the conversion and what the converted model "Counts-as." As long as the player is not fielding two commanders, Lando as Han and Han as Lando (or Lando as Lando), it might be fine. Obviously some TOs may allow it, but contacting ahead of time is a must and even then I'd bring the original models if possible just in case the ruling somehow changes on the day of the event.

I 3d printed an AT-AT. It's not quite big enough. I'm going to scale it up a little more and reprint it. It'll make a cool terrain piece if nothing else.

I think I'll bust this one up a bit and bury it in rubble as a downed AT-AT terrain piece. Broken up and buried a bit should camouflage its bad scale.

Wow, how long did all of the parts for that ATAT take to print? 3 days??

32 minutes ago, RLogue177 said:

I 3d printed an AT-AT. It's not quite big enough. I'm going to scale it up a little more and reprint it. It'll make a cool terrain piece if nothing else.

I think I'll bust this one up a bit and bury it in rubble as a downed AT-AT terrain piece. Broken up and buried a bit should camouflage its bad scale.

Not like there aren't about 4 different sizes of AT-ATs in canon already. You just happened to print off a prototype. ?

that doesn't actually look too far off compared to Empire Strikes Back when Luke is taking the AtAT down.

15 minutes ago, buckero0 said:

that doesn't actually look too far off compared to Empire Strikes Back when Luke is taking the AtAT down.

Nah, I think it does. Out a T-47 down next to the foot and you'll see.

Yes, but the Legion T-47 is way too small for true scale, so not a great comparison.

39 minutes ago, Brightguy said:

Yes, but the Legion T-47 is way too small for true scale, so not a great comparison.

Not really, the canon T-47 is only 5.3 meters long.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/91/d5/1e91d5b3e804c9c5f8f40ff1fbcb7c30.jpg <- The pilot and gunner are really jammed in there.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Not really, the canon T-47 is only 5.3 meters long.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/91/d5/1e91d5b3e804c9c5f8f40ff1fbcb7c30.jpg <- The pilot and gunner are really jammed in there.

While the scale of vehicles in sci-fi is notoriously flexible, it is true that the T47 is a tiny craft.

25 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

While the scale of vehicles in sci-fi is notoriously flexible, it is true that the T47 is a tiny craft.

Very true. I discovered that Disney made a new canon variant of the AT-AT that is significantly larger than the ones seen in ESB so they would dwarf an AT-TE in Rebels.

Not to mention the origin of the HWK-1000 was because of older books having different lengths for the HWK-290.

Just now, Caimheul1313 said:

Very true. I discovered that Disney made a new canon variant of the AT-AT that is significantly larger than the ones seen in ESB so they would dwarf an AT-TE in Rebels.

Not to mention the origin of the HWK-1000 was because of older books having different lengths for the HWK-290.

Even the ones in ESB vary. Because they were using models that didn't have a set scale, the relative size of the models changed from scene to scene.

Regardless of the filming model variances, the only stated numbers we have at present are 22.5m tall, and 20m long. That gives you ~479mm by ~426mm in 1:47 scale, which I've chosen to use as the baseline both because it puts a 1.8m "scale human" between the Rebel and Stormtrooper models but closer to the latter, at 38.3mm, and because it's pretty much an exact match for the T-47 at ~113mm and about right for a "neutral" posed FFG AT-ST at ~192mm.

13 hours ago, DerBaer said:

That's a tough call for the TO. The question is, where to draw the line. I've been to a warmahordes tournament, where one player had a whole army of count as models. He played GW Orks counting as Druids. And I rather have count as models prohibited completely, than see anything like this again...

I'd rather FFG catch up with wargaming at-large and start making a proper distinction between cutthroat "tournament" organised play where apparently this sort of thing is vitally important and asking "what's that again?" will be too great a distraction from the Napoleon-come-Chess Grandmaster level tactical deliberations(I kid), and all the other kinds of organised play that are possible, so everyone can get what they want. But it seems that for the moment the bulk of their OP focus is going to continue being on explicitly competitive tournaments with only lip-service for the rest of us.

TBH the tournament thing wouldn't bother me at all, except for the fact that some people insist on it being a standard everywhere at all times. You can already see this on the Facebook groups with people jumping on "illegal" models(conversions, counts-as, or model kit vehicles) and dumping on people with scenic bases(because templates or marking the base rims isn't "official" enough by tournament standards - original arc lines or sod off, apparently), acting as if they're doing the community some great service by policing creativity and ensuring "proper standards"(ie, adherence to the tournament guidelines).

Agreed on all points. The one thing that REALLY bugs me about FFG games is the strict focus on tournament style games. Every style of game has strict guidelines, and those of us who just play "whatever" games (like playing Legion at 600 points or 1,000 points or creating our own scenarios instead of using the ones on the cards, etc) are basically forced to hide in our own little enclaves because the rest of the player base hates the idea of playing anything non-standard.

Frankly, if you put a salt-shaker in the table and said, "That's an ATST," I would let you do it, but that's because I prefer the conflict to be between Luke and Vader, not between you and me! I wouldn't do that myself. If you have worked hard to make a stunning model which adds to the beauty and interest of the game, all power to you and thank you for brightening my day. I'd rather see Luke on an illegal (but impressive) base or an ATRT with a GW gun glued to it, than have to play against unpainted minis... that's just boring!

re 2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

Agreed on all points. The one thing that REALLY bugs me about FFG games is the strict focus on tournament style games. Every style of game has strict guidelines, and those of us who just play "whatever" games (like playing Legion at 600 points or 1,000 points or creating our own scenarios instead of using the ones on the cards, etc) are basically forced to hide in our own little enclaves because the rest of the player base hates the idea of playing anything non-standard.

I think, that's not FFG's fault. FFG create a competitive environment for competitive players. First and foremost, the restrictions on conversions, scenic bases and count-as figures come from the Tournament Regulations document. Noone expects you to use the TOURNAMENT Regulations for your beer and bretzel games at home, especially not FFG. And there are no STRICT guidelines for your beer and bretzel games. Just do, what you want.

But this is a topic about conversions and customizations. Any question regarding "legal" conversions must be about tournaments, because conversions are only restricted for tournaments in the Tournament Regulations, but are not restricted for casual play at all.

So is it possible, that this might be the wrong thread for you? (No offense intended.)

I am a tournament player. Even if I play at home, I play according to tournament regulations, because playing at home is training for tournaments FOR ME. If you're not doing so, you're more than welcome to do so at your home.

But actually, I agree with you on your main point: I don't understand, why someone would use these overly restrictive tournament rules, if this someone doesn't play tournaments. And even more I do not understand, why that someone would tell you, how to play at your home.

It's a conscious or subconscious need to be doing things the official way. Once the game developer says "This is the standard" then that will be almost universally adopted for all games by all players. Even people who don't play at tournaments like to feel like they *could* if they wanted so they trend towards standard games, and there's always the unknown element of "maybe my opponent expects everything to be done the standard way". You walk into a FLGS on X Wing night and ask who wants to play a 150 point game and all you hear is crickets. The idea is so unthinkable most people only take 100 points of ships/cards to game night. Contrast this to other games that have a wider range of tournament standards and you see a wider range of 'standard' play. The biggest example is 40K, where 'normal' games run anything from 1,500 to 2,000 points, but people can and will play games far outside those norms on a regular basis. I believe this is mostly due to the fact that the 40K tournament scene is so varied, with a range of points values being used, that there is no perceived single standard way to play. Compared to FFG where they lay it right out there, that there is only one single standard way to play.

I mean, I can and do play the game however I want, but anytime I'm outside of my local group there's significant push-back to playing anything other than tournament standard games. I made a comment the other day about enjoying flying 8 X Wings in the xwingtmg subreddit and the response was "How?" and I was like "I just put them on table and start setting dials..." but the idea that another player couldn't even imagine playing a non-standard game was illustrative. I got the same response when I suggested playing with a larger list over on the X Wing forums here. With the conversion to 2.0 X Wing people are often saying things like "You don't know what you'll be able to fly, so don't stress about the conversion kit contents" without considering that I know EXACTLY what I'll be able to fly: whatever the heck I want! Anyone can fly whatever they want but the players so seldom do that they forget it's even possible. It's tournament way or the highway.

I'd prefer FFG to keep their nose entirely OUT of the tournament scene. Let the players develop their own like they do with other wargames. Or at the very least, don't specify a limit for games. Build a game that can be balanced from say 400 points to 1,600 points and let the TO set the size of the games. Without a standard to adhere to, the diversity of the scene flourishes. I love what they did with that linked battle narrative tournament and I'd love to see more on that tack, with event specific scenarios and varied point sizes, just to keep things fresh.

The difference between GW and FFG is, GW gave a crap on the tournament scene for years and years. I remember tournament rule sets written by the TOs, rebalancing whole armies and inherently changing the game. Because the GW games where so unbalanced, that competitive play was impossible without doing so. GW makes the best tabletop soldiers ... FFG is more into rules. And being a tournament player I like FFG's approach.

What I do not understand is strictly casual gamers playing only at home and still sticking to tournament regulations they don't like. But I think, that's a problem caused by those players and not by FFG.