Tournament Regulations have not been released so there is no rules on whether modifying the bases is cheat or not.
I did see an email from Alex Davy on the fb page that said mods were going to be allowed within reason. Which is kinda assuming in wargaming so it's not much help.
22 hours ago, Kodos said:No, this won't happen
I don't like those references to other games, but I heard the same arguments after 40k started to use true line of sight and skipped area terrain completely an edition later, and in 10 years I haven't seen a single army modelled that way (there was a swamp themed Imperial Guard army with models cut of by their knees, but it had more disadvantages than advantages).And than there are 2 simply rules to overcome a problem even you one comes up with all models laying down:
use enough 2D are terrain on the table and Units which can draw LOS to an enemy unit can also be seen by this unit
It was more of an exaggerated example but your right, I don’t see it happening. A community of gamers like I see here and in a few other games I play would be embarrassed, or should be, to balk about a model that’s been adjusted to look awesome on a base.
Like with anything wargaming related, there's so much grey area that the only real rule you can have is "don't be a ****".
Don't get into fights about what kind of terrain constitutes what. Don't get into fights about whether your dude is in cover or not quite. Don't be a **** and agree that something is X in your turn, but want it to be Y in your opponents turn. Don't be flexible with the rulers, don't nudge your models for advantage, and if you're going to be making scenic bases for your models, do it because you want it to look cool. Don't do it because it will affect how the rules interact with your models.
Oh, and if someone has put a scenic base over their vehicle and has marked the firing arcs on the edges, don't be a **** about it. They're not doing it for advantage.
"Tournament Regulations have not been released so there is no rules on whether modifying the bases is cheat or not. "
Tournament regs =/= game rules. After seeing what happened to X Wing due to the tournament scene, I have no intention of EVER attending an official Legion tournament. They take a fun game and turn it into something awful. So what's legal in tournaments will never affect me.
On 4/12/2018 at 10:57 AM, Dark Don said:It was more of an exaggerated example but your right, I don’t see it happening. A community of gamers like I see here and in a few other games I play would be embarrassed, or should be, to balk about a model that’s been adjusted to look awesome on a base.
If it’s the difference between LOS voiding cover on more than half a unit or not, it’s cheating.
We don’t need height increases to have a “pretty base”.
Can't say anything for Legion, because my models are just tabletop standard with regular old grass bases, but my Adeptus Custodes for Warhammer 40k have lava bases, and so far, I've never met anybody (in our highly competitive environment for the game) that whines about my bases.
On 10/04/2018 at 1:53 AM, Icelom said:Couldn't it hurt you just as bad as help you? all of the sudden your units are taller and are no longer half covered by the cover....
If you can give me a reason why it would be more beneficial to the player with the tall bases then detrimental I would hear it... but in a true line of sight game where we look at how much of a unit is covered by cover then being smaller is often better no?
Would honestly love to know, but it just seems to be it would hurt you more than help. (the British learned pretty fast that building a tall as tank "to oversee the battlefield" was stupid as all ****)
And I have to awkwardly call out every single time that my opponent puts his minis behind barricades and say that I think it is only 45% covered? And have a truly horrible game for both of us? No thanks.
Obviously depends on the size of this base.
14 hours ago, Alino said:Can't say anything for Legion, because my models are just tabletop standard with regular old grass bases, but my Adeptus Custodes for Warhammer 40k have lava bases, and so far, I've never met anybody (in our highly competitive environment for the game) that whines about my bases.
If the height difference means an unimpeded (aka no cover) shot, as opposed to an impeded (heavy cover; 2 normal hits cancelled before defense dice) then I definitely would not label your environment competitive by any stretch.
It sounds super casual if people don’t mind giving up basic defensive features.
4 hours ago, Derrault said:If the height difference means an unimpeded (aka no cover) shot, as opposed to an impeded (heavy cover; 2 normal hits cancelled before defense dice) then I definitely would not label your environment competitive by any stretch.
It sounds super casual if people don’t mind giving up basic defensive features.
It's because in 40k as long as you haven't modeled for a clear advantage, it's fine. So I guess 40k has atleast some better rules for us hobbyists than Legion does
28 minutes ago, Alino said:It's because in 40k as long as you haven't modeled for a clear advantage, it's fine. So I guess 40k has atleast some better rules for us hobbyists than Legion does
I guess? Does height present no advantage in 40k then?
4 minutes ago, Derrault said:I guess? Does height present no advantage in 40k then?
Unless you're super super over-the-top childishly competitive, a few mm is not going to have any advantage. If anything, adding height to a model provides disadvantage (Oh look, he's trying to walk vader up the field but the **** dude towers over all the terrain so he can more easily throw lightsabers! QUICK MEN! SHOOT HIM INTO OBLIVION!)
If you want to make cheating terrain for trooper bases, just get tall grass/bushes, glue it to the base, then glue the figure to the base.
Permanent light cover!
"Look! A moving bush! Oh no! Those moving bushes are shooting at us!" (<- pretty sure that is how Rebel commandos will be)
Edited by HanScottFirstOr just glue rock walls on the AT ST base around the AT ST, only leaving the view ports and weapons visible.
AT ST with moving heavy cover sounds good to me.
@HanScottFirst
that is not how this works, that's not how any of this works!
(bases never count for cover for anyone seriously wondering)
4 hours ago, HanScottFirst said:If you want to make cheating terrain for trooper bases, just get tall grass/bushes, glue it to the base, then glue the figure to the base.
Permanent light cover!
"Look! A moving bush! Oh no! Those moving bushes are shooting at us!" (<- pretty sure that is how Rebel commandos will be)
Oh man I don't think I've laughed that hard in ages.
On 4/29/2018 at 5:47 AM, Kojib said:And I have to awkwardly call out every single time that my opponent puts his minis behind barricades and say that I think it is only 45% covered? And have a truly horrible game for both of us? No thanks.
Obviously depends on the size of this base.
Barricades, like all terrain, have a set cover value so you don't take time determining what percentage of a mini is behind cover. It just gets it or it doesn't.
The basing issue only affects TLoS. I know if I made a cool custom base that raised my mini a few mm, then I had a shot where I only had LoS by a couple mm of the top of the target mini, I absolutely would not take that shot. I guess some people would, and if they chose to do that I would then and only then question the added height of their base, and then make a note to never play them again.
But seriously, that is a super rare scenario.
Edited by Big EasyNow I'm waiting for some idiot to make an AT-ST with completely straight legs so it's like 12 inches tall, or an AT-ST that's folded in on itself so it's like 4 inches tall.
19 minutes ago, Big Easy said:Barricades, like all terrain, have a set cover value so you don't take time determining what percentage of a mini is behind cover. It just gets it or it doesn't.
The basing issue only affects TLoS. I know if I made a cool custom base that raised my mini a few mm, then I had a shot where I only had LoS by a couple mm of the top of the target mini, I absolutely would not take that shot. I guess some people would, and if they chose to do that I would then and only then question the added height of their base, and then make a note to never play them again.
But seriously, that is a super rare scenario.
Barricades, sure... Everything else though - I was under the impression the rule was 50%.
a load of crates on the floor. Unit of rebels behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from line of sight of the attacking unit’s leader, they don’t get cover.
A rocky outcrop. A unit of imperials behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from the line of sight of the attack units leader, they don’t get cover.
I haven’t read anywhere that the moment you’re in contact with anything you automatically get the cover? Else what’s the point in flanking/outmaneuvering?
2 minutes ago, Alino said:Now I'm waiting for some idiot to make an AT-ST with completely straight legs so it's like 12 inches tall, or an AT-ST that's folded in on itself so it's like 4 inches tall.
I’ve done mine in a striding forward pose. It is at least 1-2 inches taller than the ones that are modelled low to the ground in a stationary pose.
Where’s the ruling FFG...
8 minutes ago, Kojib said:Barricades, sure... Everything else though - I was under the impression the rule was 50%.
a load of crates on the floor. Unit of rebels behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from line of sight of the attacking unit’s leader, they don’t get cover.
A rocky outcrop. A unit of imperials behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from the line of sight of the attack units leader, they don’t get cover.
I haven’t read anywhere that the moment you’re in contact with anything you automatically get the cover? Else what’s the point in flanking/outmaneuvering?
There has been an e-mail concerning this, basicaly clarifying that this 50% figure is not in reference to the visible parts of miniatures, but rather derived from drawing a line to the minis and seeing wether an object that gives cover is crossed. This is done base to base.
Seems like the benefits and drawbacks of height cancel each other out pretty well. Now, if you magnetized the AT-ST's legs so that it can stand up to shoot and crouch down after its activation, that might be some cause for alarm.
47 minutes ago, Kojib said:Barricades, sure... Everything else though - I was under the impression the rule was 50%.
a load of crates on the floor. Unit of rebels behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from line of sight of the attacking unit’s leader, they don’t get cover.
A rocky outcrop. A unit of imperials behind. If 50% of the unit is obscured by it, from the line of sight of the attack units leader, they don’t get cover.
I haven’t read anywhere that the moment you’re in contact with anything you automatically get the cover? Else what’s the point in flanking/outmaneuvering?
The 50% of mini volume is only a guideline to be used before the game. You should never be determining % of volume obscured during play.
Granted, this is only in an email from the developer at this point. But even if you don't play this way, I'd at least get used to it because it is coming.
Edited by Big Easy11 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:There has been an e-mail concerning this, basicaly clarifying that this 50% figure is not in reference to the visible parts of miniatures, but rather derived from drawing a line to the minis and seeing wether an object that gives cover is crossed. This is done base to base.
An email from who? Why does the RRG say nothing to that effect?
If the basing issue only effect true LOS, instead of modifying the base, is it legal to cut the legs off all my troops, then basing them so they will be harder to see?
17 minutes ago, Kojib said:An email from who? Why does the RRG say nothing to that effect?
20 minutes ago, Kojib said:An email from who? Why does the RRG say nothing to that effect?
The email from the Lead Game Developer Alex Davy was an attempt to clarify the ambiguity between two parts of the RRG that seem to be in conflict (as @Contrapulator posted above). Before there were two references to cover in two sections of the RRG that did not reference one another. The email clarifies the process, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the result.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't have a huge problem with someone wanting to wait until it's official in the RRG but the email confirms that the update is definitely coming so we might as well try to understand it.