3 hours ago, Captain Weather said:

I was looking for the results of the survey to use in a comment on our channel, but stumbled on this.

Sorry if it seemed really gamey. It wasn’t intended to be obnoxious, were we getting that wrong?

Cheers.

Funny thing about the cover rules is that when you do try to game the system, there's always a drawback. In this example, because the unit leader is not in base contact with the barricade, all the other models are shooting through heavy cover.

Not sure, that's how that works? The unit leader determines the cover for the opponent based on his LOS. The other mini's just need LOS.

17 minutes ago, sploosh said:

Not sure, that's how that works? The unit leader determines the cover for the opponent based on his LOS. The other mini's just need LOS.

Oops! You're right of course. The non-leader minis LOS doesn't determine cover. However, the Leader cannot see 2 of the Stormtroopers behind that terrain though, so they would still have heavy cover.

I mean I also just find it weird that the option that’s considered ‘gamey’ is probably more realistic. If there was heavy cover in range I could easily see the leader “Grab that cover while I check this out!”.

4 hours ago, Captain Weather said:

I mean I also just find it weird that the option that’s considered ‘gamey’ is probably more realistic. If there was heavy cover in range I could easily see the leader “Grab that cover while I check this out!”.

I definitely think that any judgement of gaminess would come from how you do it more than the act itself. Spend time trying to maximize each minis position with every move instead of just placing them in the optimal side of the leader, and it will seem fiddly to me. But just the idea of putting the leader in contact with the base and the rest at max cohesion range on one side is just good tactics.

2 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

I definitely think that any judgement of gaminess would come from how you do it more than the act itself. Spend time trying to maximize each minis position with every move instead of just placing them in the optimal side of the leader, and it will seem fiddly to me. But just the idea of putting the leader in contact with the base and the rest at max range on one side is just good tactics.

Yeah very good point. Thanks.

That move on the video was illegl I think. If any of the minis are going through cover or over barricades the leader would have to move at range 1. I know thats how it would work in area terrain, not sure about barricades.

15 minutes ago, chriscook said:

That move on the video was illegl I think. If any of the minis are going through cover or over barricades the leader would have to move at range 1. I know thats how it would work in area terrain, not sure about barricades.

There's a whole thread about this. Heated debate. By RAW, its more like this:

If the leader moves through terrain, -1 speed.
If a mini that isn't the leader starts in or ends in cover, you can't do the full move so -1 applies too.

Since you can't draw the path of the secondary minis (they are "placed") their path doesn't matter.

Finished, and I think it’s well done.

one question I’d be interested in is finding out if the community is interested in campaign/non tourney expansions like Armada had with The Corellian Conflict. A few small linked scenarios in a box with a few terrain pieces would be awesome.

52 minutes ago, Dosiere said:

Finished, and I think it’s well done.

one question I’d be interested in is finding out if the community is interested in campaign/non tourney expansions like Armada had with The Corellian Conflict. A few small linked scenarios in a box with a few terrain pieces would be awesome.

Thanks, and that's a great question. It looks like the store OP kits will have exactly this. They will be available for in-store play, AND they appear to be available for free download after a new kit is released. Very excited about that.