8 hours ago, Derrault said:

Are you saying it’s not ok to have firm limits on some kinds of creativity when that creativity might otherwise muck up important game mechanics? ?

If it didn’t affect gameplay, why would anyone mind? If it does, how can it be justified? ?

How does it "muck up important game mechanics" though? Base arcs vs template vs rim notches is not some order of magnitude shift in accuracy; a mm here or there does not meaningfully affect the outcome of a game except in the most hilariously improbable edge cases. We're not playing a computer simulation, this isn't chess, we're not AIs operating flawless robot bodies, it's a tabletop game and there are a thousand tiny factors affecting gameplay to one degree or another every time a game is played, and 999 times out of a thousand the affect is so stupendously insignificant you'd struggle to calculate it relative to the probability shifts inherent in any system based on rolling dice. As for why people would mind such insignificance - who knows? Some people are just petty and like to tear down others. Some people are obsessed with "official" and demand everyone else be as well. Some people genuinely do think that such minor variation is significant, though I can't fathom how - whether or not someone has caffeine before playing will have more impact on the outcome than their Vader's base having 2mm extra height of scenic rock on it, or any fractional additional error of arc measurement when they eyeball a template or rulers placed over notches rather than over lines.

Justifying it is simple though - we're not playing a sport, we're playing a game, and that game is part of a wider hobby the other aspects of which are just as important. If someone gets genuine joy from converting their models or making their vehicle bases into stunning little mini-dioramas, all of which are still perfectly capable of functioning within the game and won't actually play any differently except in a tiny, tiny minority of cases(which the vast majority of people will err on the side of their opponent for anyway since hobby-focused people aren't usually so obsessed with winning they'd demand to keep a minuscule advantage like that), their participation is no less valid than yours, and if you don't like their style of participation the simple solution is don't play them.

6 hours ago, LunarSol said:

Competitive players care more about the fluff than people assume; they're just pragmatic about it. Play in tournaments for any length of time and you start to appreciate that if its legal and wins games, its what the game looks like regardless of what you might want it to be. A lot of the time when yous see people crack down or even just warn about things like modeling that doesn't follow the rules, its in an effort to keep the rules capable of enforcing fluff.

Tournament players tend to err on the side of worst case scenario. A big part of the reason people don't like true line of sight systems is simply because they've seen far too many awesome, dynamic sculpts modded to minimize the ability to target the giant impressive wings or something. Sure, YOU might want relaxed conversion rules so you can have Vader riding a levitating rock over a magma base, but someone out there is going to use that same rule to pull his arm in to where its not getting shot. Yeah, it might be silly to have all your Stormtroopers glued to their base on their backs, but if its legal... and it wins games...

Nothing destroys the fluff of a game like playing in a tournament where every AT-ST is on its tip toes to ignore as much cover and walk over as many buildings as possible. Fun example: I used to play Heroscape, which had a unit of zombies with a fun fluff rule that made them immune to ranged attacks unless you had LOS to their head. This was cute until players started rolling all their heads back until they were on the model's back, so they could advance forward with no way to see the head through their torso. So when someone is a little timid about conversions in a game that makes the model relevant to gameplay, be aware that they're probably more afraid of what its going to do to the fluff than caring how your models look.

This first bit is actually a perfect example of the kind of low-key condescension I was talking about.

The argument as a whole is also total nonsense, of course, because it rests on one big faulty assumption - you can get rid of ***hole behaviour with rules. These people who supposedly exist in large enough numbers to be meaningful who will glue down Stormtroopers on their backs or model AT-STs on their tiptoes don't suddenly become pleasant, fair-minded opponents if they can't be such obvious scumbags. Frankly, I'd rather see them coming a mile away when they try to pull crap like that than find out halfway through a game when they start outright cheating, or engaging in juvenile "psyops" nonsense to try and make the experience of playing them so miserable I start to make mistakes in my own play.

But regardless, the solution remains the same - don't play them. If they're genuinely such a huge issue at tournaments, by all means institute additional rules for tournaments, and feel free to step in when someone posts their army of converted stuff and says they're off to a tournament next month or whatever. That isn't what's happening though, what's happening is competitive-focused players, as usual, trying to enforce their preferred standards across the community as a whole, and dogpiling people posting images of their converted models and scenic bases on social media who've given no indication whatsoever that they're a tournament gamer or ever intend to even enter a tournament with those models.

Talking about "just being concerned about the fluff" would carry a lot more weight if the deluge of snide remarks and ludicrous obsessing over "legal models" hadn't gotten to the point where new players are making apprehensive social media posts asking whether or not they're allowed to paint the rims of their bases in case the fractional extra diameter created by the paint would cause people to think they were trying to cheat. That is the climate the "concern" of competitive players is creating.

Playing in a competitive manner for an other tabletop game, these mm are sometimes the difference between victory and defeat, and to compensate for the inevitable movement from the table, we pre-measure and say "so I'm at exactly that distance of this unit" and things like that.

In this game, it's a bit less prevalent, due to how the rules are made.

Yodhrin, what you see as condescension you may all too soon realize is just pragmatism gained through experience.

I don't like relying on people's good graces. I prefer to trust, but verify.

If you remove the possibility of cheating you remove the temptation.

If your creativity is such a great raging beast that it cannot be tamed to so much as incorporate firing arcs, maybe you should just be making dioramas instead of game pieces.

I'm a competitive player who cares a great deal for the crunchiness of the rules. I also do a lot of converting within the ruleset. I've got a thread on it, if you're interested. Heck, I even play with *gasp* non FFG components, bases, and even models.

And again, as a general plea... please consider NOT telling other people how they should have fun, or that your fun is better than their fun.

9 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

This first bit is actually a perfect example of the kind of low-key condescension I was talking about.

The argument as a whole is also total nonsense, of course, because it rests on one big faulty assumption

What a casual, friendly response. ?

16 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

How does it "muck up important game mechanics" though? Base arcs vs template vs rim notches is not some order of magnitude shift in accuracy; a mm here or there does not meaningfully affect the outcome of a game except in the most hilariously improbable edge cases. We're not playing a computer simulation, this isn't chess, we're not AIs operating flawless robot bodies, it's a tabletop game and there are a thousand tiny factors affecting gameplay to one degree or another every time a game is played, and 999 times out of a thousand the affect is so stupendously insignificant you'd struggle to calculate it relative to the probability shifts inherent in any system based on rolling dice. As for why people would mind such insignificance - who knows? Some people are just petty and like to tear down others. Some people are obsessed with "official" and demand everyone else be as well. Some people genuinely do think that such minor variation is significant, though I can't fathom how - whether or not someone has caffeine before playing will have more impact on the outcome than their Vader's base having 2mm extra height of scenic rock on it, or any fractional additional error of arc measurement when they eyeball a template or rulers placed over notches rather than over lines.

Justifying it is simple though - we're not playing a sport, we're playing a game, and that game is part of a wider hobby the other aspects of which are just as important. If someone gets genuine joy from converting their models or making their vehicle bases into stunning little mini-dioramas, all of which are still perfectly capable of functioning within the game and won't actually play any differently except in a tiny, tiny minority of cases(which the vast majority of people will err on the side of their opponent for anyway since hobby-focused people aren't usually so obsessed with winning they'd demand to keep a minuscule advantage like that), their participation is no less valid than yours, and if you don't like their style of participation the simple solution is don't play them.

This first bit is actually a perfect example of the kind of low-key condescension I was talking about.

The argument as a whole is also total nonsense, of course, because it rests on one big faulty assumption - you can get rid of ***hole behaviour with rules. These people who supposedly exist in large enough numbers to be meaningful who will glue down Stormtroopers on their backs or model AT-STs on their tiptoes don't suddenly become pleasant, fair-minded opponents if they can't be such obvious scumbags. Frankly, I'd rather see them coming a mile away when they try to pull crap like that than find out halfway through a game when they start outright cheating, or engaging in juvenile "psyops" nonsense to try and make the experience of playing them so miserable I start to make mistakes in my own play.

But regardless, the solution remains the same - don't play them. If they're genuinely such a huge issue at tournaments, by all means institute additional rules for tournaments, and feel free to step in when someone posts their army of converted stuff and says they're off to a tournament next month or whatever. That isn't what's happening though, what's happening is competitive-focused players, as usual, trying to enforce their preferred standards across the community as a whole, and dogpiling people posting images of their converted models and scenic bases on social media who've given no indication whatsoever that they're a tournament gamer or ever intend to even enter a tournament with those models.

Talking about "just being concerned about the fluff" would carry a lot more weight if the deluge of snide remarks and ludicrous obsessing over "legal models" hadn't gotten to the point where new players are making apprehensive social media posts asking whether or not they're allowed to paint the rims of their bases in case the fractional extra diameter created by the paint would cause people to think they were trying to cheat. That is the climate the "concern" of competitive players is creating.

I’m sorry to hear that you missed the thread, which explained the problem with modding; height of a mini directly impacts it’s ability to target other minis and to bypass cover between the minis.

That we aren’t robots is exactly why you should not provide assistance to your opponent. Winning is, in part, about who makes the fewest decision point errors. If we couldn’t make mistakes, there’d be no purpose at all to playing the game, but one thing that all games have in common is a shared set of rules.

It’s only when one player starts unilaterally violating those shared rules that there is a problem.

This is a game first. It’s all well and good to do some amateur art up until it impinges on the game, then it’s no good.

To me, the most important part of playing Legion is that both players have a good time while enjoying an authentic Star Wars experience. In that case, a well converted model on a beautiful scenic base is better than a sterile, tournament friendly version of the same model, even if it means you need to take a second to work out the details when it comes to LOS.

2 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

To me, the most important part of playing Legion is that both players have a good time while enjoying an authentic Star Wars experience.

At the heart of it I expect we'll have some rules on sportsmanship and being respectful to each other. So I may well be respectful of your desire to have a great experience with your highly converted models and conversely you have to be respectful if I want to play within the rules. Perhaps we can use a non-leader of mine, that is behind my leader (thus not going to affect range) and proxy that for LOS or even just agree that the AT-ST should be about 8" high and use the range ruler to use to take an agreeable measurement from. I think most players will find an agreeable way in which to ensure the rules and creativity do not create a bad time for either player.

If you do find a player that cannot reach a middle ground, then perhaps that is neither a result or the rules or his conversions, but rather an indication that you are just playing a person who doesn't respect your part of the experience. For an approximate idea of how this will be treated go to any of the tournament guides for any of the other games and look at the section on sportsmanship.

Hmm, his is a very interesting topic.

My toughts on conversion...hmm.

Infantry minis: seriously, a few mm up on a rock or something may give you a slight sight advantage...but my units can see you better too, so it evens out. No issue. If you glue your troopers on their backs, I will openly mock you and declare you a cheater, tough...?

The same applies to vehicles. A few mm up or down is irrelevant, and will simply give me the same advantage as you're getting.

Now, with base firing arcs, that's a bit trickier. As a long time modeler, I recognize the drive to make a cool looking base...but arcs is a core game mechanic. So...if someone has completely covered the arcs with flocking, how I handle it depends on their solution. If they have a firing arc template, I'll borrow it, put it on one of my bases to confirm its accurate, give it back and carry on. If they painted tick marks on the edge, I'll put their base flush agains one of mine to check their placement, and if accurate, I'll carry on. If they're just going, ' oh, it's just a 45 degree arc, I'll estimate it' (yes, I really had someone tell me this) we are going to have a problem...lol.

We agree ahead of time what we are doing. By that I mean is it a carefully balanced demo, a fun scenario, or a anything (legal) goes hardcore afternoon to field a lot of toys.

10 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

Hmm, his is a very interesting topic.

My toughts on conversion...hmm.

Infantry minis: seriously, a few mm up on a rock or something may give you a slight sight advantage...but my units can see you better too, so it evens out. No issue. If you glue your troopers on their backs, I will openly mock you and declare you a cheater, tough...?

The same applies to vehicles. A few mm up or down is irrelevant, and will simply give me the same advantage as you're getting.

Now, with base firing arcs, that's a bit trickier. As a long time modeler, I recognize the drive to make a cool looking base...but arcs is a core game mechanic. So...if someone has completely covered the arcs with flocking, how I handle it depends on their solution. If they have a firing arc template, I'll borrow it, put it on one of my bases to confirm its accurate, give it back and carry on. If they painted tick marks on the edge, I'll put their base flush agains one of mine to check their placement, and if accurate, I'll carry on. If they're just going, ' oh, it's just a 45 degree arc, I'll estimate it' (yes, I really had someone tell me this) we are going to have a problem...lol.

Except, because of the nature of the rules, there’s no disadvantage to raising the height of the leader mini, only pure advantage.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Except, because of the nature of the rules, there’s no disadvantage to raising the height of the leader mini, only pure advantage.

Again, here is a simple solution, ask your opponent to swap models around and have the height advantage right back, if he declines ping him as a cheat.

I have ALS going on 8 years and all I do is play for fun.

I play Armada and Xwing and do a occasional tournament or so.

But I play slow and have to have help, so all I do is play for fun.

4 hours ago, Amanal said:

Again, here is a simple solution, ask your opponent to swap models around and have the height advantage right back, if he declines ping him as a cheat.

Yes, but that just leads to the question of why allow them to put in the illegal mini in the first place?

Because having a cool looking Star Wars model is more important than having a precise gaming piece.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Yes, but that just leads to the question of why allow them to put in the illegal mini in the first place?

I am playing a game with a guy that has cool looking models. He only became a jerk about it when he used that cool looking model as a basis for taking undue advantage of me. I could just as easily be playing a fellow that dice scoops or adds an extra dice and hope I don't see. The mere act of putting a model on a nice base is not an indication that I'll have a good game or a bad game at all.

I have been war gaming for 40 years, I have had 3 games that were terrible and not one of those involved oversized bases. Rather it was an opponent who knowingly cheated to win, and one of those had an army of rock to my paper and would have won without even trying. He was so used to cheating he did so anyway.

10 hours ago, Derrault said:

Except, because of the nature of the rules, there’s no disadvantage to raising the height of the leader mini, only pure advantage.

If I can see it, I can shoot it. A few mm of height is not gonna make a difference, IMO. Now if you got him up on an observation tower, well....I may say something then! ?

I've got an old wookiee model for one of my squad sergeants. He's a good head taller than the rest of them (which makes sense from a background point of view) but it's not caused any problems so far; in fact people seem to appreciate that I haven't got the same guy in a coat leading every squad.

Frankly, true LoS is so inaccurate anyway we're always going to be using our best judgement over it being scientifically precise because of the margin of error. Even in Armada or X-Wing models can be moved slightly by accident- it's even worse when you need to get a model on the slope of a hill or find somewhere in some wreckage that a model doesn't just tip over.

Communication is key. The best thing to do is be clear with your opponent when placing models on what you're intentions are when placing the model if you're worried about it. That's what I do with fighters in Armada because it's so easy to be nudged about as damage dials are turned.

'If I put my model here LoS should be blocked from that unit, right?'
'If I move here do you think I'll have LoS to your AT-RT?'

I love this game. I've played 4 games so far and its a blast. we had 2 games going last night and I messed up with my deployment and objective management but had so much fun anyway. I kept getting call over to the other table for rulings and hearing the other guys having a good time while doing the same at mine was great. I think the objectives makes this game. Your not just out to kill everything that moves which adds a sense of purpose to it that X-wing lacks. I like knowing if I can complete the objective I can win with 2 or 3 pieces on the board. I like the board is 6 foot long. This gives options for deploying. I like that you can use terrain that fits a theme. We have been using the barricades and some desert houses with some radar dishes from the 3.75 clone pilot figures. the card for objectives, conditions and deploy are neat too. I like not knowing what your getting in to. lastly I like the pre measure aspect. I have guns that shoot lasers I have a floating planet that can kill planets with a laser but I don't have a rangefinder to see if I can hit before I pull the trigger? Again I really like this game.

17 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

If I can see it, I can shoot it. A few mm of height is not gonna make a difference, IMO. Now if you got him up on an observation tower, well....I may say something then! ?

It’s not a question of being able to shoot at it, it’s a question of negating cover (2 hits!).

And it isn’t a matter of anyones opinion, it’s basic geometry.

Increased height on the leader mini reduces the distance that an enemy (or the leader mini) have to be at from a barricade to remove the protections of cover from the defender.

I think people are being too picky. How much has this come up in casual play? Tournaments are wait and see.

If terrain is covered at the beginning, then there should not be a problem. I would not agree (never say never), that a piece of terrain (I.e. a barrier) will give cover to one model versus another model based on a couple of millimeters. Especially if I was playing an Imperial army versus my Imperial army.

Of course you can throw logic out the window sometimes...

1. I'm the opposite: I find this one of the most forgiving wargames I've ever played - forgiving *of mistakes*, that is. It is almost ludicrously luck dependent, and yeah, if you have any thought in your head about the objectives then it's hard to be entirely out of the game.

It's not forgiving of *bad luck*, though. There are plenty of times I've seen the better player get stomped because the small numbers + high casualty rate + hugely skewy dice = a very luck based game.

I like it *because* it's a simple beer-and-pretzels sort of experience. It is about as forgiving of tactical errors as a game could be and still be in any way tactical.

2. I wholeheartedly believe that tournaments should be played with an eye to the other player's enjoyment, and you should be as decent and forgiving to the other player as you can competitively be. I absolutely do remind the other player of things if I think they've forgotten, and if I ever win a game with them feeling like crap, then I will not feel like that was worth it at all.

It's a game. I'm playing to have fun. I try to win because that makes it *more fun*. It's the means, not the end.

On 5/1/2018 at 8:16 PM, Chucknuckle said:

One thing I've learned from several decades of wargaming is that you should never approach a tournament differently than you would a casual game. There's no serious money attached to these wins, no real prize support apart from some plastic and cardboard. No prestige or fame outside of our little niche. No reason, in short, to do anything differently than if you were playing a casual game. If you'd remind someone of a rule they forgot in a casual match, then do it in a tournament.

Amen.

18 hours ago, Derrault said:

It’s not a question of being able to shoot at it, it’s a question of negating cover (2 hits!).

And it isn’t a matter of anyones opinion, it’s basic geometry.

Increased height on the leader mini reduces the distance that an enemy (or the leader mini) have to be at from a barricade to remove the protections of cover from the defender.

But, doesn't the rules as they stand right now make this immaterial? Because as they are now, you draw a line, base to base, and geometry matters not, if the line crosses that barricade, defender has cover, unless said unit leader is touching the barricade. He could be on the second floor looking down, and the defender would still get cover.

If there has been some clarification on this, please point it out.

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

But, doesn't the rules as they stand right now make this immaterial? Because as they are now, you draw a line, base to base, and geometry matters not, if the line crosses that barricade, defender has cover, unless said unit leader is touching the barricade. He could be on the second floor looking down, and the defender would still get cover.

If there has been some clarification on this, please point it out.

You are correct, RAW its center of the base to base, not the true LOS of the model. I'm not really sure why people are getting upset over the height of the model, as its irrelevant for determining cover and los.

From the Rules Reference "Cover":

Quote

Determine Number of Obscured Miniatures:

The player traces an imaginary line from the center of the base of the attacker’s unit leader to the center of the base of a mini in the defending unit. If the imaginary line crosses either a piece of terrain or another unit’s base, that mini is obscured. The player repeats this process for each mini in the defender to determine how many of those minis are obscured.

Determine Cover:

If at least half of all of the defender’s minis are obscured, that unit has cover.

So you should be measuring from the center of the base to the other base; it doesn't matter if Vader is flying "10 feet high" off his base.

A catch up mechanic would be neat.

maybe the player with fewer unit activation tokens between rounds gets something?

13 minutes ago, kris40k said:

You are correct, RAW its center of the base to base, not the true LOS of the model. I'm not really sure why people are getting upset over the height of the model, as its irrelevant for determining cover and los.

From the Rules Reference:

So you should be measuring from the center of the base to the other base; it doesn't matter if Vader is flying "10 feet high" off his base.

They're getting upset because they think this game uses true LOS, like a few other mini games (yes, I am a veteran of such as 40K, Warmahordes, etc) and are trying to use those here, when 'right now' per rules as existing, this is not so.