9 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

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.

Line of Sight rules do reference the top of the mini sculpt, however, so there does seem to be a conflict between where you measure from to determine LOS and where to determine Cover. One measures from center of base to center of base, the other measures from the center of the base at the top of the sculpt:

Quote

LINE OF SIGHT

Line of sight is used to determine if one mini can see another mini. A player determines line of sight from the perspective of a mini, using a viewpoint where the center of the mini’s base meets the top of the mini’s sculpt. If a player can see part of an opponent’s mini, which includes that mini’s base, from that viewpoint, that player’s mini has line of sight to that opponent’s mini.

10 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Line of Sight rules do reference the top of the mini sculpt, however, so there does seem to be a conflict between where you measure from to determine LOS and where to determine Cover. One measures from center of base to center of base, the other measures from the center of the base at the top of the sculpt:

There is no conflict in the revised Cover rules.

Step 1: Do you have LOS? Check from top of sculpt. If you can see any part of the mini in question, you have LOS. If any part of the miniature is obscured from view, go to step 2.

Step 2: Draw a line from the center of your unit leader's base to the center of the miniatures base in question. Does that line cross the obscuring obstacle? If so, the model is obscured.

If half of the unit is obscured, the unit has cover equal to the cover value of the obscuring obstacle.

2-3mm of height makes no functional difference.

42 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

There is no conflict in the revised Cover rules.

Step 1: Do you have LOS? Check from top of sculpt. If you can see any part of the mini in question, you have LOS. If any part of the miniature is obscured from view, go to step 2.

Step 2: Draw a line from the center of your unit leader's base to the center of the miniatures base in question. Does that line cross the obscuring obstacle? If so, the model is obscured.

If half of the unit is obscured, the unit has cover equal to the cover value of the obscuring obstacle.

2-3mm of height makes no functional difference.

Can all models in a unit participate in an attack even if they do not have line to the target?

So would it be possible to hide a special weapon figure behind something and then still shoot at the enemy unit?

1 hour ago, Tvayumat said:

There is no conflict in the revised Cover rules.

I am not so sure. The 50% test is done before the game begins. During the game you either see100% of the model or test for cover by drawing a line centre to centre.

So that 3mm can have an effect. Maybe not one worth worrying about. But internet and hyperbole go hand in hand.

To me the bigger problem is rules that should have been tagged for clarification or editing weren’t and LOS and cover in a miniatures game is rather important.

As such the delay in correcting the rules here is also rather poor. We have been playing for too long on emails and unclear clarifications.

1 hour ago, TylerTT said:

Can all models in a unit participate in an attack even if they do not have line to the target?

So would it be possible to hide a special weapon figure behind something and then still shoot at the enemy unit?

Nah, that's covered under the basic attack rules.

Models only contribute their dice if they have LoS to at least one model in the defending unit.

3 hours 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.

No, the rule (as confirmed by designer Alex Davy) is that terrain between the two minis only counts if some portion of the defender is obscured, including the base, when viewing it from the top center of the attacker (leader mini).

If the defender is wholly visible, terrain in between provides no cover at all.

Any difference in height is a concrete difference in when cover applies.

Go read the rules reference again. I just did, and they completely removed any reference to true line of sight. It's still listed as version 1.0, and all the page numbers line up conspicuously. It seems FFG removed those rules without telling anyone. Either that or we all mass-hallucinated that section.

Update: I noticed that the File name is now actually "swl_rules_reference_11_eng.pdf", meaning it's actually their internal 1.1, as that naming convention is used for all their other rulebooks. (Not to mention using a '.' in a filename is a surefire way to have windows throw a fit at you)

EDIT: Ignore me, I'm an idiot.

7 hours ago, Derrault said:

No, the rule (as confirmed by designer Alex Davy) is that terrain between the two minis only counts if some portion of the defender is obscured, including the base, when viewing it from the top center of the attacker (leader mini).

If the defender is wholly visible, terrain in between provides no cover at all.

Any difference in height is a concrete difference in when cover applies.

Until this is in the RRG, it remains unofficial....

Mind you, I certainly see your point. And I for one dislike heavily modded bases. But I've been in any number of games were they had their stuff up on cork layers or whatnot (seriously, who came up with that? It looks awful) and it did not affect the game in any meaningful way.

We are going to have to wait until FFG releases an actual tourney guideline, hopefully soon. It's still amazing to me that they released this game without this. And segments of the rules, like the LOS we are discussing, feel very incomplete to me.

48 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Until this is in the RRG, it remains unofficial....

Mind you, I certainly see your point. And I for one dislike heavily modded bases. But I've been in any number of games were they had their stuff up on cork layers or whatnot (seriously, who came up with that? It looks awful) and it did not affect the game in any meaningful way.

We are going to have to wait until FFG releases an actual tourney guideline, hopefully soon. It's still amazing to me that they released this game without this. And segments of the rules, like the LOS we are discussing, feel very incomplete to me.

Yup. Only the RRG counts. As for modded bases, the cork is supposed to look like an easy way to make a sort of stone/rocky base when painted? Though I tend to see most people who take this 'easy' route out are the same kind of people who never get around to painting them...

Personally, I'm totally ok with minor/interesting conversions, as long as they're not intended and used to bend the rules. Got a neat modded AT-ST with a commander popping out the hatch? Awesome! (I almost did that myself, but I feel the closed hatched is more realistic mid-battle). Since right now, RAW height doesn't mean anything, I'm fine with it. I realized I was wrong here. In this case, as long as you are measuring from the point on the original FFG-intended model, I'm ok with it - but I will make sure you're not measuring from your commander's head - that could potentially give you an Inch or so of extra height, which, given geometry and the size of the board, *could* end up letting you claim unobscured LoS to units that you wouldn't be able to normally.

Basically; If the modification is questionable, and there's a serious chance a judge may disqualify the model, have a spare, unmodified model you can use as backup. In all other FFG games, if you have custom templates/tokens/whatever, your opponent has the right to ask you to use the standard FFG ones instead, and you must comply.

The only other thing I can see being an issue is covering up Firing arcs on bases; (Since it's not hidden information and could be construed as an attempt to hide said information.) And trying to base your models on the bases other than the ones in the box. (Which could affect movement since a different base could have different diameters.) Alex Davy confirmed that this was acceptable, as long as the bases had the same dimensions / Arcs. He also confirmed that they will have rules regarding modifications in the Tournament guidelines, and he acknowledges that they want to make sure they were fair to converters without allowing people to take advantage of the rules that way.

In the end, people convert models because they enjoy doing it, and they want to see them stomping around the table. It's ok for them to do that and you shouldn't be a jerk about it. That being said, if they try to claim some sort of gameplay advantage due solely on their modifications, I firmly believe that you need to call them out on it. RAW apply to the models as supplied. If you modify your model, the rules don't change to accommodate it. If you model all your Stormtroopers laying prone and try to claim you're out of LoS behind a barricade because I can't see the minis, you're an ***hat.

17 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

Until this is in the RRG, it remains unofficial....

Mind you, I certainly see your point. And I for one dislike heavily modded bases. But I've been in any number of games were they had their stuff up on cork layers or whatnot (seriously, who came up with that? It looks awful) and it did not affect the game in any meaningful way.

We are going to have to wait until FFG releases an actual tourney guideline, hopefully soon. It's still amazing to me that they released this game without this. And segments of the rules, like the LOS we are discussing, feel very incomplete to me.

I mean, it would be silly to ignore the WOG from the primary designer. RRG updates are merely a question of when, not if.

@RavenwolfXIII the bases count, so having the entire guy prone wouldn’t seem to be problematic in the way I’ve described, except they couldn’t shoot back either (as they would require LOS to at least one target mini to contribute).

28 minutes ago, Derrault said:

I mean, it would be silly to ignore the WOG from the primary designer. RRG updates are merely a question of when, not if.

@RavenwolfXIII the bases count, so having the entire guy prone wouldn’t seem to be problematic in the way I’ve described, except they couldn’t shoot back either (as they would require LOS to at least one target mini to contribute).

I mean, yes, I'm not saying that it's an effective example, just an example of how modifying your models could drastically alter the playing of the game, which could very well matter in a tournament setting.

10 hours ago, Derrault said:

I mean, it would be silly to ignore the WOG from the primary designer. RRG updates are merely a question of when, not if.

@RavenwolfXIII the bases count, so having the entire guy prone wouldn’t seem to be problematic in the way I’ve described, except they couldn’t shoot back either (as they would require LOS to at least one target mini to contribute).

You haven't played with some of the folks I have....lol. Unless it's on an official doc, it ain't worth nothing. To be fair, I personally do read those emails, altough as a long time FFG player I take them with a grain of salt. There's been a couple of instances where an article stated a rule works this way, the rules said different, there was an email stating a completely different thing, and when the errata came out it was completely different than all of the above. ??

2 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

You haven't played with some of the folks I have....lol. Unless it's on an official doc, it ain't worth nothing. To be fair, I personally do read those emails, altough as a long time FFG player I take them with a grain of salt. There's been a couple of instances where an article stated a rule works this way, the rules said different, there was an email stating a completely different thing, and when the errata came out it was completely different than all of the above. ??

Only when people ignore the reality and intent of the sources.

Articles are written by Marketing, not Development. They have no rules legitimacy.

Developer Emails are an answer for “now” generally based on “initial intent”. An immediate answer to the question for now and thus SHOULD be treated as solid. This is entirely WHY they have the rules question link - if it were a nothing answer, they wouldn’t bother.

Finally, errata and FAQ is the finalized (hopefully) “going forward” answer, with additional considerations and often, testing, that solidifies a proper answer. This deliberation and testing is why it can often overwrite or be different to the email “on intent” answer, and is thus not only official, but ‘considered’ rather than off the cuff.

It is FFGs intent that email responses ARE official.

To dismiss them out of hand, as some people are want to do, I feel is outright arrogance... It disappoints me that someone can go out of their way to officially ask a question, while then someone st FFG takes time to answer it, and it’s.... ignored... if not outright DERIDED. It’s disappointing... ?

It would really help if they did official responses in a public place like the Rules forum here. Private emails require the recipient to circulate the information, and have a bit of hearsay around them. That said, it is what it is, and thus far the emails are great clarifications that shouldn't be ignored.

it would be nice if they 'pinned' a moderator thread for semi-official rules (official need to be in RRG and FAQ), or rules they were considering to provide some feedback. Or maybe an option rule for players to try out before becoming official. I've seen this on other game forums, but moderators don't appear to be very active on this forum.

15 hours ago, Bohemian73 said:

or rules they were considering to provide some feedback. Or maybe an option rule for players to try out before becoming official.

They have playtesters with their own official forums for this.