20 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Those games use tape measures, while Legion uses range rulers and movement templates. How are we supposed to measure the height of a particular volume unless they just say now we have to go buy tape measures? I'm wondering what they figured out for that little quandary. Maybe using what were (asummedly) arbitrary markings on the range rulers?

Legion also uses a simplified tape measure

Also, the silhouettes in Infinity are not measured using tape - they are rectangular templates that you put behind a unit for LOS checks.

We may have a clue as to how this will be handled in the existing RRG. This is similar to the template method used by other games but still has some issues with using "highest point of the mini" since different troopers can be different heights. I'm genuinely curious to see what direction FFG decides to go.

5 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

We may have a clue as to how this will be handled in the existing RRG. This is similar to the template method used by other games but still has some issues with using "highest point of the mini" since different troopers can be different heights. I'm genuinely curious to see what direction FFG decides to go.

The main problem is the changing height of the infantry models that have optional clear pegs for jetpacks, so I don't think "highest point" will be involved. I think the infinity method of a standardized square placed vertically behind the base is slightly more likely.

6 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The main problem is the changing height of the infantry models that have optional clear pegs for jetpacks, so I don't think "highest point" will be involved. I think the infinity method of a standardized square placed vertically behind the base is slightly more likely.

You could also just say: if you replaced the mini with the leader of the unit, and the leader wasn’t visible, neither is the overly tall one.

5 minutes ago, Derrault said:

You could also just say: if you replaced the mini with the leader of the unit, and the leader wasn’t visible, neither is the overly tall one.

The entire unit can be placed on pegs if I read the description right, so how does that fix anything, when the unit leader IS the overly tall one?

2 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The entire unit can be placed on pegs if I read the description right, so how does that fix anything, when the unit leader IS the overly tall one?

I mean, maybe then the entire unit is at that height, like the way Boba Fett is?

edit: Expecting outside measuring methods seems more ridiculous than the units simply being more exposed (and also having improved ability to see over cover, of course); we already get this from Wookies being a head taller than other units, so I suppose I don’t see the problem.

Just now, Derrault said:

I mean, maybe then the entire unit is at that height, like the way Boba Fett is?

The way it is modeled changing the height of the miniature is what is trying to be addressed by my understanding, so it doesn't matter if the unit is posed jumping or on the ground, they have the same profile for LoS.

One way I’ve seen it done is via what you can see of the physical base itself, not really the model.

7 minutes ago, joewrightgm said:

One way I’ve seen it done is via what you can see of the physical base itself, not really the model.

Which would result in models being out of LoS behind barricades, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Plus that doesn't solve where you check from on the leader of the unit that is shooting, and the alternative poses potentially giving an advantage.

9 minutes ago, joewrightgm said:

One way I’ve seen it done is via what you can see of the physical base itself, not really the model.

Interesting. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, every unit can be entirely hidden behind a .5 inch wall?

10 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The entire unit can be placed on pegs if I read the description right, so how does that fix anything, when the unit leader IS the overly tall one?

This is my understanding as well, they said there were 4 flight stands in the box. This is why I am genuinely curious what the resolution will be. We already have a rule that states the base+stand do not count for LoS if the model is on one (came out when Boba was released).

IIRC, 40k used to have a rule (still might) that said only the torso+head counted for LoS and that any banners, weapons, etc did not. We could see something like this but again, could lead to lots of judge calls at a tournament.

I feel like the Infinity "box" method would be the simplest and least controversial, but would require additional templates/tools. The method that is currently used for determining cover from Ground Vehicles would be simple as well, already has an in-ruleset precedent, and wouldn't require any additional equipment, but does potentially penalize players who build their models higher than ground level.

5 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

This is my understanding as well, they said there were 4 flight stands in the box. This is why I am genuinely curious what the resolution will be. We already have a rule that states the base+stand do not count for LoS if the model is on one (came out when Boba was released).

Base and stand do count for infantry models on a clear peg. The rule about the base not counting was in the game initially due to Speeder bikes, then was changed to make it so the base counted for infantry on clear pegs to allow people to field Boba Fett and benefit from putting him on buildings.

35 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Base and stand do count for infantry models on a clear peg. The rule about the base not counting was in the game initially due to Speeder bikes, then was changed to make it so the base counted for infantry on clear pegs to allow people to field Boba Fett and benefit from putting him on buildings.

I stand corrected, the base+peg do apply to small based miniatures. Only disregard for minis with notched bases. Wonder if that will change with the AAT/Saber RRG update.

2 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Interesting. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, every unit can be entirely hidden behind a .5 inch wall?

Not really; it’s hard to explain. I’ve played so many different systems that I can’t even remember where I saw that rule.

but more or less if you can draw a clear line to the outer edge of the base = clear LOS. If not, then obscured, then based on the models torso/legs are covered by vertical determines whether it was light/heavy cover.

i had thought they cleared this up already with the most recent RRG. Not to name other games but there is one out there that does use the profile thing for targeting. When i saw that for that game i was like "finally" but then again ambiguity is the patron saint of happy mistakes. I forget in my elderness of age that some of these things are NOT common knowledge among gamers. I guess i take some rules for "granite" that common sense should prevail.

But then again i DID get thrown out of a GW event for having a KANDY KORN army.....made of candy corns....and assorted holiday snacks......

i need professional help im sure

On 2/13/2020 at 7:26 AM, ScummyRebel said:

To be fair, the rules DID define line of sight based on sight to the miniature. And while very much not tabletop gaming, another “war game” counts hits to equipment: paintball.

^ this i know all too well...33 yrs with 12 professional , i get this and we had the same issues too, especially when you go outside the CONUS or when many $$ were on the table

I agree the lightsaber is ridiculous because we know it won’t hurt anything even if someone did shoot the blade.

Also, I would argue that the whole lie of sight bit has to get addressed now because of the coming ARCs. True LoS is going to be a mess with all the dynamic poses including up in the air. I have no clue what “common sense” would say about line of sight to that unit!

^ This. We needed a new rule because as written it had to be this way. < agreed.

It saves lots of disagreement among friends too: with our group of friends (I don’t play competitively), our intent was to hide los during a move action we’d ask the other guy to get down and check LOS for us “trying to hide Luke from those guys over there” and we work together to meet the physical state that was intended. < my friends never use the rules correctly the 1st 5 or so times...cause you always have that one "friend"

Can someone who has used these pre-defined volumetric shapes explain to me if it takes more time to figure out line of sight than our current system? My biggest fear is making an already long game even longer and more difficult to figure out LOS.

Won't it be a lot more difficult to "see" a pre-defined unit profile if you just assume a volume straight up from the base to a fixed height? Unless you use a template behind the target, you can't see this invisible volume, especially from 2 feet away?

Also, won't having to place a template behind some/all minis in a unit take a lot of time?

I'm very worried the new improved system will be clunky and time consuming, something this game needs much less of.

32 minutes ago, Thraug said:

Can someone who has used these pre-defined volumetric shapes explain to me if it takes more time to figure out line of sight than our current system? My biggest fear is making an already long game even longer and more difficult to figure out LOS.

Won't it be a lot more difficult to "see" a pre-defined unit profile if you just assume a volume straight up from the base to a fixed height? Unless you use a template behind the target, you can't see this invisible volume, especially from 2 feet away?

Also, won't having to place a template behind some/all minis in a unit take a lot of time?

I'm very worried the new improved system will be clunky and time consuming, something this game needs much less of.

You only place the template or check the "volume" (which boils down to the same thing) when there is a question, not every time you shoot. Kinda like how you only squat down and squint at the head of the unit leader when you aren't sure.

4 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You only place the template or check the "volume" (which boils down to the same thing) when there is a question, not every time you shoot. Kinda like how you only squat down and squint at the head of the unit leader when you aren't sure.

Umm, we pretty much have to do that every time to to determine if they have cover. How do you get away with not doing that regularly?

It all boils down to what type of player you are. We almost never break out the infinity volume tokens unless it is a really strange or lots of clutter between models.

In legion we have never had a game where we checked line of site and cover more than once and logic works fine. We definitely avoid the gw affect of any part of the model to any part of the model silliness. Cover is pretty obvious in this game and line of sight even more.

4 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

Umm, we pretty much have to do that every time to to determine if they have cover. How do you get away with not doing that regularly?

Well, if the base is obviously behind cover like standing behind, well, most terrain, or on a building, I don't really need to check, since some part of the model is obstructed.

A laser to check the middle line is used more often than checking if a model is obscured by terrain... Remember that the 50% of the model is only relevant for determining if the model can get cover from a particular piece of terrain pregame.