10 minutes ago, Deathseed said:

Because that would make too **** much sense and require people to use common sense and basic reasoning instead of trying to game the system to win at all costs.

Also because that does nothing to avoid the optional flight bases for the ARC troopers and Clan Wren from affecting their LoS (both to and from).

Wouldn't it have been nice if they just released a template rule for optional flight bases, modded minis and trouble units like Luke, Snipers and wookies, Instead of releasing a rule change that a large number of this community disagrees with?

Dare to dream Darth, dare to dream.

Remember, this is for tournaments only. In casual games you can use common sense. Unfortunately in tournament environments common sense sometimes has to be ignored for the sake of consistency. It would be nice if we had gotten three silhouettes. One for small, medium, and large trooper figures. But I see this as a definite step in the right direction for tournament play.

4 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Wouldn't it have been nice if they just released a template rule for optional flight bases, modded minis and trouble units like Luke, Snipers and wookies, Instead of releasing a rule change that a large number of this community disagrees with?

Dare to dream Darth, dare to dream.

So rather than just standardized everything, you'd rather just use these templates for Darth Vader, General Grievous, Luke Skywalker, ARC troopers, Clan Wren, Sabine, Bossk, Wookies, and every other miniature they release from this point forward that have optional attachments that can change their height and outline? Personally, I think having a consistent standard for everything is the better approach than trying to handle some models differently. Plus, then these "problem" troopers would still be penalized over the "non-problem" troops.

A large number of the community disagreed with the original rules anyway, since they stifled basing/customization options, and led to weird situations with Luke shooting/being shot from the tip of his lightsaber. Right now, people are just more vocal since it's a time of change. Same thing happened with the price increase, and the switch to hard plastic.

1 minute ago, DFocke said:

Remember, this is for tournaments only. In casual games you can use common sense. Unfortunately in tournament environments common sense sometimes has to be ignored for the sake of consistency. It would be nice if we had gotten three silhouettes. One for small, medium, and large trooper figures. But I see this as a definite step in the right direction for tournament play.

The vehicles have the greatest variance in height, so it would be a little more difficult to set up a silhouette for them that made sense, especially since unlike with infantry, the bases don't count for cover if the model is on a clear peg.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that only for infantry to have different sized silhouettes. Small (like R2), medium (like storm troopers), and large (like Wookies). I didn't mean for small-large bases. My fault, I was unclear.

7 minutes ago, DFocke said:

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that only for infantry. But to have different sized silhouettes for for small (like R2), medium (like storm troopers), and large (like Wookies). I didn't mean for small-large bases. My fault, I was unclear.

No worries, I was translating that into the base sizes, not the actual model height. With your clarification, that does make a measure of sense.

We'll see what happens, it is certainly possible, but there would need to be some definitive definition for each of those silhouette sizes, either from the card, or as part of the Organized Play rules.

Isn’t it fun how “my own preferred way of playing” suddenly becomes “common sense” in these situations?

Heard the same complaints from a vocal minority when Infinity made the switch to silhouettes. Same as with that game, folks will grow accustomed to the change or quit, and the game will be all the better for it. It’s not the nineties anymore, time to get on board with modern streamlined LoS mechanics.

However, I do agree that this is a half measure. It should have included multiple cylinder profiles, extending the rule to all models.

6 minutes ago, The Hamburglar said:

It’s not the nineties anymore, time to get on board with modern streamlined LoS mechanics.

You do realize that that Infinty is not exactly the gold standard for LoS systems, right? And "replace your completely useless and arbitrary model we sold you for this rectangle you must draw and cut out yourself" is not everybody's definition of streamlined .

I've been tabletop gaming for 20 years, and I've never encountered a system with 4 different LoS scenarios.

1) small base at small base

2) small base at non-small base

3) non-small base at small base

4) non-small base at non-small base

All 4 situations are resolved in a unique way. I've never played a game with more than 2 LoS scenarios. Is doubling the conditions "streamlining"?

As far as I know, there's Infinty and 1 other game (that did a much worse job at it than Infinty (Legion)) at instituting the silhouette solution (or "sortalution" in this case).

Arguing that silhouettes are more successful than the concepts used in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th editions of 40k, as well as 2D representations as in X-wing and Armada is factually incorrect.

Silhouettes are, very generously, somewhat successful. I mean, the number of game systems that, at least, partially adopted them just doubled.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So rather than just standardized everything, you'd rather just use these templates for Darth Vader, General Grievous, Luke Skywalker, ARC troopers, Clan Wren, Sabine, Bossk, Wookies, and every other miniature they release from this point forward that have optional attachments that can change their height and outline?

100% yes.



This right here is janky and dumb.

If it was just those 10-20% of the troopers in the game I wouldn't be so salty, especially since most of them have hard caps at 3 or less or are named units... but the many units of standard troopers are gonna have a hard time not getting chewed up.

I think it's super cute my 6 armed grievous isn't going to get shot to death on the tips any more, but not so cute my entire legion of B1s that absolutely need LoS breaking terrain to function will die while completely hidden behind my terrain. Slopes, windows, anything that can reveal the "tip of a template" instead of "the tip of the blaster" is going to let corps units get wrecked.

The other issue Silhouettes adress is not everyone puts the model on the same part of the base. It doesn't provide a huge advantage (especially in legion where cover is on a per unit basis and determined from the center point of a model), but putting a model off center on a base can provide advantages or disadvantages. Silhouettes eliminate this concern.

*The most obvious example that comes to mind is that putting a model more towards the edge of the base makes it easier for a model to take cover in corners and walls where the physical base might otherwise make things difficult. This has come up in a few of my Kill Team games, simply because I tended to put my minis toward the (relative) back of the base for whatever reason (I think my brain just thought the lining up the legs with the base made sense).

13 hours ago, Sekac said:

I primarily play warhammer 40k which is a true line of sight system.

40k's cover system is hot garbage. True LoS is great, but that's not what this game is doing. The new changes basically put everything on a small base on equal footing. Initially I did not like the idea, but when thought about in an abstract manner I actually like the fact that all small bases are the same profile. It actually puts things like wookies (Chewbacca) on even footing with R2D2 with respect to the game. Remember the miniatures are representations not accurate depictions.

28 minutes ago, Squark said:

The other issue Silhouettes adress is not everyone puts the model on the same part of the base. It doesn't provide a huge advantage (especially in legion where cover is on a per unit basis and determined from the center point of a model), but putting a model off center on a base can provide advantages or disadvantages. Silhouettes eliminate this concern.

*The most obvious example that comes to mind is that putting a model more towards the edge of the base makes it easier for a model to take cover in corners and walls where the physical base might otherwise make things difficult. This has come up in a few of my Kill Team games, simply because I tended to put my minis toward the (relative) back of the base for whatever reason (I think my brain just thought the lining up the legs with the base made sense).

The rules say "directly" behind the base, but the problem is, that's not really right either, because it doesn't stipulate that the template must be perpendicular to the shot incoming.

Wow, wait a mintue... Legally, you can place that template at any angle you want, as long as it is on the opposite side of the base from the direction of the shooter. So models can actually be hidden on the other side of a single reed of thick grass if the printer paper silhouette is turned sideways.

Wait a **** minute...Are silhouettes are legally able to be hidden behind the models they represent?! According to the rules, DEFINITELY! You don't remove the model, you just place the template behind the model (no angle is specified, therefore it's however you "place" it).

I converted my Grievous to be climbing up a draw bridge over Mygeeto lava, so he's taller than most Grievouses. According to these rules, I'll easily be able to hide the "real, 2D Grievous behind the fake, 3D model and he'd be untargetable 99% of the time. Maybe an AT-ST could see over the LoS blocking model and shoot the cardboard behind, but almost nobody else will.

I thought basing him higher would be a disadvantage and make him easier to shoot (I had the conversion planned before I ever read the rulebook). Turns out I accidentally made him untargetably large.

Thanks for your badly thought out and poorly written rules FFG!

1 hour ago, Darth Sanguis said:

100% yes.

This right here is janky and dumb.

If it was just those 10-20% of the troopers in the game I wouldn't be so salty, especially since most of them have hard caps at 3 or less or are named units... but the many units of standard corps are gonna have a hard time not getting chewed up.

I think it's super cute my 6 armed grievous isn't going to get shot to death on the tips any more, but not so cute my entire legion of B1s that absolutely need LoS breaking terrain to function will die while completely hidden behind my terrain. Slopes, windows, anything that can reveal the "tip of a corner" instead of "the tip of the blaster" is going to let corps units get wrecked.

Applying templates to just some infantry/small base models/units would be even more janky and "dumb" in my opinion. The same problems you point out with the system (larger targetable area that can stick out) would apply to just those models, regardless of how they were modeled (on flight stands or not). One of the big points of this new system is to make it so it doesn't matter how you model the miniature, or how you base it, the LoS is standardized, every small base model is on an equal footing for finding cover.

You could always check the LoS with the template (or just eyeballing the base being under the opening) when setting up the models behind the window, and in casual events you can just use the older method if your opponent agrees. With many of my local opponents I could say as I set up the models "my intention is to have these models out of LoS" and then either check it quick, or just treat them as if they are entirely out of LoS. We've done it before where the other player checks the LoS as the models are being placed, letting them know when they have a positioning that keeps things out of line of sight.

I'm not trying to say this system is "better," every system has pluses and minuses, but a standardized template at least puts all the infantry on an equal footing, for better or worse.

6 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Applying templates to just some models/units would be even more janky and "dumb" in my opinion.

Well, that is 100% what happened, so...

Just now, Sekac said:

Well, that is 100% what happened, so...

For clarification, I meant "some infantry/small base models." I have since clarified my original post.

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The same problems you point out with the system (larger targetable area that can stick out) would apply to just those models, regardless of how they were modeled (on flight stands or not). One of the big points of this new system is to make it so it doesn't matter how you model the miniature, or how you base it, the LoS is standardized, every small base model is on an equal footing for finding cover.

Oh, I agree the template idea is bad altogether. I'd go for none before just patching units that have odd models like I said above. If they're trying to put everything on even ground they should have created a much thinner "silhouette". B1s are skeletal, Wookies are massive and thick. They do not have the same Silhouette. Every trooper unit in the game just got a massive hit box. For small weak units like B1s that's an issue, for wookies it's a benefit, they're actually getting smaller.

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You could always check the LoS with the template (or just eyeballing the base being under the opening) when setting up the models behind the window,

This is adding steps

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

and in casual events you can just use the older method if your opponent agrees.

If my B1s need to survive in a tournament? (lol Who am I kidding?)

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

With many of my local opponents I could say as I set up the models "my intention is to have these models out of LoS" and then either check it quick, or just treat them as if they are entirely out of LoS. We've done it before where the other player checks the LoS as the models are being placed, letting them know when they have a positioning that keeps things out of line of sight.

I spent $250 to get some sweet destroyed urban terrain. Perfect for using windows and destroyed buildings as LoS blocking cover. I honestly don't think there's a way to completely hide a unit in these buildings with the template system. (I'd be lucky to hide 1 or 2 minis let alone a unit of 8).

Right now, the locals are talking about house ruling a TLoS "just the tip" rule that excludes shots on minis where anything other than the body/limbs/ and directly attached objects can be targeted. Works for casual but anyone playing competitive now has to surrender to every mini being a 1 5/8" tall by 1 1/16" diameter cylinder.

45 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I'm not trying to say this system is "better," every system has pluses and minuses, but a standardized template at least puts all the infantry on an equal footing, for better or worse.

I don't think they should be.

True facts, not everything is created equal. B1s should be harder to hit by volume than wookies lol

Trouble units with extended pieces or special poses/extended fins, and units that have been modified outside that cylinder, sure, have at it, use the templates.



Any way you cut it I'm not happy. I got laughed at just the other day on here for talking about how much I hate the abstraction of defense dice. Now the minis are irrelevant and they've opted to make LoS abstract too.

Such is life. I'm in too deep to sell out now.

16 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Oh, I agree the template idea is bad altogether. I'd go for none before just patching units that have odd models like I said above. If they're trying to put everything on even ground they should have created a much thinner "silhouette". B1s are skeletal, Wookies are massive and thick. They do not have the same Silhouette. Every trooper unit in the game just got a massive hit box. For small weak units like B1s that's an issue, for wookies it's a benefit, they're actually getting smaller.

No argument here, it is definitely one of the drawbacks.

Quote

This is adding steps
If my B1s need to survive in a tournament? (lol Who am I kidding?)

These are basically the same steps needed to hide a unit that exist now, just instead of checking if a gun is sticking out, you check for the template. Ideally, you'd only have one, maybe two models that were questionably out of line of sight.

Quote

I spent $250 to get some sweet destroyed urban terrain. Perfect for using windows and destroyed buildings as LoS blocking cover. I honestly don't think there's a way to completely hide a unit in these buildings with the template system. (I'd be lucky to hide 1 or 2 minis let alone a unit of 8).

Do you provide terrain to tournaments? If so, yeah that stinks, but you could just housrule the terrain openings that aren't windows as completely LoS blocking.

Quote

Right now, the locals are talking about house ruling a TLoS "just the tip" rule that excludes shots on minis where anything other than the body/limbs/ and directly attached objects can be targeted. Works for casual but anyone playing competitive now has to surrender to every mini being a 1 5/8" tall by 1 1/16" diameter cylinder.

Unless and until the rules change, yeah. No different than having to abide by any other tournament rules, like having to have official cards for everything, or in same cases, having to paint your miniatures with at least three colours for some events.

Quote

I don't think they should be.

True facts, not everything is created equal. B1s should be harder to hit by volume than wookies lol

Trouble units with extended pieces or special poses/extended fins, and units that have been modified outside that cylinder, sure, have at it, use the templates.

Further true facts: people don't stay in static positions for extended periods of time, especially not while moving around and being shot at. Wookies arguably have a greater sense of self preservation than the droids though, which isn't really portrayed in the game.

The bigger issue your suggestion will be the ARC troopers and Clan Wren with variable height flying bases, where the bulk of the model is above the template. If the flying models have to use the template, but the others don't, then people won't model them on the flight stands, since the template is a bigger cross section.

Quote

Any way you cut it I'm not happy. I got laughed at just the other day on here for talking about how much I hate the abstraction of defense dice. Now the minis are irrelevant and they've opted to make LoS abstract too.

Such is life. I'm in too deep to sell out now.

Part of playing games rather than simulations is having to accept abstractions of various levels and qualities. There's parts of every system I play I don't like, but sometimes you take the good with the bad.

Luckily, there are lots of model agnostic miniatures games you could play using your collection of Star Wars miniatures if Legion doesn't do it for you, so you don't necessarily have to sell the models if you aren't liking the way the system works right now.

And who knows, this could all change again by next year anyway.

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The bigger issue your suggestion will be the ARC troopers and Clan Wren with variable height flying bases, where the bulk of the model is above the template. If the flying models have to use the template, but the others don't, then people won't model them on the flight stands, since the template is a bigger cross section.

You really don't think people would use flying Arc troopers simply because 1 or 2 models in the squad would larger than the rest?

I'm curious, do you feel they're unusable now that all of their models are that size as they are now? Or are they only bad if a portion are that size? Because half the squad in cover still gives you cover (and you can kill the flight stands first).

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Part of playing games rather than simulations is having to accept abstractions of various levels and qualities. There's parts of every system I play I don't like, but sometimes you take the good with the bad.

People have made that point multiple times on here and it ranges from an irrelevant to bad point. Yes, we have to accept abstractions, not a single person has suggested or implied otherwise. Legion now has, the most convoluted, illogical, and poorly thought out LoS system of any game I've ever played. "Accept abstractions" does not explain away, objectively bad rules writing.

The fact that their new LoS legally allows you to hide Grievous behind Grievous illustrates that it is, the worst LoS system any game has ever penned.

A half-considered half-measure is probably the nicest description they deserve.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Do you provide terrain to tournaments? If so, yeah that stinks, but you could just housrule the terrain openings that aren't windows as completely LoS blocking.

I kick in about two tables worth at events locally. For events it just is what it is. We'll house rule for casual meets I'm sure.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

There's parts of every system I play I don't like, but sometimes you take the good with the bad.

Pretty much.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Luckily, there are lots of model agnostic miniatures games you could play using your collection of Star Wars miniatures if Legion doesn't do it for you, so you don't necessarily have to sell the models if you aren't liking the way the system works right now.

And who knows, this could all change again by next year anyway.

I'm sticking with it. Too much hassle to cross the streams. If it gets too annoying I'll just make new terrain to better suit the system. I'll have to check the Geonosis crap I've already started making, I'm gonna be hella salty if it's shorter than the template...

2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

You really don't think people would use flying Arc troopers simply because 1 or 2 models in the squad would larger than the rest?

I'm curious, do you feel they're unusable now that all of their models are that size as they are now? Or are they only bad if a portion are that size? Because half the squad in cover still gives you cover (and you can kill the flight stands first).

I 100% think that there are quite a few competitive players that would not use the flying stands at all if the rules did not change. A similar thing happened to Boba Fett when that model first came out and there it was just that the base didn't count for cover. Some people started modeling him jumping off rocks to remove the clear peg, which by the old rules meant the model could then count the base in determining cover. Since the competitive games are the ones that are broadcast, showing models with more options and more dynamic poses helps advertise the game.

Quote

People have made that point multiple times on here and it ranges from an irrelevant to bad point. Yes, we have to accept abstractions, not a single person has suggested or implied otherwise. Legion now has, the most convoluted, illogical, and poorly thought out LoS system of any game I've ever played. "Accept abstractions" does not explain away, objectively bad rules writing.

The fact that their new LoS legally allows you to hide Grievous behind Grievous illustrates that it is, the worst LoS system any game has ever penned.

A half-considered half-measure is probably the nicest consideration they deserve.

But for real, by far the worst system I've ever come across.

I mostly use it when people claim the templates aren't "realistic" for one reason or another. The old method was also an abstraction, so all we did was change one abstract system for another. Abstractions are not going to be perfect, but they are a major part of all rules systems. Often times people forget that most of the rules are abstractions of real world situations, trying to make things quicker with fewer questionable situations. Heck, an archway give heavy cover if the barest edge of your base is behind one side, and we measure all distances on a 2D plane, allowing Grenades and Flamethrowers infinite range in the vertical axis.

I don't know what your personal gaming history is, but to me the rules for LoS in 40k are significantly worse as far as being "thought out." It's almost lazy to say "you can shoot at or from any part of the model." That strikes me as simply not bothering with trying to figure out a "fair" or "logical" system, and just going with something quick that impacts both sides equally. I also find rule systems where facing matter for individual models a bit odd, given the same rules often don't allow for any sort of "notice" check or warning from allies.

How does the new system allow you to hide ANYTHING behind an Troopers model? Troopers don't block line of sight. Also, not being able to see the template because of the model is entirely not how this works (I think that's what your claiming in your earlier post). If the template is completely blocked by the model that is targeted, that doesn't mean you're out of line of sight... Your conversion under the old tournament rules might not have been allowed if you "significantly altered the height." With the new system, basing height doesn't matter, just diameter of the part that slots into the tool. If you're going to argue that the rules not spelling out some exact situation, well, 40k has a bunch more of those ...

6 hours ago, Deathseed said:

game the system to win at all costs.

Sounds like you are not interested in competitive play either which is good b/c the silhouette only applies to competitive play (I.e. win at all costs).

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I kick in about two tables worth at events locally. For events it just is what it is. We'll house rule for casual meets I'm sure.

Pretty much.

I'm sticking with it. Too much hassle to cross the streams. If it gets too annoying I'll just make new terrain to better suit the system. I'll have to check the Geonosis crap I've already started making, I'm gonna be hella salty if it's shorter than the template...

Good on you for contributing terrain. That always helps the events look nicer at the local level, which helps grow the hobby.

With Geonosis, depending on how it is constructed, you might be able to just build up the bottom with rocks to change the elevation, or place rubble on top? I don't have the space (or interest really) in building terrain, so I'm not sure what could be done really.

It always sucks when a game system drops rules dramatically changes, especially for people who make terrain.

3 minutes ago, smickletz said:

Sounds like you are not interested in competitive play either which is good b/c the silhouette only applies to competitive play (I.e. win at all costs).

Not always, I've encountered top tier tournament players that are easy going, and casual only players that will cheat and change rule interpretations in order to win.

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

With Geonosis, depending on how it is constructed, you might be able to just build up the bottom with rocks to change the elevation, or place rubble on top? I don't have the space (or interest really) in building terrain, so I'm not sure what could be done really.

I may be able to add another layer to the bottom, no idea how I'll get it to match.... I'll worry about it later.

1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I may be able to add another layer to the bottom, no idea how I'll get it to match.... I'll worry about it later.

Either way it looks great!

Another option would be to have a fallen stalagmite on the top to increase the elevation. You'd loose some of the space for models sitting flat though...

28 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

If the template is completely blocked by the model that is targeted, that doesn't mean you're out of line of sight...

That is exactly how these rules work, actually, read the document again.

Here are the main issues:

1) LoS to a small base model is completely irrelevant in every case in tournaments. Literally never used ever.

2) They don't tell you to replace the model with the silhouette. Leave the model on the table and put the silhouette directly behind it.

3) They don't tell you what angle to place the silhouette, just to place it. Therefore, it's up to you.

Combine those 3, and you realize that if a model is as tall or taller than their silhouette, it is 100% within the bounds to effectively hide a model behind themselves.

Now, obviously, no sober TO would ever allow this. But asking TOs to solve what is the most complicated and ridiculous LoS system I've come across in 20 years of tabletop gaming rubs me the wrong way.

One could (and they should've) realize the issues with their original "true LoS" system without ever playing a single game of Legion. If you've played ANY true LoS even once in your life, you know the issues. FFG didn't consider the well known issues. Then when they designed flying models that don't work at all with the game they wrote, they realized they needed a change.

It seems quite clear that someone suggested "just rip off infinity" and they spent, at MOST, 10 minutes writing the rules for it.

Their intent is understandable. The solution was objectively awful rules writing.

If I want to hide Grievous behind Grievous, there is nothing but a TO's change to the game system to stop me. That's why it's good practice to write rules that make the game work as intended. This is a great example of NOT doing that.