1 hour ago, Sekac said:

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.

1) I've checked LoS to a small base model in Legion tournaments before, especially the spotter in a strike team. I've seen others check it as well, so this point is invalid. It is relevant since you can only defeat models that you can draw LoS to in the unit.

2 &3 have the same answer also from the rules:

"An event may have exactly one Head Judge. The Head Judge is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament."

You find a head judge that agrees with you, fine.

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

1) I've checked LoS to a small base model in tournaments before, especially the spotter in a strike team. I've seen others check it as well, so this point is invalid. It is relevant since you can only defeat models that you can draw Loss to in the unit.

2 &3 have the same answer also from the rules:

"An event may have exactly one Head Judge. The Head Judge is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament."

You find a head judge that agrees with you, fine.

1) I don't understand why the fact that you checked LoS in a system that no longer exists is remotely relevant. They changed the rules, what you have done before doesn't matter whatsoever. My point stands as is.

A TO is certainly empowered to change the rules of the game to make it make sense. I mentioned that specifically, you saying exactly the same thing doesn't change the conversations.

Yes, a TO can fix their garbage system on an ad hoc basis, we agree on that. Can you explain why you think the owness should be on the TO to make the game function as it should and not how FFG wrote it?

FFG did a bad job with this, period. They wrote rules that allow us to hide models behind themselves. TO's are responsible for fixing it until FFG decides to actually think hard about and test a LoS system for this game for the very first time.

5 minutes ago, Sekac said:

1) I don't understand why the fact that you checked LoS in a system that no longer exists is remotely relevant. They changed the rules, what you have done before doesn't matter whatsoever. My point stands as is.

You made the claim that LoS is literally never checked in a tournament setting in Legion to a small based model, I was indicating that, yes it is. What does it matter that it was checked under the old regulations or the new? The new ones aren't even in effect yet...

11 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You made the claim that LoS is literally never checked in a tournament setting in Legion, I was indicating that, yes it is.

Wait. Are you actually telling me you thought I was saying nobody has ever checked LoS in the history of tabletop gaming? Why would you even bother to respond to a claim so clearly insane? You see that I used the present, not past tense, right?

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that I'm talking about the game as it stands after they changed the rules. Just to catch you up, we're on page 4 of a thread about how the rules are being changed. Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

4 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Wait. Are you actually telling me you thought I was saying nobody has ever checked LoS in the history of tabletop gaming? Why would you even bother to respond to a claim so clearly insane? You see that I used the present, not past tense, right?

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that I'm talking about the game as it stands after they changed the rules. Just to catch you up, we're on page 4 of a thread about how the rules are being changed. Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

That is EXACTLY what you said:

44 minutes ago, Sekac said:

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

"Literally never used ever" is you exact wording. Not "Never used under the new system" never used . I assumed you meant for Legion specifically, and therefore responded that it has been checked under the V1 rules for Tournaments, meaning it will likely be checked in the V2 rules as well, so it's not "irrelevant" at all. It's not like I said "Well I check Line of Sight for Game X, so Legion must need it to."

Furthermore, the rule change doesn't go into effect until April 13th, so the V1 rules are still the current rules. not that it matter for most areas with the social distancing put in place and wide cancelation of in person gaming events).

13 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

"Literally never used ever" is you exact wording. Not "Never used under the new system" never used . I assumed you meant for Legion specifically, and therefore responded that it has been checked under the V1 rules for Tournaments, meaning it will likely be checked in the V2 rules as well, so it's not "irrelevant" at all. It's not like I said "Well I check Line of Sight for Game X, so Legion must need it to."

Yes, those are my words. You missed the previous sentence that made it very clear that I'm listing 3 problems with their new LoS system.

And again, this is page 4 of a thread about a rules change. I, and as far as I can tell, everyone in it except you talking about the rules they're changing to. Or maybe you believe we shouldn't be allowed have this discussion until 4/13.

Regardless, checking LoS to a small base model IS irrelevant (starting 4/13, just to be clear). If it is checked to a model in a V2 tournament, people are technically cheating. So yes, very, very irrelevant.

Citing 40k as some sort of benchmark for game mechanics, seriously? They have pretty much no vision design-wise (short of making money), and definitely no interest in actually improving their game, just changing it to justify new editions. These changes are often arbitrary, sometimes flip flopping previous changes, or even contradicting previously stated/implied goals. For instance, wasn’t an initially stated 8th edition goal to get rid of all the books you needed to play? How is that working out?

Aside from Legion and Infinity I don’t think I’ve picked up a new miniature game within the past 15 years that didn’t use some sort of abstracted cylindrical LoS (i.e. - silhouettes, templates, etc). It’s definitely more common than not, assuming the game in question uses 3 dimensions.

The fact that someone upthread actually argued that it’s a players problem for choosing to take a kneeling model shows how wildly different folks opinions can be. Is this fix perfect? No, but I think it’s definitely a step in a better direction.

18 hours ago, Sekac said:

Wait. Are you actually telling me you thought I was saying nobody has ever checked LoS in the history of tabletop gaming? Why would you even bother to respond to a claim so clearly insane? You see that I used the present, not past tense, right?

Because you did use past tense! All of your posts are a misinterpretation of rules.

10 hours ago, Sekac said:

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 agree that the rule is garbage for all the previous reasons mentioned, and it's fine (fun) to point out that FFG and the English language aren't the best of friends, but there is such a thing as clear intent. All your posts from the quoted moment onward have been you obnoxiously going off on an obtuse tangent. Please stop.

1 hour ago, Staelwulf said:

Because you did use past tense!

No, he didn't.

6 hours ago, Sekac said:

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.

...

"Literally never used ever." has no tense itself, the natural indication being to think of it in the tense established in the immediately preceding part; "used" is the passive voice here, not the past tense.

6 hours ago, Sekac said:

Yes, those are my words. You missed the previous sentence that made it very clear that I'm listing 3 problems with their new LoS system.

And again, this is page 4 of a thread about a rules change. I, and as far as I can tell, everyone in it except you talking about the rules they're changing to. Or maybe you believe we shouldn't be allowed have this discussion until 4/13.

Regardless, checking LoS to a small base model IS irrelevant (starting 4/13, just to be clear). If it is checked to a model in a V2 tournament, people are technically cheating. So yes, very, very irrelevant.

So past occurances in the same game can't be used to predict future situations? I'm sure all the tournament players are really annoyed that this new organized play rules completely invalidates all of their past practice, rather than just changing the mechanics of checking LoS.

How exactly is it irrelevant? The RRG is not changing, which means you still need to determine LoS, except now you use the current template rule to determine what models can contribute weapons to a ranged attack pool, and what models in the target unit are eligible to be removed as casualties. This has been checked in the past in a tournament setting, and is likely to be checked more frequently with the V2 rules, due to the corner cases.

Discounting your purposefully misreading the intent of the rules (not the wording, I do agree they could be tightened up), checking LoS to and from an individual model isn't cheating, it's still listed (under either set of tournament rules) as a step in making a ranged attack. So how exactly is it "irrelevant?"

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Discounting your purposefully misreading the intent of the rules (not the wording, I do agree they could be tightened up), checking LoS to and from an individual model isn't cheating, it's still listed (under either set of tournament rules) as a step in making a ranged attack. So how exactly is it "irrelevant?"

I really don't know how to explain this in a different way. Read the last page of the document again and tell me how many times it tells uses the word "model". I'll help, the answer is 0. You check line of sight from silhouette to silhouette. If you are checking from model to model , you are playing it wrong.

Will people do it anyway, despite being incorrect? Yes, you're right, people probably will. So what?

Will TOs have people the game as it's supposed to? Hopefully.

But I'm not misinterpreting the rules, I'm reading them exactly as they're written. And, exactly as written, there is nothing wrong with hiding Grievous' silhouette behind the Grievous model. I'm putting it where I'm told to. You look to see if you can see the silhouette (again, not the model, but the silhouette). If you can only see the model, but not the silhouette, it is NOT a legal shot.

I don't want it to work this way, but until they fix it, it is a TO's responsibility to make this game function again.

Maybe if FFG had spent 15 minutes on this "solution" instead of only 10, TO's wouldn't be in the position of fixing their game.

2 hours ago, twincast said:

I agree that the rule is garbage for all the previous reasons mentioned, and it's fine (fun) to point out that FFG and the English language aren't the best of friends, but there is such a thing as clear intent. All your posts from the quoted moment onward have been you obnoxiously going off on an obtuse tangent. Please stop.

Yes it's the old Rules as Written, Rules as Intended (RAW/RAI) debate. Their intentions are clear, but their rules writing is lazy and poorly thought out. I don't like it when it's up to the community to get on the same page about how the game should work instead of how it does.

I'm sorry if you find my criticisms of the awful job they did with this obnoxious, but I'll voice my frustrations if I feel inclined, sorry.

The point being that this is meant to eliminate problems and yet, as Sekac has pointed out, a player can angle the card a bit to 'game' the new rule in their favour. So by trying to get rid of one problem another arises. Of course we come back to being a good sport, and using common sense, which rather gets rid of the need for the rule in the first place 😛

1 hour ago, Sekac said:

I really don't know how to explain this in a different way. Read the last page of the document again and tell me how many times it tells uses the word "model". I'll help, the answer is 0. You check line of sight from silhouette to silhouette. If you are checking from model to model , you are playing it wrong.

"These models are colloquially referred to as miniatures or minis." That quote is from the Wikipedia entry on "Miniature wargaming."

From thesaurus.com Miniature synonyms include: mini, model.

When I type "model" I using the meaning which is synonymous with "mini" or "miniature," a term that does appear in both the RRG and the updated tournament rules.

What is the difference between a mini and a model in your opinion? Because these new rules do say how the check line of sight to the "mini" from another "mini": you use the template. So if model is synonymous with "mini" then, yes it does say how to check line of sight to and from a "model."

Also, the pictures illustrate how you are supposed to place the template. Yes, they could have also used words, but they chose to just do an example picture, which is common in both wargames and board games in my experience. There is still time for FFG to update the rules, including using a overhead shot.

As to the model (or "mini") blocking line of sight to the template being used to check line of sight to itself, the RRG has rules that handle the situation:

"Trooper minis do not block line of sight. When determining line of sight, if a player cannot see a mini because it is concealed by one or more troopers on the battlefield, and that player could otherwise see the mini, that player's mini has line of sight to the mini that is concealed by one or more troopers."

The new Organized Play rules do not replace the entire text of line of sight, they at most replace the section in the first paragraph detailing how to determine line of sight which is what they specifically say "When determining line of sight." Since sight to the template is the new way of determining line of sight to the mini, then if you can't see the template solely because of any mini, you have line of sight to the mini.

14 hours ago, Sekac said:

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

Okay.

New Tournament regs page 14:
"When determining line of sight from Luke Skywalker, place the silhouette template directly behind Luke’s base. Then, align your eye with the hash mark at the top of the silhouette and draw line of sight from the center of the base."

So, a few things here:
1: There is only one hash mark on the template. As the rules clearly state that it is at the top of the template they have clearly denoted the orientation of the template
2: The template is shown behind a Luke Skywalker figure in a vertical position.
3: The rule denotes that the orange tabs are only for grip, so please explain how you conclude from that instruction that the orange tab can be placed against the board
4: The picture on the template clearly shows a vertically oriented B1 battle droid. How do you conclude from that artwork on the silhouette that it it to be oriented any other way than vertically with the aforementioned "top" of the template being somewhere other than the "top"?
5: As to your assertion that you can somehow create a model that can obscure the entire template thus making LOS impossible, even if we were playing and we had a TO whose brain was leaking out their ear that rules your willful misunderstanding of the template rule was somehow correct, then there's a pretty good case to be made that you're modeling for advantage and thus your two clever by half idea has created an illegal model. Congratulations.

59 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Yes it's the old Rules as Written, Rules as Intended (RAW/RAI) debate.

I don’t think it is. Nothing has changed except the template helps solve disputes. There is no need to use it unless the LoS is in doubt by either party involved.

Many errors are made in any given game, but they don’t disqualify the player. It’s a difference in making a mistake vs. intentionally breaking a rule. If someone doesn’t use the template to line up a shot, it isn’t breaking a rule. If someone uses custom templates that are slightly larger or smaller to hoodwink an opponent, they are breaking a rule.

2 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

So, a few things here:

You entirely misinterpret my point. I'm not saying you're allowed to lay the template flat, it must be vertical. However the orientation relative to the shooter is never specified. There are images showing how they placed it.

Imagine you're looking straight down on the battlefield

[Shooter]----------> O--

The O is the target, the double hyphens behind it is a legal orientation of the template. If the model is as tall or taller than the template, then the shooter can't see the template, and technically can't shoot it.

They needed to specify 2 more things:

1) the template needs to he oriented to be perpendicular to the direction of the shot.

2) After the template is placed, remove the target model from the board so clear LoS can be drawn to the template.

1 minute ago, smickletz said:

I don’t think it is. Nothing has changed except the template helps solve disputes. There is no need to use it unless the LoS is in doubt by either party involved.

Incorrect. This has been covered. The use of it is not optional in tournaments. Every shot, every time.

1 minute ago, Sekac said:

You entirely misinterpret my point. I'm not saying you're allowed to lay the template flat, it must be vertical. However the orientation relative to the shooter is never specified. There are images showing how they placed it.

Imagine you're looking straight down on the battlefield

[Shooter]----------> O--

The O is the target, the double hyphens behind it is a legal orientation of the template. If the model is as tall or taller than the template, then the shooter can't see the template, and technically can't shoot it.

They needed to specify 2 more things:

1) the template needs to he oriented to be perpendicular to the direction of the shot.

2) After the template is placed, remove the target model from the board so clear LoS can be drawn to the template.

Incorrect. This has been covered. The use of it is not optional in tournaments. Every shot, every time.

Okay, DerrALT,

Why are you ignoring the clear examples that show that the template is clearly placed and constructed to account for the width of the base?

Just now, Zrob314 said:

Okay, DerrALT,

Why are you ignoring the clear examples that show that the template is clearly placed and constructed to account for the width of the base?

Because an example isn't a rule. You could place it like they have, and as I have said many, many, MANY times, I'm certain that was their intention.

I'm just wishing their rules matched their intention. Thet easily could have, they're just very sloppy at rules writing.

This whole post is probably why i would never attend or play at a FFG tournament.

It's called Suck the Fun out of everything

1 minute ago, Sekac said:

Thet easily could have, they're just very sloppy at rules writing.

You'll get no argument from me that one needs a specific law degree for FFG rules, however what you propose is somewhere between absurd consequence and willful misunderstanding.

The width of the template is the width of a base, ergo the template must be lined up in such a way as to account for the width of the base rather than being placed in such a way as to only account for the standardized height, rather than also the standardized width.

What you propose would not mean that only the height is standardized while now, in some cases the width of a model is greatly diminished.

1 minute ago, buckero0 said:

This whole post is probably why i would never attend or play at a FFG tournament.

Some of this is arguing out the kinks before we get into the tournament space.

1 minute ago, buckero0 said:

This whole post is probably why i would never attend or play at a FFG tournament.

It's called Suck the Fun out of everything

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. People don't really try to pull the nonsense I'm talking about in person. I've been attending tournaments for 15ish years and as much as we hear about tournament boogeymen, I've had very few bad experiences. 2 maybe 3 clowns trying to suck the fun out.

2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. People don't really try to pull the nonsense I'm talking about in person. I've been attending tournaments for 15ish years and as much as we hear about tournament boogeymen, I've had very few bad experiences. 2 maybe 3 clowns trying to suck the fun out.

Yes, but when chicken little arguments (like the one going on here with respect to the template) happen, that gives credence to the fact that those people do exist and are out there. What's going here is clearly just arguing for the sake of arguing, but it does a disservice to the more casual folks that just want to play the game and have fun. The rules (intent) are pretty clear regarding LOS now. Will there still be issues? Of course, people like winning and no one is immune from looking for advantage in the heat of the moment, but the sky is not falling. These new rules are a step in the right direction.

25 minutes ago, Sekac said:

You entirely misinterpret my point. I'm not saying you're allowed to lay the template flat, it must be vertical. However the orientation relative to the shooter is never specified. There are images showing how they placed it.

Imagine you're looking straight down on the battlefield

[Shooter]----------> O--

The O is the target, the double hyphens behind it is a legal orientation of the template. If the model is as tall or taller than the template, then the shooter can't see the template, and technically can't shoot it.

They needed to specify 2 more things:

1) the template needs to he oriented to be perpendicular to the direction of the shot.

2) After the template is placed, remove the target model from the board so clear LoS can be drawn to the template.

Incorrect. This has been covered. The use of it is not optional in tournaments. Every shot, every time.

Again, 2) doesn't isn't necessary to be included since trooper minis never block line of sight. This check is only done on trooper minis, so the mini being targeted cannot by definition (until the inclusion of a non-trooper unit that uses the small base) block line of sight. This section of rules says how to determine line of sight, it does not replace the entirety of the RRG section of Line of Sight, nor does it indicate that it should.

Edit: Adding this caveat doesn't hurt anything, but it also doesn't cover anything that isn't already handled in the rules.

Additionally, it says "Use of this template is required for tournament play, and players use the template anytime that they wish to check line of sight. " If you don't wish to check line of sight (because you and your opponent both agree), then you don't have to use it. The rules from the RRG haven't changed, are you implying that Line of Sight was always checked for every shot prior to the template was being introduced, even when the shooting mini and targeted mini are standing in the open? And must be checked from the top of the model from all casual games, or they are using "house rules?"

5 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

are you implying that Line of Sight was always checked for every shot prior to the template was being introduced, even when the shooting mini and targeted mini are standing in the open?

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating for the millionth time that how it used to work is irrelevant.