36 minutes 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

Well the funny part is that in years of going to FFG tournaments, I have only seen these pedantic, rules lawyering arguments on this forum and not in real life. In both x-wing and Legion Ive encountered good sportsmanship 99% of the time.

46 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

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.

I think "those people" you're referring to are proofreaders.

I'm a firm advocate of the saying "there are 2 ways to do something. You can do it right, or you can do it again."

They didn't do it right the first time. This is a step in the right direction, but very poorly executed. I guarantee they'll have to do it a 3rd time. If they hire a proofreader before then, they might be able to avoid a 4th iteration.

1 hour ago, Sekac said:

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

The only rules that changed are how line of sight is determined, not when line of sight is determined or why . All of the RRG rules that were in effect for the old tournament guidelines are still in place, except for how to determine line of sight.

So how it used to work (in regards to when line if sight is checked according to the RRG) is relevant.

I will again point to the tournament rules specifying that the template is used "when players wish check line of sight." Nowhere does it say the template is used for every ranged attack.

12 minutes ago, Sekac said:

I think "those people" you're referring to are proofreaders.

I'm a firm advocate of the saying "there are 2 ways to do something. You can do it right, or you can do it again."

They didn't do it right the first time. This is a step in the right direction, but very poorly executed. I guarantee they'll have to do it a 3rd time. If they hire a proofreader before then, they might be able to avoid a 4th iteration.

"Those people" would be folks who try to play the rules exactly as you are trying to argue they could be interpreted. This argument is unnecessary and foolish.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I will again point to the tournament rules specifying that the template is used "when players wish check line of sight." Nowhere does it say the template is used for every ranged attack.

Fine, I'll bite. So in the scenario where someone is trying to abuse the rules, you believe that they would just accidentally(?) agree with their opponent that it is a clear shot and thus ruin their chance to be abusive?

Yes, if both people are agreeable, there will be no issues.

We've been talking about the room for abuse by people who are not agreeable.

1 minute ago, Mokoshkana said:

"Those people" would be folks who try to play the rules exactly as you are trying to argue they could be interpreted. This argument is unnecessary and foolish.

Good news FFG, there's no need to improve your rules writing! Just scribble down whatever comes to mind and it'll be the community's job to figure out what the intent was and get on the same page. And if people don't agree on the intent, the people are at fault, not the lazy rules writers.

Just now, Sekac said:

Good news FFG, there's no need to improve your rules writing! Just scribble down whatever comes to mind and it'll be the community's job to figure out what the intent was and get on the same page. And if people don't agree on the intent, the people are at fault, not the lazy rules writers.

Perfection doesn't exist. It never has, and it never will. People with your mindset will always find something to complain about no matter what happens. If you think otherwise, go prove it. Build your own game with perfect rules and we can all see how that goes.

Just now, Mokoshkana said:

Perfection doesn't exist. It never has, and it never will. People with your mindset will always find something to complain about no matter what happens. If you think otherwise, go prove it. Build your own game with perfect rules and we can all see how that goes.

Perfection doesn't exist, striving for it is the goal.

If the alternative mindset is "we can't reach perfection so we shouldn't even try, and it's foolish to discuss it when we fall short", I'll take my mindset.

I've become the defacto proofreader at work. People appreciate my mindset and pay me for it.

But if you prefer apathy, that's okay.

3 minutes ago, Sekac said:

I've become the defacto proofreader at work. People appreciate my mindset and pay me for it.

Weird flex...

4 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Fine, I'll bite. So in the scenario where someone is trying to abuse the rules, you believe that they would just accidentally(?) agree with their opponent that it is a clear shot and thus ruin their chance to be abusive?

Yes, if both people are agreeable, there will be no issues.

We've been talking about the room for abuse by people who are not agreeable.

Please show me where in the RRG it ever states you can skip checking Line of Sight.

The RRG determines when Line of Sight is checked, the Tournament rules just specifies how to determine it.

It is my understanding that you are claiming that under the new Tournament rules, the RRG rules for when Line of Sight is determined are superseded, making it so now by a strict reading of the rules, the line of sight has to be checked for every shot.

I am claiming that has always been the case, regardless of version of the tournament rules, as the Rules Reference Guide does not innately allow for players to skip checking line of sight for ranged attacks.

Step 2 Form Attack Pool, substep a ) Determine Eligible Minis:

Quote

Each mini in the attacker is eligible to contribute to the attack pool if that mini has line of sight to any mini in the defender

So whether or not FFG added the templates into tournament play, a player could insist on checking Line of Sight for every attack per the wording of the Rule Reference Guide.

3 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Weird flex...

Not a flex, just pointing out that nobody values apathy.

Just now, Sekac said:

Not a flex, just pointing out that nobody values apathy.

You must have missed the actual real goths from decades gone by. They srly valued apathy. It was a virtue to them.

1 minute ago, TauntaunScout said:

You must have missed the actual real goths from decades gone by. They srly valued apathy. It was a virtue to them.

Haha! Fair. But nobody values them.

Just now, Sekac said:

Not a flex, just pointing out that nobody values apathy.

So you've polled everyone to determine that? Funny, I don't remember answering that question.

Also, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.....

23 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Fine, I'll bite. So in the scenario where someone is trying to abuse the rules, you believe that they would just accidentally(?) agree with their opponent that it is a clear shot and thus ruin their chance to be abusive?

Yes, if both people are agreeable, there will be no issues.

We've been talking about the room for abuse by people who are not agreeable.

Those folks will have a hard time finding opponents to practice with, claim the game is stupid, and stop playing.

7 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Haha! Fair. But nobody values them.

I was dating one. It was the 90's. And we thought things were going to be O.K.

24 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

So you've polled everyone to determine that? Funny, I don't remember answering that question.

Also, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.....

You did answer the question when you said discussing poor rules writing is foolish.

So who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

You did answer the question when you said discussing poor rules writing is foolish.

So who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Please quote for me where the question "Do you value apathy?" was asked and I answered "No, I do not."

3 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Please quote for me where the question "Do you value apathy?" was asked and I answered "No, I do not."

Yes, this is literally the only way you can come to understand someone's point of view. Crazy, because you jumped into this convo very sure about "people with my mindset". I don't remember you asking what my mindset was and answering that question.

Huh. Sounds like a double standard.

Any other inane comments you'd like to make?

Wow, this has really gone off the rails.

First, even though the intent on how the template should be placed is clear, the rules do not explicitly state that so it could be cleaned up a bit.

Second, @Sekac several people have pointed out that small based minis do not block line of sight, therefore they wouldn't block line of sight to the LOS template, however I haven't seen you acknowledge that point. Do you agree with that or do you also dispute that point as well?

13 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Yes, this is literally the only way you can come to understand someone's point of view. Crazy, because you jumped into this convo very sure about "people with my mindset". I don't remember you asking what my mindset was and answering that question.

Huh. Sounds like a double standard.

Any other inane comments you'd like to make?

Then by all means, what is YOUR mindset? Please set the record straight.

17 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

Then by all means, what is YOUR mindset? Please set the record straight.

I already made it clear. You and I both know that a specific yes or no question is not required to understand someone. Inferences are constant and necessary part of conversation.

You're just getting hung up on a language convention that nobody reading this would actually believe you adhere to in normal conversation.

You made your views clear, I made mine clear. Time to move forward with the conversation, not bog it down with wildly off topic petulism.

46 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

Second, @Sekac several people have pointed out that small based minis do not block line of sight, therefore they wouldn't block line of sight to the LOS template, however I haven't seen you acknowledge that point. Do 6you agree with that or do you also dispute that point as well?

I think it's debatable. I definitely see where people are coming from. A perfectly fair interpretation for how that interacts with their new template system would be that it only eliminates the need to set up a template behind every model in a squad to see if it would block line of sight to the model behind.

I think we can all agree that the RAI for that section preventing minis from blocking other minis.

Of course that's the intention, because a situation where a mini could be blocking LoS to itself was inconceivable under the original rules.

That's the issue when you overhaul only some of the rules without spending enough time thinking how that will interact with sections you didn't update. Cracks form and that makes space for confusion and abuse.

Regardless, if we take that section and treat it as a solve to the blocking LoS to oneself (which I'm totally fine with), it unfortunately leaves the primary issue that you can place the template in any orientation you want as long as it is vertical and directly behind the model.

So it only changes the issue from "Grievous can hide behind himself" to "Grievous can hide behind anything 47mm tall and wider than the thickness of a sheet of paper".

Not as easy to abuse, but it's certainly possible. You could have combat beasts advancing up the field and be untargetable behind an AT-ST's leg, for instance.

Then it would quite helpful if the document had an image of how the silhouette is to be positioned.

This whole convo is a trap.

Sekac, you started out by comparing this to and complaining about Infinity’s silhouette rules, which are extremely clear from a mechanics stand point.

Your diatribe about these rules not being well-written is pointless, because you would still not like the change if it wasn’t as poorly written as you’re purporting it is.