1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

I'm sticking with that your misunderstanding of the way the template is to be orientated is willful on your part.

Incorrect. There is no misunderstanding. I understand perfectly what their intent is.

I'm simply suggesting that they write rules that match their intent. It should never be the community's responsibility to assume what the intent is. If an assumption is necessary, it could have been written better. There is no good reason not to be better.

But even aside from the room for abuse, it is still the worst LoS system I've ever encountered. No other game I know has had to completely different systems operating simultaneously in game. 2 systems based on different principles, and requiring completely different mental abstractions to make sense.

The most complicated LoS system and the least intuitive at the same time. That's just bad.

@NeonWolf One issue with your version is the jetpack troopers with either optional or variable flight stands. The same mini can be built at one of multiple heights, and I think for some of the flight stands just a foot or so would be in the silhouette.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@NeonWolf One issue with your version is the jetpack troopers with either optional or variable flight stands. The same mini can be built at one of multiple heights, and I think for some of the flight stands just a foot or so would be in the silhouette.

That is possible, we won't know until those models are released. As I said, right now we have a ruling and no practical feedback. Until we do we are all just speculating on how this will change competitive play.

can the flight stand troopers be posed as one feet on the ground as if about to take off?

Yes. You can model them as you like. As long as they are on a trooper base there should be no problem.

13 hours ago, NeonWolf said:

That is possible, we won't know until those models are released. As I said, right now we have a ruling and no practical feedback. Until we do we are all just speculating on how this will change competitive play.

We do at least have the photos from the release article, which talk about "various height flight stands" and shows three different heights being used on models. It's also not the entire squad, and the relative height of the mini with flight stands is (in one case) almost double that of a mini without flight stand. Of course, we don't know exactly how many flight stands are included, but nothing stops someone from buying duplicates to build a completely airborne squad. I was considering doing just that for the ARC troopers. With the new template LoS rules, there is no disadvantage/advantage to modeling them that way.

I do agree that we won't really know how much this changes things until in person games become more widespread.

19 hours ago, Sekac said:

Incorrect. There is no misunderstanding. I understand perfectly what their intent is.

Man. You're getting to almost derrault levels of trolling here.

They said it goes behind the base. It is created the same diameter as the base it is used for. Ergo a normal person's brain would be able to realize two and two makes four here. There is a level of intentionality that rules writers need not define, because they rely on the use of base level intellect to understand such abstractions.

6 hours ago, lologrelol said:

There is a level of intentionality that rules writers need not define, because they rely on the use of base level intellect to understand such abstractions.

Forcing your employees to set you up is not a technical violation of any Dunder Mifflin rule. But neither is forcing them to help you with a shot-by-shot remake of Indiana Jones. How do you make a rule book like that?

On 4/9/2020 at 10:31 AM, Sekac said:

Fair enough.

Can you tell me how forgetting to specify the orientation of their new template is an example of good rules writing?

Do you think there are people that think ambiguous rules are better than clear ones? Perhaps there are, but I've never once heard that in all my years.

There just is no internally consistent logic to it.

Imagine if they came out with a Jedi riding a speeder at some point.

They say they don't want to punish models for lightsabers sticking out on small bases but totally willing to punish models for lightsabers sticking out on medium bases.

Same for conversions. Conversions done on small bases shouldn't hurt you, conversions done on anything larger and you deserve the consequences.

This came about because they didn't like their own rules but they couldn't come up with a good solution for how to overhaul it entirely, so they just put minimal effort into the easiest aspect to change.

Maybe don't put words in my mouth either. I'm not sure why you're asking me to justify claims I never made.

On 4/9/2020 at 9:24 AM, TauntaunScout said:

Yeah. It’s literally the worst linguistic mistake ever.

That's my other biggest pet peeve when it comes to word usage. It figuratively drives me insane.

On 4/9/2020 at 2:20 AM, Alan Noir said:

For LoS we play any body part counts, but weapons or antennas dont. Works out fair. Not sure if we'll bother with the template

If it works for your playgroup, that sounds good. I'm assuming your playgroup would change the rules for the jetpack troops if it they those rules make them really strong or weak.

As long as you and your playgroup are enjoying the game, that's more important than applying tournament regulations for casual games. (Minor exception for tournament practice games.)

5 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Forcing your employees to set you up is not a technical violation of any Dunder Mifflin rule. But neither is forcing them to help you with a shot-by-shot remake of Indiana Jones. How do you make a rule book like that?

Contractual obligations define the nature of your work.

Worker's rights ensure no unfair dismissal under the law.

Most western democracies have unfair dismissal laws.

17 hours ago, lologrelol said:

Contractual obligations define the nature of your work.

Worker's rights ensure no unfair dismissal under the law.

Most western democracies have unfair dismissal laws.

That quote is from a television comedy.

It was in support of your general position regarding the rules.

You must be super fun at parties.

4 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

That quote is from a television comedy.

It was in support of your general position regarding the rules.

You must be super fun at parties.

Well I didn't know that Mr Scout. 😅

Whew. What a ride!

On 4/11/2020 at 12:03 AM, Caimheul1313 said:

If it works for your playgroup, that sounds good. I'm assuming your playgroup would change the rules for the jetpack troops if it they those rules make them really strong or weak.

As long as you and your playgroup are enjoying the game, that's more important than applying tournament regulations for casual games. (Minor exception for tournament practice games.)

It's just me and my brother, we just play skirmishes strictly for fun, but we do use tournament points and errata. We'll see perhaps when Mandalorians come out how it works. Laser pointer usually helps and we don't get into arguments, if it's close enough it's a gimme.

13 hours ago, lologrelol said:

Well I didn't know that Mr Scout. 😅

The point of it is that you can't make a rulebook to cover everything someone might do. Some stuff is so obvious (like not using the paper thin side of the template) that is is a waste of verbage.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

The point of it is that you can't make a rulebook to cover everything someone might do. Some stuff is so obvious (like not using the paper thin side of the template) that is is a waste of verbage.

That really isn't the point. The point is, more clarity is always better than less.

You're confusing more clarity with more words. Clear, concise language is possible and should be strived for. "Wasted verbiage" is not really a thing.

No professional document writer should ever think "well they'll figure out what I mean by this." It is a counter-productive mindset to the goal of writing a good document. It's fine if you are okay with their effort level, they should not be. Their rulebook writers are professional document writers, their standards for themselves should be higher than ours.

Let's use a completely different example because this template thing was only ever supposed to be a minor supporting point to my larger issue.

Ive been waiting on my AAT and re-reading the rulebook and LoS.

If the highest point of the model that is over the center is the point of measurement, then with the AAT that point would technically change as you rotate the turret. If it's pointing directly forward, or a degree or 2 either direction, the barrel would be above the center and that would be the highest point of the model and the point from which to measure.

If you rotate it a degree or 2 more, then the barrel is no longer over the center, and the highest point of the model drops down to the top of the hull. Is a fluctuating measuring point intentional? Probably not, but if ever there was a time, a rotating turret makes sense...ish?

So how to resolve?

A) fluctuate based on the turret?

B) measure from turret height, no matter the facing (imagine where that point is in space, or rotate turret to make it obvious)?

C) Always measure from the hull?

D) Glue the turret pointing forwards so their LoS works better?

I swear I'm not trolling. I learn games by probing the corners. It gives me reasons to memorize specific language and learn the game in the process. Any potentially abusive thing I can find, I'm not advocating as I've said. Merely that it opens doors to uncomfortable situations that everyone wants to avoid.

As to the multiple choice question above, I'm sure anyone on here and I could come to a fair resolution in game, but that isn't the point.

If FFG sees that there are 4 possible ways their model interacts with their rules, then then only possible explanation is they could be more clear. Pointing that out is neither toxic, nor counterproductive, even if it is nitpicky.

Until they FAQ that, any ideas?

41 minutes ago, Sekac said:

Until they FAQ that, any ideas?

I am certain that they will FAQ the AAT just like they did for the Occupier to measure LOS from a specific point, almost definitely the top of the turret.

33 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

I am certain that they will FAQ the AAT just like they did for the Occupier to measure LOS from a specific point, almost definitely the top of the turret.

Seems like a reasonable solution. That is, of course, a 3rd standard of LoS measurement in this game. I imagine a 4th, model-specific precedent will appear at some point as well.

I'm simply suggesting that an expanding system of exceptions as they design more and more models for things they never considered might exist like lightsabers, tanks, and flying models points to a strong lack of foresight at the initial design stage.

Anyway, I've beaten this horse dead and will leave my comments on this thread here.

Apologies for any offense I may have caused.

10 hours ago, Sekac said:

That really isn't the point. The point is, more clarity is always better than less.

You're confusing more clarity with more words. Clear, concise language is possible and should be strived for. "Wasted verbiage" is not really a thing.

No professional document writer should ever think "well they'll figure out what I mean by this." It is a counter-productive mindset to the goal of writing a good document. It's fine if you are okay with their effort level, they should not be. Their rulebook writers are professional document writers, their standards for themselves should be higher than ours.

Let's use a completely different example because this template thing was only ever supposed to be a minor supporting point to my larger issue.

Ive been waiting on my AAT and re-reading the rulebook and LoS.

If the highest point of the model that is over the center is the point of measurement, then with the AAT that point would technically change as you rotate the turret. If it's pointing directly forward, or a degree or 2 either direction, the barrel would be above the center and that would be the highest point of the model and the point from which to measure.

If you rotate it a degree or 2 more, then the barrel is no longer over the center, and the highest point of the model drops down to the top of the hull. Is a fluctuating measuring point intentional? Probably not, but if ever there was a time, a rotating turret makes sense...ish?

So how to resolve?

A) fluctuate based on the turret?

B) measure from turret height, no matter the facing (imagine where that point is in space, or rotate turret to make it obvious)?

C) Always measure from the hull?

D) Glue the turret pointing forwards so their LoS works better?

I swear I'm not trolling. I learn games by probing the corners. It gives me reasons to memorize specific language and learn the game in the process. Any potentially abusive thing I can find, I'm not advocating as I've said. Merely that it opens doors to uncomfortable situations that everyone wants to avoid.

As to the multiple choice question above, I'm sure anyone on here and I could come to a fair resolution in game, but that isn't the point.

If FFG sees that there are 4 possible ways their model interacts with their rules, then then only possible explanation is they could be more clear. Pointing that out is neither toxic, nor counterproductive, even if it is nitpicky.

Until they FAQ that, any ideas?

All measurements should be done from the edge of a base. LOS should be determined via a straight line from the center of the model's base.

Personally I find it very hard to determine the 'center' of a model's base. It can lead to some really unnecessary contrivances/disagreements in a game.

A better solution would be to allow LOS to be determined by a line perpendicular to any points above the model's base.

On 4/10/2020 at 10:51 AM, lologrelol said:

Man. You're getting to almost derrault levels of trolling here.

They said it goes behind the base. It is created the same diameter as the base it is used for. Ergo a normal person's brain would be able to realize two and two makes four here. There is a level of intentionality that rules writers need not define, because they rely on the use of base level intellect to understand such abstractions.

@FFGEvan

Can you moderate the poster "lologrelol", please?

Thank you, in advance. As a frequent customer, it makes reading the official forums a very unpleasant experience when coming across lologrelol's unceasing harassment and personal attacks.

20 hours ago, lologrelol said:

All measurements should be done from the edge of a base. LOS should be determined via a straight line from the center of the model's base.

Personally I find it very hard to determine the 'center' of a model's base. It can lead to some really unnecessary contrivances/disagreements in a game.

A better solution would be to allow LOS to be determined by a line perpendicular to any points above the model's base.

My issue is it makes our 3d game even more of a 2d game

21 hours ago, Derrault said:

@FFGEvan

Can you moderate the poster "lologrelol", please?

Thank you, in advance. As a frequent customer, it makes reading the official forums a very unpleasant experience when coming across lologrelol's unceasing harassment and personal attacks.

This couldn't have been a private message?

What were you looking to accomplish here other than, ironically, harassment?

Pretty classless.

2 hours ago, Tvayumat said:

This couldn't have been a private message?

What were you looking to accomplish here other than, ironically, harassment?

Pretty classless.

Oh I report flaming every time.

The public nature of the request is because harassment is no joke.

Any responses to such a request (or lack thereof) are an easy litmus test of the kind of person the recipient is. For example, yours is not a good look for you. Edit: Classless is telling a victim that they should shut up and be quiet.