Giving everyone a heads up that the Star Wars: Legion Official Rulings thread has been updated with new info on hostage exchange, cad bane tokens, incognito and a couple of other things.

🤣

Dat minefield/AAT squatting rule dough..

The card clearly states that a unit must be "within range 1 and in line of sight of a mine token...".

Very obviously check from the mine to the unit in question.

Ruling? Exactly the opposite.

No no no. The mine must be in line of sight the unit, not the way we wrote it!

Because if there's one thing that warfare had taught us, it's that landmines can't blow up unless you're aware of them.

Gaming's worst LoS system ever created continues to get more and more convoluted and less intuitive.

@Sekac LOS was always drawn from mini to token. no change here, just an edge case verification. And I completely understand the abstraction done here, because drawing los from the token would be physically impossible on the table.

No it wouldn't, it just makes the game 2 dimensional for a moment. If there's no intervening terrain, then the model can be seen. If there's a tank flying somewhere above the mine, it can still blow up the people standing next to it. Makes a lot of sense.

The wording was specific. "A unit in line of sight of the condition token" not "a token in line of sight of the unit".

That may have been their intention, but it's the exact opposite of how it's worded. And it doesn't make intuitive sense either, a mine can't blow up because it's in a tank's shadow?

@Sekac you might wanna read the complete rules for detonate:

Quote

To determine line of sight from a charge or condition token to a unit, determine line of sight from the unit to the token instead. If any minis in the unit have line of sight to the token, then the token has line of sight to that unit and to those minis.

p.37

it was always like that

5 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

@Sekac you might wanna read the complete rules for detonate:

p.37

it was always like that

Oh you mean it was always like that ever since they reversed it the first time. Got it.

Like I said, the very worst line of sight system ever created.

"To determine LoS from A to B, instead, determine it from B to A. Why didn't we write from B to A on the card, you ask? Cause **** you, that's why."

Just so utterly inept at rules writing sometimes.

My question is how does the AAT get over the mine in the first place? I thought u couldnt overlap condition tokens?

4 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

My question is how does the AAT get over the mine in the first place? I thought u couldnt overlap condition tokens?

This!

It's the first note under condition tokens in the RRG

"Miniatures can move through but cannot overlap condition tokens."

Maybe they mean if the miniature of the AAT is covering the token but the base itself isn't over top the condition token?

In hover vehicle this note:

"While determining cover, a unit with hover: ground is treated as a ground vehicle and will provide heavy cover and block line of sight. Whether a piece of terrain provides cover to a unit with hover: ground should be determined during setup and is independent of the hover: ground keyword."

Seems to indicate what they ruled?


If not, then, yeah, I have no idea lol

35 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This!

It's the first note under condition tokens in the RRG

"Miniatures can move through but cannot overlap condition tokens."

Maybe they mean if the miniature of the AAT is covering the token but the base itself isn't over top the condition token?

That or they are planning on changing it when they do the points update but if that's the case y not just change it when they last updated the RRG

2 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

This!

It's the first note under condition tokens in the RRG

"Miniatures can move through but cannot overlap condition tokens."

Maybe they mean if the miniature of the AAT is covering the token but the base itself isn't over top the condition token?

In hover vehicle this note:

"While determining cover, a unit with hover: ground is treated as a ground vehicle and will provide heavy cover and block line of sight. Whether a piece of terrain provides cover to a unit with hover: ground should be determined during setup and is independent of the hover: ground keyword."

Seems to indicate what they ruled?


If not, then, yeah, I have no idea lol

I'm assuming, based on the following:

Question: The Detonate entry in the Rules Reference Guide only mentions charge and condition tokens. Do Bane tokens and the objective tokens placed by the Bombing Run objective card work the same way? Are they also removed after they detonate?

Answer: Yes, and this entry will be updated to make it clear that all explosive tokens (Bane, charge, condition, and objective tokens alike) follow the same rules.

that they will also be updating all "explosive tokens" to work the same as charge tokens in all cases, ie. they can be placed under miniatures and miniatures can be placed/moved on top of them. Otherwise, yeah, it's a ruling for a situation that can't happen.

More updates today. Including the more awkward fix for the multi-wound unit leaders: giving them a wound token to keep the total wounds of the unit the same.

So the unit leader is forcibly removed over and over replacing other models after they take a wound for any reason (LoS sniping, Force Choke).

And means I fully expect a different awkward fix for the commander droid in B2 units. Personally I think just not allowing the Leader to take a wound at all while there are other models in the unit would be less awkward and also maintain the unit's wound total wounds in all situations.

2 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

More updates today. Including the more awkward fix for the multi-wound unit leaders: giving them a wound token to keep the total wounds of the unit the same.

So the unit leader is forcibly removed over and over replacing other models after they take a wound for any reason (LoS sniping, Force Choke).

And means I fully expect a different awkward fix for the commander droid in B2 units. Personally I think just not allowing the Leader to take a wound at all while there are other models in the unit would be less awkward and also maintain the unit's wound total wounds in all situations.

I was actually in the thread as they were changing stuff, and they deleted all the posts from yesterday and then reposted, changed, and added stuff. Did the posts from yesterday start with a question about Luke using his pistol for the second Son of Skywalker attack (it was allowed), and today it's about Saber Throw in the same situation (not allowed because it's explicitly an action)?

5 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I was actually in the thread as they were changing stuff, and they deleted all the posts from yesterday and then reposted, changed, and added stuff. Did the posts from yesterday start with a question about Luke using his pistol for the second Son of Skywalker attack (it was allowed), and today it's about Saber Throw in the same situation (not allowed because it's explicitly an action)?

Let me check my email, I'm subscribed to that thread so I get email notifications...
The first one from yesterday was the exact same wording, initially allowing Saber Throw. Good catch.

Interestingly, per the new rulings, Klabammo! is not an enemy effect...

10 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I was actually in the thread as they were changing stuff, and they deleted all the posts from yesterday and then reposted, changed, and added stuff. Did the posts from yesterday start with a question about Luke using his pistol for the second Son of Skywalker attack (it was allowed), and today it's about Saber Throw in the same situation (not allowed because it's explicitly an action)?

Yeah all they did was condense all the rulings about hostage exchange into one.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Let me check my email, I'm subscribed to that thread so I get email notifications...
The first one from yesterday was the exact same wording, initially allowing Saber Throw. Good catch.

With Saber Throw or with his pistol? I thought I remembered the pistol (definitely could be wrong, though) and I remember thinking "was anyone asking that?" because I thought it was well established that he could shoot his pistol. Saber Throw is a whole different ballgame.

4 hours ago, Lochlan said:

I'm assuming, based on the following:

Question: The Detonate entry in the Rules Reference Guide only mentions charge and condition tokens. Do Bane tokens and the objective tokens placed by the Bombing Run objective card work the same way? Are they also removed after they detonate?

Answer: Yes, and this entry will be updated to make it clear that all explosive tokens (Bane, charge, condition, and objective tokens alike) follow the same rules.

that they will also be updating all "explosive tokens" to work the same as charge tokens in all cases, ie. they can be placed under miniatures and miniatures can be placed/moved on top of them. Otherwise, yeah, it's a ruling for a situation that can't happen.

They removed the text saying that all "explosive tokens" would be updated to follow the same rules, and reworded the text in the AAT blocking LOS to the mine condition token to specify that in the situation in question it's the miniature blocking LOS. So my original assumption may have been incorrect.

12 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

With Saber Throw or with his pistol? I thought I remembered the pistol (definitely could be wrong, though) and I remember thinking "was anyone asking that?" because I thought it was well established that he could shoot his pistol. Saber Throw is a whole different ballgame.

The one from yesterday was also about Saber Throw, with an answer of "Yes."

15 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Yeah all they did was condense all the rulings about hostage exchange into one.

They also changed some of the rulings. Mines are now NOT enemy effects, so can attack the unit with the Hostage. Klammo! is still listed as "the same as mines" so is ALSO "not an enemy effect." Saber throw is another example of a changed ruling.

Edit: So the new meta is to model your AAT as far forward on the base as possible then? 😛

Edit 2: The quick deletion/re-write of the FAQ feels... sloppy, like this fixes weren't particularly well thought out. But I suppose we can possibly mark the down to slightly worse internal communication owing to current circumstances?

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The one from yesterday was also about Saber Throw, with an answer of "Yes"

They also changed some of the ruling. Mines are now NOT enemy effects, so can attack the unit with the Hostage. Klammo! is still listed as "the same as mines" so is ALSO "not an enemy effect."

Edit: So the new meta is to model your AAT as far forward on the base as possible then? 😛

Holy ****. I didn't even notice! Thanks for pointing it out.

Who the **** is running this company?! Seriously, over a 24 hour period they did an about face on something like that.

Like, they can't post assembly instructions to websites, even though they're listed in the product as being available. They can't make deadlines on time. They screw up preorders. They take forever on rules updates, and post the wrong information when they do... JFC FFG.... this is not a good look.

FFG is just low-key blue command, and they gave caboose the keys to the kingdom.

43 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So the unit leader is forcibly removed over and over replacing other models after they take a wound for any reason (LoS sniping, Force Choke)

I really doubt that's how they intend it to work. I'm assuming the Leader dies last rule supersedes the wound allocation rule when the unit takes dmg in a situation where thr leader All ready has a wound placed on them. I get that that isnt necessarily RAW but thats at least how I'm going to play out that situation, it makes the most sense to me

34 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The one from yesterday was also about Saber Throw, with an answer of "Yes."

Ah, thanks.

34 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Edit 2: The quick deletion/re-write of the FAQ feels... sloppy, like this fixes weren't particularly well thought out. But I suppose we can possibly mark the down to slightly worse internal communication owing to current circumstances?

Yeah, it's...disappointing, to say the least.

25 minutes ago, lunitic501 said:

I really doubt that's how they intend it to work. I'm assuming the Leader dies last rule supersedes the wound allocation rule when the unit takes dmg in a situation where thr leader All ready has a wound placed on them. I get that that isnt necessarily RAW but thats at least how I'm going to play out that situation, it makes the most sense to me

And I'd be fine with that ALSO being the case if carefully specified. The issue is that ruling (should) also apply to units like Speeder Bikes... Which would potentially change the number of wounds before a model is removed.

Personally, I would just swap the model on the first wound for the current leaders, but that still leaves the future problem of the T-Series commander Droid in a B2 unit.

I think the best solution is to simply make it so that unit leaders can't be assigned wounds under any circumstances. Even if they are the only mini the attacking unit can see, the other models in the unit would take the wounds. This also tones down Sniper Strike Teams a bit.

2 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

I think the best solution is to simply make it so that unit leaders can't be assigned wounds under any circumstances. Even if they are the only mini the attacking unit can see, the other models in the unit would take the wounds. This also tones down Sniper Strike Teams a bit.

I completely agree that this is the easiest solution. It hurts all units equally though, which is almost a better design I think. They could even make it only apply to situations where the unit leader has a different health value than the unit.

Is the SoS thing new? I dont ever remember not being able to shoot with the second attack. I don’t get how saber throw is different, and if this isn’t new, why did they nerf SoS? I don’t remember hearing people complain about Luke being OP recently.

3 minutes ago, JediPartisan said:

Is the SoS thing new? I dont ever remember not being able to shoot with the second attack. I don’t get how saber throw is different, and if this isn’t new, why did they nerf SoS? I don’t remember hearing people complain about Luke being OP recently.

Because it specifically takes a card action to use. SoS doesn't let you take an action.