Data Sphere

CB seems to be reversing the clusterfuck of the 55mm bases, because now at least one partner has the silhouette markers before the rules go live.

And so we learn or can guess that there are seven, and you can use them in pairs, so some are just different height but same width. We can guess the sizes if the bases are exactly the model ones. Bikes will probably be S4.



S5: Big Guys, 40 mm wide and roughly 45 mm tall
S3: Remotes, 40 mm wide and roughly 30 mm tall

S6: Mini TAGs, 40 mm wide and roughly 50 mm tall

S7: TAGs, 55 mm wide and roughly 66 mm tall
S4: Combat Remotes, 55 mm wide and roughly 30 mm tall

S2: Humans, 25 mm wide and roughly 36 mm tall
S1: Servants, 25 mm wide and roughly 24 mm tall

Markers also get help lines for cover. And if you know how to count squares or do some geometry ops, they will work with irregular / slanted cover too.

Those actually look pretty dang cool, but I still prefer the laser pointer with head-sized spot. If you can see the "halo" around the beam, it's clear line of fire. If you cannot see the halo, no LOF.

It's a real shame that the Silhouette stat will make the 5 Su Jian list impossible, as the 2 Lu Duan holo'd as Su Jian will be on a 55mm base and not the 40mm of the Su Jian.

Wonder what the Mag Guard is going to end up with.

S7 most probably.

I guess it is one of the reasons why we've been shown the new concept art of the Maghariba - it will be redone to fint on a 55mm base, and S7.

As for Lu Duan / Su Jian, I guess Su Jian could pretty well end being S4 in the mobility mode, and S5 or even S6 in combat mode...

Bikes are on the same bases as the average TAG now, so I'd figure they were the same silhouette as them.

Hero of Man wrote:Bikes are on the same bases as the average TAG now, so I'd figure they were the same silhouette as them.

You haven't noticed that average "advanced" REM are on the same sized bases too...?
I'd bet on bikes being S4, i.e. 55mm base, ~30mm tall (which would be a lil' bit lower than 36mm tall S2 for regular human models).

That's something Warmahordes had since forever and I was actually using it in all the systems ever since I saw it. You could go crazy on conversions without worrying that your dude won't find cover just because he has certain "extensions".

Section9 wrote:
Wonder what the Mag Guard is going to end up with.

IJW showed something off in this thread. It looks like it will fit on a 55mm base, where the tail-section will become as high as a TAG. (Yes, please.. I'll have one of those.)

It seems warsen.al has rescinded the silhouette marker.

They are no longer in the shop and I have gotten a refund for my order. :-(

Curiouser and curiouser, as the little girl said...

CB had told them to keep their mouth shut and not spill the surprise...?

Sounds like they were being prepped with some info for N3, but didn't realize they weren't supposed to go live yet.

Too late.

LoF, if still from centre of base to edge, then one model cannot be in cover for S2 models because >50% needs to be in cover.

Manit0u wrote:That's something Warmahordes had since forever and I was actually using it in all the systems ever since I saw it. You could go crazy on conversions without worrying that your dude won't find cover just because he has certain "extensions".

You didn't have to worry up to now, as the "replace with a model with normal pose" thing already is in the FAQs since the very beginning of said FAQs.

Lone_Pathfinder wrote:LoF, if still from centre of base to edge, then one model cannot be in cover for S2 models because >50% needs to be in cover.

Wut? You only need to have a very small portion of the model in cover to claim cover, right?

Typically, 1/3 of the model width-wise or height-wise (usually having cover up to your knees was shown as appropriate).
You needed to see a very small part of the model (head-size) to draw a legitimate LoF to a model (which didn't exclude the possibility of it being in Cover).

Alas, these are v2 rulings.
We're yet to see N3 ones.

On a side note - I like a lot the lines on these silhouettes that apparently mark "if that much of me is out of sight due to the obstacle I'm in contact with, I'm in cover".

Errhile wrote:
On a side note - I like a lot the lines on these silhouettes that apparently mark "if that much of me is out of sight due to the obstacle I'm in contact with, I'm in cover".

Sounds way more realistic than the 'base to cover-contact' rule.

Doesn't affect the requirement of being both in base-to-base with the obstacle, and being obscured by it, really. Just makes it easier to check.

Oh, I read it as.. you can be 20 miles behind a wall, but if you aren't in full sight, the bullet can easily hit the wall. My bad!

And generally it isn't unlike what you said IRL. But the Infinity method makes it all more simple...

Errhile wrote:And generally it isn't unlike what you said IRL. But the Infinity method makes it all more simple...

Yeah, I forgot N3 will focus more on streamlining, instead of pure realism (not that I mind ).

Errhile wrote:Doesn't affect the requirement of being both in base-to-base with the obstacle, and being obscured by it, really. Just makes it easier to check.

IF said obstacle comes with absolutely straigt horizontal OR vertical edges. For anything else (aka close to every terrain piece ever seen on a gaming table) it's still good old guesswork (aka coming to an agreement with your fellow player).

Harlekin wrote:You didn't have to worry up to now, as the "replace with a model with normal pose" thing already is in the FAQs since the very beginning of said FAQs.

You might want to go and re-read that FAQ, it's nowhere near as wide in application as that.

I understand people comments that having a wall somewhere between you and the enemy does give a chance to bounce bullets off the wall but infinity cover is more meant to represent pressing yourself up against the obstacle and getting as completely out of sight as possible. There's about as much chance of hitting random cover in the way as your shot going wide, so it makes sense in some ways to not give cover for intervening obstacles.

Errhile wrote:

Hero of Man wrote:Bikes are on the same bases as the average TAG now, so I'd figure they were the same silhouette as them.

You haven't noticed that average "advanced" REM are on the same sized bases too...?
I'd bet on bikes being S4, i.e. 55mm base, ~30mm tall (which would be a lil' bit lower than 36mm tall S2 for regular human models).

I certainly didn't, whoops! I don't use many REMs, my bad.

IJW Wartrader wrote:

Harlekin wrote:You didn't have to worry up to now, as the "replace with a model with normal pose" thing already is in the FAQs since the very beginning of said FAQs.

You might want to go and re-read that FAQ, it's nowhere near as wide in application as that.

Well, yes. The FAQs only include the crouching model pose.
But as you might remember, you also were/are a promoter of the "replace with normal model" handling of such situations AND stuff like quantum climb and others also aren't included in the FAQs.
The easiest solution for "your" LOF problems would so have been: add the "replace with normal model" thing to the rules. Case closed.
And what we got was a possible can of worms which doesn't address the real problem (of people sometimes being dicks).

Scorch wrote:

Section9 wrote:
Wonder what the Mag Guard is going to end up with.

IJW showed something off in this thread. It looks like it will fit on a 55mm base, where the tail-section will become as high as a TAG. (Yes, please.. I'll have one of those.)

That's HIGHLY cool! So cool I might actually buy more than one, in fact.

Section9 wrote:

Scorch wrote:

Section9 wrote:
Wonder what the Mag Guard is going to end up with.

IJW showed something off in this thread. It looks like it will fit on a 55mm base, where the tail-section will become as high as a TAG. (Yes, please.. I'll have one of those.)

That's HIGHLY cool! So cool I might actually buy more than one, in fact.

That was my idea as well!^^

The helpers are silhouettes, but we can confirm the term cylinder is used in the quick start rules too.

Harlekin wrote:Well, yes. The FAQs only include the crouching model pose.
But as you might remember, you also were/are a promoter of the "replace with normal model" handling of such situations AND stuff like quantum climb and others also aren't included in the FAQs.

I don't remember promoting model replacement as a cure-all, but I'll take your word for it.

Harlekin wrote:The easiest solution for "your" LOF problems would so have been: add the "replace with normal model" thing to the rules. Case closed.

Hardly. By picking a different 'standard' line trooper each time you can drastically change LoF, apart from all the issues I raised in the other forum about tiny changes in the facing of a model having drastic effects on how the model can be seen - none of which are solved by model replacement because you're already using a 'normal' model.

For example take one of the 'flat' one-piece Zhanshis and place it mostly behind a corner. Place the model side-on and it can't see/be seen, place it flat-on and suddenly it's visible.

Harlekin wrote:And what we got was a possible can of worms which doesn't address the real problem (of people sometimes being dicks).

Except that I don't see the issues you've raised as being substantial problems. Having 4-5 standardised heights is easy to remember, for horizontal cover that's around model height you'll generally only need to use the silhouette if one of the models is above ground level or substantially taller than the intervening terrain - if you've got 40mm high basic troopers at ground level then any terrain 40mm or more high is automatically going to block LoF between them.

First and foremost I'm a gamer - converting a model or putting it one a MAS base etc. shouldn't be affecting how that trooper works in the game.