New Legion Silhouettes, Line of Sight, and Cover Rules - Let's Discuss!

Let's talk about the new changes to the Line of Sight rules for Legion!
Curious about any products you see in my videos? Check my website for more information about them! www.crabbok.com/product-reviews/
Don't forget to use code CRABBOKVIP to save 15% on exquisite tokens!
Luxury Playstyle - luxuryplaystyle.com/discount/...
TeeSpring Store - teespring.com/stores/crabboks...
Join the Team on Patreon - / crabbok
Check out my website! www.crabbok.com
Discord Server - / discord
Tik Tok - / crabbok
Twitter - / crabbok
Instagram - / crabbok_ig
Facebook - / crabbok-171946272822652

[@Hanohtep]

I don't think that the idea of walkers blocking line of sight through the legs is immersion breaking. Although this is a turn based game, if you were to imagine it moving real-time the walker's legs will unlikely be stationary and could easily block shots/cause an obstruction whilst trying to shoot through them.

[@shock21_]

Given the number of walkers in the Star Wars universe, you'd think they could have given them a special designation like they did with speeders. Then you wouldn't be trying to pretend that walkers and tanks look and work the same

[@FortyFathomsCreations]

I would definitely like to see a "walker" keyword to adjust for this.

[@brokengalaxygames]

Thanks for putting the graphics on screen. It is probably going to make it a whole lot easier for a lot of people to understand.

[@matthewhanks8831]

The silhouette rules have changed because most of the AMG staff came from the Warmachine / Hoards community. This is how Warmachine/Hoards applies silhouettes.

[@michaelmaddocks5316]

Got my first game with the new rules on Wednesday and I’m excited to try them. The new templates/cover one is the most dubious to me, especially for AT-ST and similar vehicles, but only gaming it will tell!

[@cillamccarthy6987]

Still digesting the new rules but I seem to be in the minority that like the change. Its not just about the static mini. There supposed to be in constant motion. The trooper vs atst photo, reduced visibility from the atst the troopers hitting the dirt etc yes it may seem unintuitive but to me it kinda makes sense.

[@joshprice4278]

Great video, iv just started playing legion so watching videos like this are helping a lot

[@J4stringthang]

great job as always. thx

[@matthewrobertson6332]

Thx for clarifying. Love the vids

[@mrninjaxl1373]

Thanks for the update

[@brendansmith9946]

If I'm a real life stormtrooper and I'm behind an ATST, I'm going to use the legs as cover as best I can. So i don't mind the idea that they provide cover even though they're on legs. I just imagine everything would be in constant motion which causes confusion and makes shooting at stuff hard

[@erickwilson4897]

New to the game, thank you for breaking things down

[@djwillme]

Haven’t played with the new rules but love your takes as usual.

[@justinpeyton6120]

SWEET thanks so much I will email shortly.

[@matthewgresham1440]

I think that the new cover rules breaks immersion to the point that for non tournament games I'm going to play old cover rules

[@collin4592]

Thanks for helping with with explaining this and confirming my bafflement of the line of sight rules! Its a good thing that I wont play tournaments.

[@alexjohnston9700]

Looking forward to trying out these new rules, LOS blocking At-rt should help my rebels live a little longer!

[@cheneymoss6402]

Hmm, some good changes and some iffy changes Need to print out the new rules and really look them over (it has been awhile since I have played a game of Legion)

[@bigpawz9326]

Line of Sight should be drawn from the Tippy Top of the silhouette. Fixes almost all issues! another KZbinr brought it up. I played a game Saturday and tried out max ATRT. Almost impossible to shoot troopers without giving them cover. Screening my units was cool tho!

[@ScooterinAB]

That would be a good solution.

[@tomwood4562]

I'm not opposed to having standardised/simplified rules around silhouettes to make the game flow better. I wonder if it'd be better if walkers' legs didn't block LOS at all though, and provided cover or something instead?

[@reighzhor1058]

I recently bought into Legion with the CIS Invasion battleforce box.

[@cameronhickey7771]

Saber throw et al. Its now all about maneuvring - ie being mobile enough to get to a position where the enemy unit is not in cover. Will encourage mobile armies and discourage a static gun line force.

[@theoneleggedraven1940]

While still a noob I can see issues with the new rules but I only plan to play friendly games at my home so they're not really an issue for me. It'll make tournament watching more interesting to be sure but I'll take it or leave it on my own table.

[@mattlberge]

Wonder why the walker silhouette couldn't be the main hull with heavy or light cover for shots through the legs to account for the limited cover of the legs and anything they might be kicking up. Similar to speeder having an empty spot below

[@zeno6111753]

I really agree that they should add a Walker classification fix one of the most glaring feelsbad of this otherwise nice rules update.

[@GameBrigade]

I wonder if you need to be within a certain proximity of cover for it to apply

[@Matthew8897]

Great stuff. The new changes seem to of simplified things a lot more. It's now more of a yes or no to cover than this guy has and maybe this one.

[@centurionnb]

Picked up a Legion core set as soon as the rules changed.

[@lelouchhatake424]

Brand new too legion and miniature gaming in general I guess I got lucky when I chose too start because now everyone like me I guess is gonna be learning as well idk happy coincidence that I came in at a good time too learn

[@happesushi]

I like that they are going through and trying to fix wordings that cause issues. One thing I noticed with the latest version is the new wording for arsenal X that seems big: When choosing weapons during the Choose Weapons and Gather Dice step, each miniature in the unit that has the Arsenal X keyword can form up to X attack pools and can choose up to X weapons to contribute to each pool. Each weapon can still only be added to one attack pool. Based on how this reads, it seems like you can use more weapons than your arsenal X keyword value. For example an AT-ST (no Weiss, all weapon upgrades) with LOS of an enemy at range 2 and another at range 4. Form 2 attack pools, 1 against each unit, and you can add up to 2 weapons to each, no repeats, so we choose the 88 and the grenade launcher at the range 2 target and then the mortar and main gun at the range 4 target. Not sure if this was intended, but that is how it reads to me.

[@The_Rising_Ape]

Some interesting changes, not sure the combination of the new silhouettes and LoS rules is going to make the game anything than more complex (possibly a little less fun). On the Saber Throw... if you give Vader "Force Lift" as well then he can move the barricade before the throw... maybe. Thanks for the update boss :)

[@not_joshin3257]

Thanks for the great video! I’ve got two questions! 1- So what if you have a unit of droidekas, one is behind a barricade or cover, but the other is in the open. That is 50% of the unit in cover, but there is a droideka that has no points of blocking LoS. Do they have the cover? 2- Lets say I am firing at an enemy unit that would have cover against me, BUt I use fire support to add more dice to an attack and the fire support unit is flanking and has LoS on the enemy with no cover…does there unit keep the cover or lose it?

[@bradlaplante6518]

What if vehicles with legs have their silhouette start at the top of the trooper silhouette and goes up to the top of the hull? This would fix LOS and cover issues. This might make spiders' silhouette work weird

[@ScooterinAB]

I like this. It addresses the issue of massive models like the AT-ST (though I would still have the legs able to be shot) while recognizing that after you have passed a trooper's head, realism isn't going to matter much.

[@jokeralpha4482]

What about Trooper Unit 2 Levels up shooting down onto Trooper Unit at the Floor? They would benefit from Cover half way between?

[@goroshadow]

Would be easier to accept that you could hit the walker and that's why it blocks los

[@JonatanGlader]

what does the cover for at-st even do? since it has armor only crits matter anyway?

[@josephmoberly2109]

I wonder if we will see any changes after LVO or worlds when they talk to the competitive players. Maybe some points changes if these rules stay. I get that they would want to limit points changes until these rules took effect

[@grahamcrackergaming630]

Played with the new rules twice so far. Confirmed, it is much easier to get LoS on enemies, and it is WAY easier to get cover. Saber Throw on Maul was garbage, and I think I'll switch to burst of speed just to get him into melee instead. I think it's also worth an overall move towards light cover on a lot of boards, as heavy cover is pretty hard to get through.

[@Orihutcherson]

Question, if I have a unit wanting to shoot at a unit that is behind a barricade, and they can see the enemy miniatures but not their bases, are they eligible to be shot at?

[@dexterd02]

New Vid!!

[@jasonsperka7681]

It used them yet. But will Thursday

[@MithrandirAv]

So next game I play I should bring a bag full of barricades

[@danielhinsch4148]

My thoughts on the seeing through the legs is that the game board looks static, but it isn't. The AT-ST isn't just standing there not moving for like 30 minutes in real life while all the troopers do stuff. It's walking, turning, ect. If you were to shoot at it, you would hit the moving legs, or not have a clear shot. Now obviously some shots WOULD get through, so feels like WALKER 'vehicles' should be considered like heavy or light cover or something versus just flat out blocking all sight.

[@shaunkrogulski9619]

I don't mind these changes. I think it will just take some mental adjustment for everyone

[@samus17]

"simpler" does not always mean "better"

[@ScooterinAB]

Neither does more "complex."

[@mattlberge]

Also apparently the walkers got legs, and they know how to use them.

I loved to play the AT-ST, now I feel like all of it's attacks will be against heavy covered targets.

[@nilsingvar7319]

It has the ability to blast right?

[@PikaChu-vv9hj]

Seems all pretty logical gameplay wise, your unit is in a cover, they get cover it's not more complicated.

[@Alexandr-pz4kc]

Just change Walkers to obscuring terrain/heavy cover

[@arnieszabo]

neat

[@ninjatango]

It broke immersion when you could just cleanly fire through the legs of moving vehicles. It was always stupid and now it's fixed.

[@gman1515]

The rider on the AT-RT should count since one of it's weapons is literally just him using a rocket launcher...

[@shinankoku2]

Silhouettes have been a thing in Infinity forever.

[@michaelwain3198]

I really don't like the LOS rules, there's another video out there, in which the guy makes some suggestions to fix them, that make much more sense, hopefully the official rules will get changed

[@victorgarciadominguez9156]

I like everything except the tanks not being able to shoot normal troopers from above. Why did they eliminated the adventage of the high ground?

[@simonneville3278]

Seems like AMG made rules easier for T.O.'s to deliberate conflicts in Tournaments, so the rest of us (the majority of us across the globe) can just ignore most of this and emerge ourselves in common sense. Great video that explains things clearly.

[@brendansmith9946]

Also, if I'm being shot at by an ATST I'm not going to stick close to my squad, I'm going to spread out. So in the few in universe seconds a round takes, it's really only going to be able to shoot at a couple guys from a squad. So it feels more realistic to me that a walker will only be able to kill one or two guys out of a squad per weapon fired

[@joshuajordan3507]

Hmm, I’m not sure about the full obstruction through AT units… I gotta get a few games in first to see

[@aincradshonor7732]

Does this mean that units like r2 and Yoda. Who are completely block by a barricade. Now just have heavy cover?

[@PersonlApocalypz]

LOS is so much more complicated in this game than armada. This helps

[@Scadandy]

*throws Maul out the window I got for Christmas*

[@kajn3206]

my at-st is on a rock, so it shouldn't be tilted and have a better range or you literally put the wall on a pedestal

[@alph5186]

No shooting under buses here.

[@mitchcowan1446]

Are the previous trooper silhouettes no longer valid?

[@ScooterinAB]

I think it's the same size. But AMG hasn't said what that size it exactly. The biggest change was to large based models.

[@DavidSmith-te9gg]

The basically messed with an awesome set of rules that nobody had any issues with and fucked them up.

[@themightyantgaming2656]

Noooo not my Vader saber throw -_-

[@themanrightbehindyou]

I like to think of walkers blocking line of sight the same as shooting through traffic. Lining up your shot and not having it get intercepted by a vehicle is a lot harder than you may think. Minis are static representations of an active battlefield that's in constant motion.

[@stropes.]

So do 'in the way' rolls or something, lol. Pretending that you can't see through them at all is completely unintuitive and silly...

[@ScooterinAB]

Yes! Static models being static doesn't mean the fight is static. This isn't an old timey British firing line, where everyone is standing upright, motionless, and taking turns.

[@TKrakowski1]

New los rules -> basically everything has heavy cover all the time.

[@raysandrarexxia941]

None of this has been changed as of 2024. I use a house rule for my solo games: Attacker measures from the top of the silhouette .

[@jmcolext]

I think the thing a lot of people are having a hard time understanding concerning silhouettes is that we are playing a game in which the miniatures are supposed to represent an actual battlefield. A silhouette is a cylinder that represents the possibility of movement of an individual or vehicle within a specific area. If you are in a war, no one just stands still and let's you shoot through their chicken legs at some guy 200 feet away. The silhouettes and line of sight rules make sense when you stop seeing the miniatures as being stationary plastic and start seeing the miniatures as representations of actual warfare.

[@cmdrjpwalter77]

we are sticking with the old cover and line of sight in our home games the new ones make no since

[@olivergunson]

I think the ground vehicles blocking line of sight is stupid, it makes sense for vehicles like the AAT and Sabre tank that units can genuinely hide behind and be fully not visible but for someone to be behind a chicken walker and not be able to be shot at is stupid. Though it does give me some ideas for a annoying list involving snowtroopers & two atsts/gav tanks.

[@Revjiggs]

"Vehicle block LOS as if they were a piece of Area Terrain". so you read Area terrain, The important bit is 'it is up to the players to determione the height, the boundries, special rules amd types of cover the terrain provided. No where does it stat the vehicles block LOS. rules as written you would then define what that siloutte boundries. In the case of an ATST the main body would be LOS block but i would say between the legs isn't and would provide cover. You would then use the normal cover rules, vehicles provide heavy cover to if 50% of the squad minis are obsucred by the vehicle. Iwould argue in the case of the ATST they would have to be behind the legs but that is up to the players to define at the begining of the game. Also if you can draw a straight line without being obscured to a single mini then they wouldnt have cover. so the part about a single brach would also only apply if the branch is in the way of all lines between yours and the oponents Silhouettes Again you with the troops higher up they wouldnt be obscured by the terrain Silhouettes if you define it that way. The terrain rules have all changes as well

[@Parakitor]

Holy cow, you're right!

[@ScooterinAB]

Your point about vehicles would be a very reasonable ruling to play by.

[@SDKFZ259]

The important bit is "vehicle block LOS". Players don't have to determine it, is stated by the ground vehicle rules.

[@Revjiggs]

@@SDKFZ259 Well thats untrue. If it said ground vehicle block line of sight..... as if the we made of carbon dioxide. it wouldnt block any LOS. you have to read the full sentance, even if its badly written. its the terrain rules that have all changed

[@SDKFZ259]

@@Revjiggs From Atomic Mass Games Forum: Question: These 2 sections are from Page 27 and then Page 37 respectively in the new rules. It seems somewhat unclear. Take the AT-ST for example? Does the entirety of the silhouette block LOS or no? Was the intent here for the players to decide before the game as they would any other piece of Area Terrain? If that was the intent, may I implore AMG to make a ruling on this as every Ground vehicle player will say "yes" its blocks LOS and every opponent not playing ground will say "no" it does not. Answer: The (entirety of the) silhouette of a ground vehicle blocks LOS, as stated in your quoted bullets. For other readers, this is found under Ground Vehicles in Appendix A.

[@icewindofchange]

I think the rules needed some small fixes, but AMG overdid it. I would remove clamber and kept silhouettes. Aside from that, game was running very smooth

[@pmac2217]

I’m brand spank’s new to this game. Like not even played with anyone other than myself, so that should make the new rules easy to learn and deal with but it seems that the new LOS and cover issues are a bit confusing. So this video helped. Thanks.

[@ScooterinAB]

It was far worse before.

[@flaviobertholdo8371]

From what I see, they made the rules simpler, but by doing that they killed with the realism the game had.

[@ScooterinAB]

The game didn't have a great deal of realism before. A soldier wouldn't be standing upright behind cover, nor would a soldier with a jetpack sit there in the sky and hover so they can be shot. We are already sacrificing realism by playing a game with toy soldiers.

[@danielbungay8924]

I stopped using sabre throw a while back would rather move into better melee options

[@calebbarnhouse496]

Sabre throw should be able to it's range measured in movement sticks, and hit units based on how you move it with that movement stick with the end point drawing a line back to the thrower, I imagine for that they'd need to nerf damage, but it would be pretty great to see sabers being thrown and curving around to maximize damage output

[@danielbungay8924]

@Caleb Barnhouse would be nice just errata the card to have blast

[@meowfaceover9000]

i dont blame you for posting this but rather i blame youtube for reccomending this to me when i hate star wars

[@EliWintercross]

I'm really not a fan of the new LOS rules. But I don't play tournaments, only friendly, thematic games so I will just ignore that.

[@johnpaine6845]

Notch based silhouette is the same size as a barricade......your welcome.

[@dannylavoie8348]

I do not agree with Cabboks interpretation. They say to draw a line from « a » point of the attacker to all the silhouette of the defender. « A » point means a single point eg can be the top of the AT-ST and not the bottom. Which makes alot more sence. Update : Ok I ask Atomic mass game with an image and what Crabbok says is right, I was wrong but it still doesn’t make sence to me.

[@piotrskodowski7544]

I played 3 games already with new rules. And I must say I like most of them, but I very much disliked LOS and cover rules. I apriciated old rules a lot for how cool of simulation of SW battle they were so for me imersion breaking is really bad. LOS and cover rules cause a lot of issues and they are couter intuitve in very many cases.

[@piotrskodowski7544]

Examples of bad cases of LOS and cover include. 1) AT-ST shooting from his feet under the archway or a low bridge 2) standing on a crate is better than standing behind it becouse you have cover from every angle as long as enemy is on the ground level 3) Cheking for cover is very tidious becouse 2 units on a totally diferent parts of the board, nowhere near any terrain can have cover is there is some weird angle where line from a smiget of imaginary (or phisical but than you have to move actual siuette around and not trip your models) siluette to the ionvisible siluette of the other one that goes through that gargoyle sticking out of the building (hapened in one of my games). Overall those two rules actually did not simplified or made it better but worse. I bielieve they intended for it to bie streamlined but it failed.

[@ScooterinAB]

@@piotrskodowski7544 And those are cases that can hopefully be addressed. Someone suggested simple changing it to be from the top of the silhouette. That fixes every case you suggested.

[@T.ViperActual]

To be honest I do like this better. Makes it super easy to draw LOS. The vehicles are a bit interesting tho. Time will tell how all this will be in the end.

[@BUChiAlpha]

For the most part, I prefer the simpler rules, but would like to keep some of the real world effects. I would like to see tall walkers' line of sight unobstructed by short terrain, but it’s not a deal breaker for me.

[@gazmatraz5248]

as a new player, I actually prefer the simplified rules, it was a little bit abusable before I found lots of disputes on how rules worked in most games I have played. This does a good job of stopping confusion or abuse of rules that are a little grey in the description. especially as a new player everyone I played who have a lot more experience always seemed to have a different take on some of the rules. It always seemed to go in there favour. So I defiantly prefer nice clear descriptions and consistent rules during play.

[@stropes.]

This sounds like a playgroup/meta problem. The kind of people you're talking about will find just as many ways to game the system with these new rules as they did with the original ones...

[@gazmatraz5248]

@@stropes. if I'm playing at home with my mates from work it's fine. If I go to a gaming night at my local hobby centre (as an adult with adult friends, not all play war games) it kinda takes the fun out of the experience when one person says this and the other says that. I like the idea of fair clear consistent rules, even if at times it breaks immersion. But home game with house rules yeah that cool saying only gets cover if behind a walkers leg for example. Basically I think it's good for games outside of normal friend circles to have good rules that as you say removes play ground and meta issues, especially for new people coming into the game. This is my opinion as someone very new to the game, but as a newcomer this feels better then my previous few games on the old rules

[@stropes.]

@@gazmatraz5248 I agree with you in theory about clear, fair, consistent rules. I just don't think that these LOS changes actually do any of that. Power gamers will still do what they do in this system and these changes don't fix any of that, they just introduce new things. Now instead of doing things like peeking specific models around corners in ways that might seem unfair and counterintuitive to new players you get all this weird stuff like getting cover from standing out in the open on top of a box, getting shot while hiding under terrain from an ATST's feet, etc...

[@codyoclair9041]

I don’t understand why folks would be upset about the rule change. If you don’t like the rules then just play the old rules. Right? Perhaps I’m missing something

[@xXSGgamer]

Just got StarWars legion and I'm so excited to play it

[@Nuadaist]

It's great that they are trying to simplify the rules, but when it goes against what you are seeing on the table... Then it's an issue. My only guess is that they forgot the AT-ST existed when they designed these new LOS rules.

[@PetersaberHD]

Leg thing doesn't seem cleaner. You could always just say "if it has legs, it provides heavy cover". Implementing a 2D cover system in a 3D game is a horrible idea.

[@briancherry8088]

I am new to the game, only been playing a few months. But these cover and LOS rules dont seem good at all.

[@Ironbudha23]

I might be the odd one here, but I get the walkers blocking LOS. Basically, the walkers are in motion throughout the game, therefore it block LOS through their legs. Think about watching the movies and TV series. The walkers were always moving in combat.

[@RevanBartus]

Walkers shouldnt block LoS, end of story.

[@calebbarnhouse496]

If the main body blocks, sure line of sight is reasonable to block, if not no, maybe if it moved that turn instead of blocking it gives heavy cover instead to kinda simulate things going at the same time rather then one at a time as they do

[@Actalzy]

There should be friendly fire rule then if you are gonna try to fire between the legs. Maybe less so if an AT-AT.

[@mitchcowan1446]

Apparently the story didn't end the way you think lol

[@bronsonmartin4580]

There is a competitive community that is dedicated to bending, twisting, and "creatively reading" the rules to their advantage. It has ruined Warhammer. Let's hope these changes prevent them from ruining Legion.

[@stropes.]

These changes are completely unintuitive and just as open to abuse as the other rules even if they sound simpler in theory...

[@ScooterinAB]

Exactly. Power gaming ruins games. The people I play with all seem to be pretty casual; about things, so we have less problems with this. With you mentioning it though, I almost want to have a standing "rule" that I'll give my opponent the benefit of the doubt on things. That way, they know I'm not out to get them or ruins things.

[@matthewhanks8831]

I am sad to say this, but most people who are complaining are upset that they can’t exploit the rules any longer. This makes barrier to entry lower. And most game follow these type of rules. True line of sight is rarely used due to the high rate of questions and disputes that it raises. Immersion is just a ploy for the want to exploit these rules. People don’t like that you can screen troops now with vehicles like every other game.

[@OtakuNation78]

I'm sorry but I really hate this take. Most people weren't exploiting LOS rules, they are upset because it's counter intuitive to drawing LOS and does nothing for lowering the barrier of entry. Having to measure from EVERY part of a model to EVERY part of a target has far more edge cases where something silly is intervening with the shot from an obscure angle and it reads as a clear shot. Most games don't follow this style of LOS either, often they pick a point on the Attacker and draw line of sight from it (like how everyone thought the rules worked during the preview. Funny how no one complained then). I've heard enough people claiming that the only ones complaining were "clearly" exploiting the rules or those who are too weak to adapt. There are very few outliers who actually fall in those categories, most people are genuinely upset because the rules make no sense from a logical point of view.

[@Jak0vas]

I think broadly some nuanced decisions around positioning units have vanished or changed which impacts the competitive scene, now regardless of whether you enjoy the competitive scene or not, it is hugely critical to the visibility and long-term growth and sustenance of the game over time, anything that will impact that player base risks long term advocacy from that community which is important to recognize when you make certain directional changes. Now what really erks me is the damage to immersion and oddly enough the reduced level of intuitiveness that now applies to certain scenarios that have been covered pretty extensively.

[@stropes.]

These rules are just as "exploitable" for people who want to do so.

[@thatblastedsamophlange]

STUPID HITBOXES! There is logic behind it, but with the at-st especially, it makes little sense.

[@ScooterinAB]

What I wonder is if there is actually a problem, and the AT-ST is just an extreme outlier. If the rules work for everything but the AT-ST, then maybe that model is just an exception to those rules.

[@garethsteel2893]

I think this game needs reworking from the ground up. Silhouettes are just bad game design imo. Get rid of the silly plastic measuring tools use tape measures. Make the missions more interesting, the card system is meh ok for a beginner but really dull when every mission ends up feeling the same. I really think amg have no idea what there doing…these cover rules are atrocious and I won’t be using them I think common sense rules out here.

[@ScooterinAB]

A lot of games use silhouettes though because you can't realistically represent dynamic battles with static models. And when you have power gaming players who will try to abuse "common sense," you have to have a single set of rules people can play to. What I will say though is that I'm not opposed to some of your ideas. Drawing the battle cards is fine for a pick up game, but there's nothing saying that you can't develop or play with a different kind of mission. That should certainly be an option. And I can give or take the measurement tools. I know why FFG used them and cards in general (to gamify it more). They can also make some things easier to describe (eg something being at range 1 vs something being within X inches). But they can be a little odd, and having standard measurement could make the game less clumsy.

[@alfonsoperal5386]

I hate this new Legion 2.0 that NOBODY had asked for.

[@ScooterinAB]

What this seems to come down to is the conflict between simulation and emulation. There is simply no way to win. Models are too varied and too dramatically posed to have any kind of realism be the guide for rules. You have to have something like silhouettes to make the game playable and fair, or you need a gamemaster to be arbitrating everything. You're never going to be able to have a perfectly realistic battle with static and dynamically posed models. You're never going to be able to show models interacting with cover properly, such as ducking down, hugging a wall, or going prone behind it. There is always going to be an element of realism that is lost. Comparing the game to Warmachine, which also uses standard silhouettes for models, Star Wars has a much larger variety when it comes to shape. The silhouettes in Warmachine work (with some suspension, since the model doesn't and can't occupy the whole area) because there isn't that much variety in model shapes. Warjacks are mostly all the same shape and size. X-sized troops are all about the same size, etc. What AMG could try to do is have the silhouette come from the unit type keyword rather than just the base size (so emplacements are X size, while vehicles are Y size), or they can create a smaller handful of silhouettes for larger models so that they are better represented (vs a one size fits all approach). But this kind of thing has to be balanced against playability. The game shouldn't have to stop to figure out what an AT-ST's complex silhouette is. Every single miniature game has this same problem, so this is hardly new.

[@joshuadempsey5281]

The new Los rules are absolute trash.

[@garethsteel2893]

I think this game needs reworking from the ground up. Silhouettes are just bad game design imo. Get rid of the silly plastic measuring tools use tape measures. Make the missions more interesting, the card system is meh ok for a beginner but really dull when every mission ends up feeling the same. I really think amg have no idea what there doing…these cover rules are atrocious and I won’t be using them I think common sense rules out here.