Dysartes wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Blame sponsons as a design choice lol.. Bu maybe vehicles on bases and divide those into quarters? The current set up of basically terrain being irrelevant for movement and los really sucks IMO.

Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

 Argive wrote:
But I think that ship has sailed... What would you even do with something as ridiculous as a repulsor and how many guns it has? lol

Remove it from the game, recall all products sold so they can be ground down into chips, destroy the mould, delete the CAD files, fire the designer and anyone who approved its production...

Great idea! Can we kill the astreus too? Please?

And maybe flay the designer? It's what Konrad would do.

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing [...] And yes bases for vehicles with marked quarters would fix a lot of the problems.

The main reason I was happy to see vehicle facing go was all the arguing about where what facing is. It's a non-issue when facing chimeras and rhinos, but once you involve battlewagons, wave serpents, hammer heads or soul grinders, make sure you have prepared a list of arguments for where which facing is ahead of the game. No fun, do not want.
The Speed Freeks game has a paper gubbin that locks into the buggies' bases and you immediately know where front and side arcs are. If this were possible for WH40k, I'd be all for bringing back vehicle facings, but all vehicles would have be based on oval bases and/or have their own special gubbin to determine arcs.

MW within 3" is quite common for explosions and some powers. Don'ts see why it cant be implemented for weapons.

Note that there core difference between that MW mechanic and old school templates/blasts are that they hit each unit once, no matter how many models it has and how far they are spaced out. Not needing to space out 100+ orks 2-4 times per turn is one of the best things in 8th.
There are also some (rare) weapons which actually use that mechanic - the death strike missile, for example.

Swingy random shootiness for big weapons is also bit silly. The rerolls are there to counter balance this but it makes sense to just spam ROF weapons instead.

IMO, they should move all those auras to how master artisans and deffskulls work. Having one full re-roll takes less time and shifts power from high ROF weapons to single-shot weapons.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Given everyone can split fire now, is it as much of a problem? Fire the turret and sponson A at your primary target, whilst firing sponson B at a secondary target..

There are quite a few models which have guns which can rarely, if ever be shoot at anything if you go back to the mount rules, even with split fire - for example the big shootas on the bommers, the big shootas #3 and #4 on battlewagons or the rear mounted big shootas on the scrap jet.

I really prefer model design not being limited by game rules over trying to force realism into an abstract representation of a battle.

necron arks. ghost arks have to broad side. doomsday arks have to loose 2 arrays to aim the main gun.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Vehicle facing [...] And yes bases for vehicles with marked quarters would fix a lot of the problems.

The main reason I was happy to see vehicle facing go was all the arguing about where what facing is. It's a non-issue when facing chimeras and rhinos, but once you involve battlewagons, wave serpents, hammer heads or soul grinders, make sure you have prepared a list of arguments for where which facing is ahead of the game. No fun, do not want.
The Speed Freeks game has a paper gubbin that locks into the buggies' bases and you immediately know where front and side arcs are. If this were possible for WH40k, I'd be all for bringing back vehicle facings, but all vehicles would have be based on oval bases and/or have their own special gubbin to determine arcs.

MW within 3" is quite common for explosions and some powers. Don'ts see why it cant be implemented for weapons.

Note that there core difference between that MW mechanic and old school templates/blasts are that they hit each unit once, no matter how many models it has and how far they are spaced out. Not needing to space out 100+ orks 2-4 times per turn is one of the best things in 8th.
There are also some (rare) weapons which actually use that mechanic - the death strike missile, for example.

Swingy random shootiness for big weapons is also bit silly. The rerolls are there to counter balance this but it makes sense to just spam ROF weapons instead.

IMO, they should move all those auras to how master artisans and deffskulls work. Having one full re-roll takes less time and shifts power from high ROF weapons to single-shot weapons.

I never, ever want to see facings again. Life has been so much better for me in terms of the fun I am having for my games since they've been gone. Ditto for Templates, and Double Ditto for "all or nothing saves."

Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

Spoletta wrote:
Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

I asked Pete Foley about this a while ago, and he told me they considered it, and tried it out, but it ended up that a wider spread of stats ended up resulting in the majority of rolls needing to be 2s or 6s, so they reverted to a narrower spectrum of values to make the majority of rolls fall within the 3-5 bracket, with 2s and 6s being reserved for "extreme" cases.

 Nazrak wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Agree, the changes implemented with 8th have been good.

I just think that it was a lost opoortunity though.

Since they removed the limit of 10 on S and T, why would they keep guards at S3 and marines at S4?

This way if you want to make bulky guards, they can now arm wrestle with a Tyranid Warrior.

I asked Pete Foley about this a while ago, and he told me they considered it, and tried it out, but it ended up that a wider spread of stats ended up resulting in the majority of rolls needing to be 2s or 6s, so they reverted to a narrower spectrum of values to make the majority of rolls fall within the 3-5 bracket, with 2s and 6s being reserved for "extreme" cases.

That sounds like a case of not testing enough. There's no reason those changes have to lead to those results. The whole point of testing and iterating is to find the sweet spot for these stats where they operate as you want but don't lead to unintended consequences like we have now where D2, high RoF guns are the best anti-tank weapons. Also, you can adjust wound values once you start looking at different S/T values. You don't need tanks with 10+ wounds if you're making them much more resilient to non-AT weapons.

The biggest limiter of the game is really the d6 system, but that's likely not going away anytime soon. But really if they moved to let's say a d10 system, there's a lot more space to add things. D6 is too limiting with all the bonuses/re-rolls they have added on top of the game.

Realistically I hope 9th removes some of the bloat they quickly threw on with 8th, but this GW so even if they remove it, it'll just bloat up again within a couple of years so 10th edition can reduce it and repeat the cycle.

Except how much bloat 9th ed can remove seeing PA's, codexes etc will stay working...

Bloat is in codexes and supplements. Not in rulebook that has how many pages of rules? 20?

The "bloat" we have right now is

1) Core Rules
2) Chapter Approved
3) Codices
4) Supplements
5) Vigilus
6) PA
7) FW indexes

A new edition, would only change 1) unless they trash all of those books with a sweeping change and piss off all the people who aren't already pirating their stuff.

That's the problem I see with any attempt to make 9th edition at this point. You could try to introduce some sort of limit in the core rules to things like rampant rerolls but that's just adding more bloat since it's overriding Codex/supplement rules with new Core rules.

The only thing I can see GW doing with the eventual 9th edition is maybe coming up with proper terrain rules and changing the CP system somehow as those are some pretty self-contained changes that would require little or no adjustments in any other rules material.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
With no really good terrain roles, insane amounts of re-rolls, lots of ap everywhere, and multi damage weapons. There is no real tactics anymore, just shoot w/e you want and don't worry to much about table positioning.

There are a lot of improvements to counter this - vehicles get an armour save again and are not just very poor Monsters as they were previously.

-AP rather than ignore all AP below this is better as combined with the above, often stuff at least gets a save.

Terrain could be improved

Played a 4000pt objective game at the weekend - plenty of positional play and choices as it was irrelevant if one side was dead as it was pure VP based.

Expecting "9th ed" to be like AOS 2 - just tweeks and tideing up....

They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

It is the only sane way to do it. If they just kept adding supplements and fracturing rules I'd lose it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They won't trash the books, just phase them out over time.

For example, the next Tau book rolls all the PA stuff into its text, replacing two books with one. GSC does the same. Guard includes the Vigilus and PA stuff. Over time they invalidate the supplement books by incorporating the stuff from those books into the new Codices.

It is the only sane way to do it. If they just kept adding supplements and fracturing rules I'd lose it.

*looks at user's recent posts*

...too late?

I expect 9th to be tweaks and cleanup. I like 8th for the most part except for the pile-on that has been the stratagems and related stuff.

Hope vehicle facing stays dead. Vehicle facing works in games like X-Wing where the bases are explicit and the entire gameplay revolves around it. In 40k it just made a large portion of the vehicles nigh unusable and some kits you could accidentally model for disadvantage(Land Raider sponsons).

Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

 Dysartes wrote:


*looks at user's recent posts*

...too late?

Eh. Depends on the day.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

It feels like 8th has put focus back on infantry though - in previous editions the game always seemed to revolve around vehicles, monsters, bikes, beasts and jump troops. Infantry was usually riding transports, (suicide-)deep striking or some sort of deathstar combo.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

It feels like 8th has put focus back on infantry though - in previous editions the game always seemed to revolve around vehicles, monsters, bikes, beasts and jump troops. Infantry was usually riding transports, (suicide-)deep striking or some sort of deathstar combo.

yes... let's not bring back rhino rush, terminator s in land raiders, and death company in land raiders as the best ways to play. it was often two sides of vehicles and any non T4 3+ armor infanty would get regularly removed. while i liked 5th for some reasons the vehicle lists towards the end were quite boring

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

true. I hate the fact that just because some GK termintor models comes with a back banner, they are twice as a higher as a normal termintor, and get sniped while standing behind cover. Same with hiting models that have rised weapons like halabards or dreadnoughts having back banners.

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

If you can find it be my guest. All the core rulebook says about line of sight is "...if any part of the target is visible."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm reasonably sure the rules still have the stipulation that aerials and antennas don't count for line of sight purposes.

If you can find it be my guest. All the core rulebook says about line of sight is "...if any part of the target is visible."

It would be in the KT rulebook, not the 40k one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
...Vehicle facing and vehicle rules were an utter piece of gak now that I think about it. Nothing tactical about it, just annoying rules that punished using vehicles unless the vehicle was designed with a 360 turret. Maybe that's why some people want it back: they want vehicle people to be punished for the mere hubris of having vehicles.

As opposed to "my antenna shoots your antenna"?

true. I hate the fact that just because some GK termintor models comes with a back banner, they are twice as a higher as a normal termintor, and get sniped while standing behind cover. Same with hiting models that have rised weapons like halabards or dreadnoughts having back banners.

Like every time this comes up, that is a terrain problem. Not a problem of the army. Not everything is "Woe is me and my GKs..."

So you want to tell me, that because GW designed rules in a certain way and then made GK models in a specific way, now the whole store has to adjust and buy or build terrain just to fit in GK termintors, specially as GW did not see the need to give rised long pole arms, swords or banners?

And it isn't even a GK problem. A guy that started playing BA at our store made very nice kit bashes of AoS models and primaris parts to make his smash captins. he was devasted, after first game, when his descending from the sky captin got shot while standing behind a 2 tier building, because part of the wing was visible. The fact that most marines players model their captins and chapter masters crawling or kneeling is a disgrace.

I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

A TO can make that a rule, though.

Martel732 wrote:
A TO can make that a rule, though.

A TO can also make it a rule that all models must feature the color pink. A TO can make ANYTHING a rule.

I know. That's really the last line of defense vs GW.

Seems odd to blame GW for players doing unreasonable things like shooting at a model because it's not modeled to be crouched behind cover. My experience of the game is talking to my opponent about what counts as I move around, so that we don't run into situations where stuff gets killed because it wore a particularly extravagant hat to the battle that day.

It's GW job to codify against players like that. Not leave it to the customers.

 Lance845 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

*sigh*

Chapter Approved 2018, page 28 designer's note on Cities of Death:

"When checking if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the model's bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularily impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs."

Sure, that's not in the core rules and some players for unfathomable reasons avoid working terrain rules even when provided by GW, but it is there in the writ. The absurdity of firing your antenna with my tracks is just bad sportsmanship applied to a ruleset which isn't written for devil's advocates.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

*sigh*

Chapter Approved 2018, page 28 designer's note on Cities of Death:

"When checking if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the model's bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularily impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs."

Sure, that's not in the core rules and some players for unfathomable reasons avoid working terrain rules even when provided by GW, but it is there in the writ. The absurdity of firing your antenna with my tracks is just bad sportsmanship applied to a ruleset which isn't written for devil's advocates.

It's 'bad sportsmanship' to play the rules as written when they contradict designer's commentary for an optional expansion we may not be using?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:
Seems odd to blame GW for players doing unreasonable things like shooting at a model because it's not modeled to be crouched behind cover. My experience of the game is talking to my opponent about what counts as I move around, so that we don't run into situations where stuff gets killed because it wore a particularly extravagant hat to the battle that day.

Does needing to talk about what counts as LOS when you move around make the game easier/faster for you than having clearer LOS rules would?

Karol wrote:
So you want to tell me, that because GW designed rules in a certain way and then made GK models in a specific way, now the whole store has to adjust and buy or build terrain just to fit in GK termintors, specially as GW did not see the need to give rised long pole arms, swords or banners?

And it isn't even a GK problem. A guy that started playing BA at our store made very nice kit bashes of AoS models and primaris parts to make his smash captins. he was devasted, after first game, when his descending from the sky captin got shot while standing behind a 2 tier building, because part of the wing was visible. The fact that most marines players model their captins and chapter masters crawling or kneeling is a disgrace.

Sigh...

Pics or it didn't happen Walter Mitty...

It is a terrain problem. Full stop. All you need is more LOS blocking terrain. As for those captains, they knew the risks going in. Presuming they are made from those Stormcast minis, whose wings spread out at least twice as wide as they are then they complain when they get shot (despite also being a character, so hiding from LOS is not always necessary, but whatever...)?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

*sigh*

Chapter Approved 2018, page 28 designer's note on Cities of Death:

"When checking if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the model's bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularily impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs."

Sure, that's not in the core rules and some players for unfathomable reasons avoid working terrain rules even when provided by GW, but it is there in the writ. The absurdity of firing your antenna with my tracks is just bad sportsmanship applied to a ruleset which isn't written for devil's advocates.

It's 'bad sportsmanship' to play the rules as written when they contradict designer's commentary for an optional expansion we may not be using?

Personally, somewhat, yeah. It is quite amusing to look how much people have fits over GW writing bad rules, like the bazillion posts we've seen in a few years calling for their designers to be fired for writing stuff like antennae shooting each other, and then in the same breath deriding any solutions they make to fix that because they "aren't in the core rules" like those would be some holy text never to be altered. The core rules are that, core, they get you going. Most games of this breadth and choice tend to have core and advanced rules, where the expectation is that you read the core, try a game or two and then add the rest of the game in there as the whole experience. While I'm not defending GW's business practices of decentralized rules writing, their design philosophy is quite easy to glean from their texts. The game proper is still played between two or more human beings and reasonable discussions happen to ensure good games. If those players at the table happen to be of the type that sneers at GW's idiocy for antennae firefights yet insist on doing so when they could simply choose not to, that is on them. Having a good time is up to the players at the table, regardless of the game being played.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Seems odd to blame GW for players doing unreasonable things like shooting at a model because it's not modeled to be crouched behind cover. My experience of the game is talking to my opponent about what counts as I move around, so that we don't run into situations where stuff gets killed because it wore a particularly extravagant hat to the battle that day.

Does needing to talk about what counts as LOS when you move around make the game easier/faster for you than having clearer LOS rules would?

Clarity is always nice, but often requires super abstract area rules and GW clearly isn't currently inclined to do that. Too bad. In the absence of that, the classic "five minute chat" to clear how the players want to play (do you see through this forest, is obscuration a thing, what terrain slows you down or goes boom if you step on mines etc...) is good. It is a sign of being a good sport that you can engage in this human interaction honestly from time to time, though in a tournament setting these are often decided beforehand by the TO. Then again, in my opinion tournament 40k really is the narrow and restricted version of the game so take of that what you will.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It is a terrain problem. Full stop. All you need is more LOS blocking terrain.

What's your idea of LOS blocking terrain? I've got a bunch of hills that I built in 2" tall increments of verticality, so that they can fully block LOS to infantry, but particularly tall back banners can stick out. I also have a bunch of buildings, 3-4" tall so that they can shield vehicles, but stuff like Dreadnought banners tend to protrude over the top. None of it can be seen through so I call it LOS blocking, but there are these edge cases where details stick out.

Or does 'LOS blocking terrain' really mean 'infinitely tall walls'? Because I'm kind of reluctant to play 40K exclusively on Infinity-esque industrial boards just so that the bare-bones terrain/LOS rules can function.

 Grimtuff wrote:
As for those captains, they knew the risks going in. Presuming they are made from those Stormcast minis, whose wings spread out at least twice as wide as they are then they complain when they get shot (despite also being a character, so hiding from LOS is not always necessary, but whatever...)?

My prone heavy weapon teams can't see over sandbags.

My sergeant with raised sword is a lightning rod for fire that can kill his whole squad.

I have to actually think about how posing will affect a model's performance ingame, because the characters they represent are considered to be forever locked into the posture I set- a larger-than-default conversion actively penalizes me, while something like converting a character to have more restrained posture can actually be considered 'modeling for advantage'.

I find this mechanic aggravating, and unforgivably stupid as a design. You shouldn't need to 'know the risks' of a characterful conversion.

I hope they at least take a leaf out of KT rules.
I only played KT the once but it felt like real 40k which is ironic.

Apart from the obscuring if over half range thing. That can go.
Alternating activation certainly would be interesting.

 Sherrypie wrote:
..Personally, somewhat, yeah. It is quite amusing to look how much people have fits over GW writing bad rules, like the bazillion posts we've seen in a few years calling for their designers to be fired for writing stuff like antennae shooting each other, and then in the same breath deriding any solutions they make to fix that because they "aren't in the core rules" like those would be some holy text never to be altered. The core rules are that, core, they get you going. Most games of this breadth and choice tend to have core and advanced rules, where the expectation is that you read the core, try a game or two and then add the rest of the game in there as the whole experience. While I'm not defending GW's business practices of decentralized rules writing, their design philosophy is quite easy to glean from their texts. The game proper is still played between two or more human beings and reasonable discussions happen to ensure good games. If those players at the table happen to be of the type that sneers at GW's idiocy for antennae firefights yet insist on doing so when they could simply choose not to, that is on them. Having a good time is up to the players at the table, regardless of the game being played.

I don't like this argument. If the core rules are a starting point I'm supposed to add to in order to produce a game why are they sold as a game? Why do they exist at all? If it's okay to need to have a discussion with my opponent to figure out how line of sight rules work is it okay to need to have a discussion with my opponent to figure out what units should be able to kill what? How about how far units move? How the mission works? Should I need to build an entire wargame on the fly with my opponent every time I want to play a game?

...super abstract area rules and GW clearly isn't currently inclined to do that...

They're perfectly happy to say "all cover is +1 to your save if everyone's touching the terrain piece."

Let's not nerf the Harlequin vehicles even more, please lol. Most have guns pointing backwards.

Vehicle facings and firing arcs are bad rules in a game like this. They are busy work and book keeping in a game that has lots of models and takes a long time.

They are fine in small, skirmish games however.

 Ishagu wrote:
...They are busy work and book keeping in a game that has lots of models and takes a long time...

Again, as opposed to trying to figure out how to actually hide units out of LOS under "my antenna shoots your antenna" rules?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
...They are busy work and book keeping in a game that has lots of models and takes a long time...

Again, as opposed to trying to figure out how to actually hide units out of LOS under "my antenna shoots your antenna" rules?

Exalt !!

I would add as well as moving everyone within those auras..

 AnomanderRake wrote:


They're perfectly happy to say "all cover is +1 to your save if everyone's touching the terrain piece."

or having a fix mount tanks do a back flip and shot at something behind it

It is a terrain problem. Full stop. All you need is more LOS blocking terrain. As for those captains, they knew the risks going in. Presuming they are made from those Stormcast minis, whose wings spread out at least twice as wide as they are then they complain when they get shot (despite also being a character, so hiding from LOS is not always necessary, but whatever...)?

we have enough terrain. But it is stupid when I can shot at one farseer on a jetbike because she has a spear pointing at a 45 angle upwards, and the other has it downards. Makes more sense to play with not fully assembled models, because they take up more space.

My dreads can hide behind a tier 2 building, because it has no banner. But the dread of our only DA player has a hand painted banner, so it sticks out through the windows that are on tier 2. And it is both bad ,when he shots with that banner or gets hit by having it.

And almost every captin with jump pack here has kneeling kromlech legs and doing a super hero landing. I have metal terminators, so my sgts have halabards pointing straight up. this makes them almost the high of a normal dreadnought.

People have their banner ancients models holding the banner down to avoid geting sniped.

Karol wrote:


People have their banner ancients models holding the banner down to avoid geting sniped.

Of course they do...

Bet they break them too when they die.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
..Personally, somewhat, yeah. It is quite amusing to look how much people have fits over GW writing bad rules, like the bazillion posts we've seen in a few years calling for their designers to be fired for writing stuff like antennae shooting each other, and then in the same breath deriding any solutions they make to fix that because they "aren't in the core rules" like those would be some holy text never to be altered. The core rules are that, core, they get you going. Most games of this breadth and choice tend to have core and advanced rules, where the expectation is that you read the core, try a game or two and then add the rest of the game in there as the whole experience. While I'm not defending GW's business practices of decentralized rules writing, their design philosophy is quite easy to glean from their texts. The game proper is still played between two or more human beings and reasonable discussions happen to ensure good games. If those players at the table happen to be of the type that sneers at GW's idiocy for antennae firefights yet insist on doing so when they could simply choose not to, that is on them. Having a good time is up to the players at the table, regardless of the game being played.

I don't like this argument. If the core rules are a starting point I'm supposed to add to in order to produce a game why are they sold as a game? Why do they exist at all? If it's okay to need to have a discussion with my opponent to figure out how line of sight rules work is it okay to need to have a discussion with my opponent to figure out what units should be able to kill what? How about how far units move? How the mission works? Should I need to build an entire wargame on the fly with my opponent every time I want to play a game?

That's up to you, as always. You aren't necessarily supposed to do anything, but you can. If you do, you can have a better game built on a common ground you and your play partner like. If you don't, you can have a barebones match with less questions. Instead of bad faith slippery slopes, you can just make peace with yourself on the way you want to peruse GW's offerings (which usually really boils down to a couple of terrain rulings, it's not like you need to rewrite everything from the basest of axioms) or keep on grumbling while playing with unsatisfactory rules. Personally I'm fine with dabbling with the engine, including entire revamps of the turn structure, because I know I'm responsible for my own fun as an adult as well as that of the person I'm playing with. Heck I routinely play rpg wargames where we need to come up with the weirdest of rulings for things all the time as an intellectual pastime. There are games which require less fiddling, true, but the absurdist worries of having to design 40k as a whole again if you dare to ask your opponent "yo, wanna play with CoD rules for obscurement and count this scatter terrain as cover if it's between you and the shooter?" are mainly amusing.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

...super abstract area rules and GW clearly isn't currently inclined to do that...

They're perfectly happy to say "all cover is +1 to your save if everyone's touching the terrain piece."

Sorry if that was unclear, I mainly meant rules like the old "can't see through woods, can see 2" into and out of them" or "this ruin is X units high", or something akin to Infinity's magic cylinder silhouettes. GW tends towards true LoS, which is a thing where the simple obscuration penalty is something we've found quite satisfying because then all the scatter terrain and stuff you cannot physically easily stand in comes into play more often.

Karol wrote:


People have their banner ancients models holding the banner down to avoid geting sniped.

If people are putting characters too far forward without screening they can't exactly be surprised when they get killed due to easy advantage and misplay no?

It is in the deployment zone. I mean we could bar all the top building windows, block LoS totaly and then turn them game in to LoS ignoring palooza.

I mean it is simple. If someone has two buy identical Lt, because buying one with the rised sword means he is easier to hit, and in a perfect world you would want him to sit down, holding his knees or laying on the ground.

I am not painter, I don't convert models. But anything that makes people not make models look the way they want them to be, because they are going to be sniped easier, is not a good thing. A kneeling normal jump pack cpt does not look as cool as a winged cool BA captin.

On a personal level I don't want people to shot at my entire units just because my metal termintor sgts have been modeled by GW to have their halabards pointing up.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Karol wrote:


People have their banner ancients models holding the banner down to avoid geting sniped.

If people are putting characters too far forward without screening they can't exactly be surprised when they get killed due to easy advantage and misplay no?

There are units like eliminators that will trash a poor standard bearer or a Librarian wearing his favorite banner even if there are 50 guys in front.

Klickor wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Karol wrote:


People have their banner ancients models holding the banner down to avoid geting sniped.

If people are putting characters too far forward without screening they can't exactly be surprised when they get killed due to easy advantage and misplay no?

There are units like eliminators that will trash a poor standard bearer or a Librarian wearing his favorite banner even if there are 50 guys in front.

Yeah but they don't even need los because they have "magic " sniper rifles. Guess they "curve " the bullets.

For feths sake gw.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
I know there is no FAQ or anything for like 100% confirmation.

But I'm pretty sure in chapter approved (maybe BRB but i think CA), there's a designers note that says "do not use banners and arials... for line of sight" so on so forth.

1) that was a rule in 7th.

2) it doesn't matter if some guy says some crap in something that is not rules. Put it in a faq errata or it doesn't matter.

*sigh*

Chapter Approved 2018, page 28 designer's note on Cities of Death:

"When checking if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the model's bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularily impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs."

Sure, that's not in the core rules and some players for unfathomable reasons avoid working terrain rules even when provided by GW, but it is there in the writ. The absurdity of firing your antenna with my tracks is just bad sportsmanship applied to a ruleset which isn't written for devil's advocates.

Some people, such as me, don’t buy/have access to/use rules beyond BRB and what’re counts as their codex. Regardless, I’d Dreadsock someone who tried to use the antenna argument on me.

"But there are rules for it in the CityFight expansion!" doesn't really solve the problem. I don't like that my Hive Tyrant can get shot because my opponent can see the tip of the spines on its wings even though the rest of the model is completely behind LOS. I don't like that an aerial or part of a banner means your fair game for shooting.

40K has major LOS and terrain issues that need addressing before they get to anything else.

 Sherrypie wrote:
...That's up to you, as always. You aren't necessarily supposed to do anything, but you can. If you do, you can have a better game built on a common ground you and your play partner like. If you don't, you can have a barebones match with less questions. Instead of bad faith slippery slopes, you can just make peace with yourself on the way you want to peruse GW's offerings (which usually really boils down to a couple of terrain rulings, it's not like you need to rewrite everything from the basest of axioms) or keep on grumbling while playing with unsatisfactory rules. Personally I'm fine with dabbling with the engine, including entire revamps of the turn structure, because I know I'm responsible for my own fun as an adult as well as that of the person I'm playing with. Heck I routinely play rpg wargames where we need to come up with the weirdest of rulings for things all the time as an intellectual pastime. There are games which require less fiddling, true, but the absurdist worries of having to design 40k as a whole again if you dare to ask your opponent "yo, wanna play with CoD rules for obscurement and count this scatter terrain as cover if it's between you and the shooter?" are mainly amusing...

I've mostly stopped playing 40k because the crowd at my FLGS decided this was the edition they all wanted to be tournament-competitive and insist on things like antenna-to-antenna line of sight. When I do play it is usually either 30k or with rules I have actually gone and rebuilt because I find 8e slow, bloated, and not particularly immersive. I keep showing up here to grumble because I'd like a ruleset I can just pick up out of the box and play with strangers without needing to either sell them on my houserules or sit down to negotiate which units we can and can't use before every game, but apparently those are unreasonable demands to put on people who claim to be writing a rulebook for a game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"But there are rules for it in the CityFight expansion!" doesn't really solve the problem. I don't like that my Hive Tyrant can get shot because my opponent can see the tip of the spines on its wings even though the rest of the model is completely behind LOS. I don't like that an aerial or part of a banner means your fair game for shooting.

40K has major LOS and terrain issues that need addressing before they get to anything else.

...why exactly doesn't it? It solves exactly that kind of problems, when applied to a normal game. It's not hard to find those rules, they apply to all forces, they soften the blow of alpha shooting, breathe life to different battlefield roles like breaching squads and in general make for a better game. Mostly by adressing LOS and terrain rules. The only thing they don't do for that is be written in the old BRB, because they are newer. Army rules come in separate books, big FAQs and even White Dwarves. Why is being in Chapter Approved a different kettle of fish?

Again, it's simply odd to me to see people ask for something, have it right there and refuse to use it, but to each their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake, that's a shame you don't have more open minded opponents there. Naturally we'd all like to have a clear cut system to just get on with, but that isn't really the nature of 40k as it stands.

 Sherrypie wrote:
...why exactly doesn't it?

For reasons that have already been explained. It's an expansion. It's not regular 40K.

Those LOS rules from Cities of Death are for Cities of Death. Would it be better if they applied to regular 40K? Sure, but that's easier said than done, as you'd have to ask "Can we use the Cities of Death terrain rules in this game?" each time you play. That might be fine for a group of friends, or a TO that's setting the rules ahead of time, but it's not viable for random pickup games, especially in a store/club environment.

And Chapter Approved is held differently as it is an update on the base game. Somehow I think you know all this...

I do ask that every time when I play, it takes a few seconds and causes zero extra effort with the general chit chat. If the opponent says no, that's fine, but it's not like it's any burden to do.

Codexes are updates to the game. So are supplements and campaign books. Those seem to go down just fine. Chapter Approved has mandatory, forced updates to matched rules too and those are taken in a stride too. Only difference is the heading they are under, as many 40k players are downright hostile towards anything not thus forced, even if ruleswise minor but meaningful at the table. That, combined with the simultaneous dumping on GW somehow not doing their job, is just ironic.

How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

Happens pretty much in any RPG in my experience.

This isn't an RPG.

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

40k rules wise does remind me of RPGs a lot. And it definitely isn't designed to be a sport.

40K is nothing like an RPG...

I've seen amateur RPGs with tighter rules.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

40k rules wise does remind me of RPGs a lot. And it definitely isn't designed to be a sport.

Older editions were very much rpg inspired. You could even have a sort of dungeon master for games iirc.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

40k rules wise does remind me of RPGs a lot. And it definitely isn't designed to be a sport.

Older editions were very much rpg inspired. You could even have a sort of dungeon master for games iirc.

You still can. I've played plenty of narrative games of 40K with a neutral referee or DM who designed the scenario and triggers events to happen as the scenario unfolds and runs the NPCs (civilians, monsters, etc.).

Those games represent a pretty high proportion of my favourite 40K experiences.

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

When I said that it works better if one thinks that it is kinda like a RPG was referring to that cooperative storytelling aspect. That instead of thinking it is a contest where there is a winner and loser (even though there obviously technically is) one can think it as a means of cooperatively creating a story about a battle unfolding.

 Ishagu wrote:
Let's not nerf the Harlequin vehicles even more, please lol. Most have guns pointing backwards.

Vehicle facings and firing arcs are bad rules in a game like this. They are busy work and book keeping in a game that has lots of models and takes a long time.

They are fine in small, skirmish games however.

They don't have to be. GW is just bad at rules. 360 fire for everything is also a bad rule.

I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

 Crimson wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is a bit, and older editions were even more so. Rogue Trader is quite similar to Chainmail, the predecessor of D&D and early Warhammer was most likely inspired by it. They have evolved in different directions over the years, but the shared DNA is still there.

I'm not talking about the older editions. I'm talking about this edition, and it is nothing like an RPG.

An RPG is cooperative storytelling where groups of players work together for a common goal, shepherded along by another player who runs the story and various other elements. That bears absolutely no resemblance to 40k, which is a game in which two players (and sometimes more than two) use armies to complete objectives and defeat one another.

When I said that it works better if one thinks that it is kinda like a RPG was referring to that cooperative storytelling aspect. That instead of thinking it is a contest where there is a winner and loser (even though there obviously technically is) one can think it as a means of cooperatively creating a story about a battle unfolding.

And then you come to the realization the core rules aren't good for story telling!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

That would be almost every game I've ever played. I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons in grade 3. We take a whole night just to make characters; which classes and supplements are used is a HUGE discussion EVERY time! Greyhawk or Darksun?

Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board. When you play Crazy Eights, does the Queen of Spades make you pick up 5? Can you pile 2's on 2's through a deck reshuffle?

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

PenitentJake wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
How many other games do you play where you need to ask "How are we handling (this strange/nonfunctional bit of the rules)?" every time you play?

That would be almost every game I've ever played. I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons in grade 3. We take a whole night just to make characters; which classes and supplements are used is a HUGE discussion EVERY time! Greyhawk or Darksun?

Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board. When you play Crazy Eights, does the Queen of Spades make you pick up 5? Can you pile 2's on 2's through a deck reshuffle?

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Most of that is just choosing what game mode or supplement to use. Not compensating for bad rules or design.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

Like points being deployed? Or even which mechanic you were going to use? Seriously, I live in an ITC-heavy area, so that is a VERY important detail to work out, to say nothing of the local 30K crowd.

PenitentJake wrote:
...You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

I'm aware tabletop RPGs exist. I'm aware variations exist on the rules of plenty of games.

My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

Try playing an RPG without a DM


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Oh, boy, did you pick the wrong game as an example. I don't think there are many games out there that have a rule set as tight as MtG.
Rules for emperor: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr809/
Rules for shuffling: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/

Do you and your opponent choose which track you want to play on and set your options before Mario Cart?

My brother and me just start hammering B until we can select characters and have a race on lowest Mushroom Cup. In competitive Mario Cart, players have no influence on the choice of tracks.
The equivalent for WH40k would be deciding on a mission type, game type and a points limit. No one would be complaining about their rules if that is everything you need to do.

Ever play a game of Monopoly where you didn't set a time limit or victory condition?

Yes, all of them. Monopoly is a fully functional game without any changes to the rules.

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board.

All variants of checkers create kings, just the abilities vary. Then again, all variants rules are functional without any of the players intervening.

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

"Playing poker" is very much equivalent to "playing a wargame". Every variant of poker has well-defined rules which require no discussion before the game.

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Sorry, but not a single game you have listed requires you to fix its rules before the game. All you have to agree on is a variant and game mode and run wild. The criticism of GW's ruleset is more than justified.
Everyone should be able to play a game by agreeing on nothing but using matched play rules and a points limit.

AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using.

Many historical wargames kinda take that for granted, like asking are we playing late or early WW2 or if the other guy would be cool fighting the Afrika Korps with their Russians. As for the older 40k editions, though there were pretty good guidelines for what terrain is what it was still expected that the players go over the table and agree on what counts as 5+ or 4+ cover and so forth.

AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

They sure could have, no disagreement. My condolences for having to stress over your gaming, but as the situation stands it is something one needs to adapt to and isn't that unique in the world of gaming.

Jidmah wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This isn't an RPG.

It works better if you assume that it kinda is.

Try playing an RPG without a DM

Been there, done that, works fine. You are aware that RPG's with a gamesmaster are only one school of thought and there are hundreds of games without one? Stuff like Fiasco, Polaris, Zombie Cinema, Entropy... have a gander here for an example, broaden your horizons: https://doubleninja.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/the-ultimate-big-list-of-gm-less-rpggames/

Traditional games in the vein of D&D aren't the be all end all of roleplaying, even if they are the most often (and badly) represented in the public eye.

Jidmah wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Ever play Magic? Ever play emperor style? What are the rules for shuffling between games?

Oh, boy, did you pick the wrong game as an example. I don't think there are many games out there that have a rule set as tight as MtG.
Rules for emperor: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/cr809/
Rules for shuffling: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/

No they didn't. The discussion of what format to play is just as valid as is discussing do you want to play 40k with narrative or tournament mindset, what terrain rules you use and so forth. In my long experience with Magic, it's also very common to have those rigid format rules subverted, changed and revisioned on the fly by the players at the table when they have a great idea, agree on it and run with it. Modifying ban lists between friends is also a thing that happens all the time.

Jidmah wrote:

Heck, you can't even play checkers without agreeing before the game whether or not you're creating kings for pieces that cross the board.

All variants of checkers create kings, just the abilities vary. Then again, all variants rules are functional without any of the players intervening.

If you play poker, what's the draw? Anything wild?

"Playing poker" is very much equivalent to "playing a wargame". Every variant of poker has well-defined rules which require no discussion before the game.

How does that differ from the situation here? You got the basic game (poker/40k), you decide how you play (for fun or for money, casually or competitively), you decide what format you use (basic poker rules or Texas, basic 40k BRB or CoD) and so forth. That doesn't require the players intervening by designing rules, they just have to pick from the available stuff to suit their tastes. GW offers defined rules, merits of which are debatable by individuals, which can be chosen just the same.

Jidmah wrote:

You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

Sorry, but not a single game you have listed requires you to fix its rules before the game. All you have to agree on is a variant and game mode and run wild. The criticism of GW's ruleset is more than justified.
Everyone should be able to play a game by agreeing on nothing but using matched play rules and a points limit.

Why are you arguing that in other games it's okay to first discuss what variant people want to play but in 40k discussing what variant they want to play is bad? You ARE able to play a game by agreeing on matched and points (unless playing with BCB or similar folks who forgot how humans work), even if the result is perhaps subpar for what you wanted.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why are you arguing that in other games it's okay to first discuss what variant people want to play but in 40k discussing what variant they want to play is bad? You ARE able to play a game by agreeing on matched and points [...], even if the result is perhaps subpar for what you wanted.

You are deliberately comparing oranges to apples here and then tell me that oranges are great for apple pie, even though it tastes like oranges.
All the games listed are perfectly fine to play without any additional rules cooked up by the players, existing rules requiring consent on how to play them and negotiating how to play the game in order to not have it turn into a one-sided curb-stomp despite player skill being roughly the same.

What's equal to all the examples of picking a variant or game more for 40k:
- Open/Matched/Narrative
- Point or power level limit
- Determine mission
- Legends yes/no
- Optional expansions like cities of death, spearhead, etc
All this is perfectly fine to do negotiate before the game.

Additional things you need to do in order to have a game of WH40k
- agree on terrain rules for all terrain on the board
- agree on how larger models interact with scatter terrain, walls and other terrain where their base/hull doesn't fit
- agree on how competitive your army is going to be - the delta between top level IH and one-of-everything nidzilla is large enough to make a multi-hour game non-enjoyable
- agree on how to handle rule mistakes like 55 point neophytes or KFF big meks having no datasheet
- agree on how to handle unclear corner-cases like chain-exploding transports, whether explosions are auras or how to number maelstrom objectives
- agree on how to handle index-only units
This is not fine, and none of the games on the list require you to do anything remotely similar. It's also within GW's power to change all those issues.
They have gotten a lot better at this, and they really hope that one day their rules reach the quality of something like MtG, Poker or Monopoly.
And for that reason, I firmly refuse to accept that anything less is "good enough".

Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

 Sherrypie wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using.

Many historical wargames kinda take that for granted, like asking are we playing late or early WW2 or if the other guy would be cool fighting the Afrika Korps with their Russians. As for the older 40k editions, though there were pretty good guidelines for what terrain is what it was still expected that the players go over the table and agree on what counts as 5+ or 4+ cover and so forth...

Most historical wargames don't pretend to have a universal pool of cross-balanced army lists that covers all possible things you can take in the game where anything should be played against anything, and most historical wargames don't require us to have a discussion about how the line of sight rules work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

 Lance845 wrote:
I have never played an rpg where we had to ask how we were handling core mechanics of the game before we played.

Funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...You sound like a fairly reasonable individual, but I think maybe you underestimate the amount of agreement necessary in just about any game before it begins. That, or perhaps you think it takes longer or is harder to do in 40k; this may even be somewhat justified since the options are spread over a number of different products. I'm not insensitive to your point of view, and certainly the rules could be stronger in the BRB, quite easily. But I think a lot of people here are just genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the tools you need to solve the problem do exist. I know that it's easier to do in a casual environment, and not everyone has that option.

I'm aware tabletop RPGs exist. I'm aware variations exist on the rules of plenty of games.

My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

I'm aware that I have the social tools to have a more balanced experience of playing 40k. My point is that I find those tools stressful and the fact that I need to be paranoid, second-guess the rules writers, second-guess my opponent's army list, and know the competitive balance of everything to figure out whether or not one of us is going to get tabled in two turns and walk away feeling like crap makes me wish I could trust the rules writers. And I'm tired of the "just fix the game yourself!" argument. I'm aware I can fix the game myself. I know how to fix the game myself. I think the fact that I need to means the rules writers did a really s*** job of writing the game and maybe they could have done a better job.

Yup.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
My point of comparison here is other 1v1 tabletop wargames, particularly Warmachine, Infinity, Xwing, and older versions of 40k (particularly 4e/5e), where I feel like I can build a list to the points limit and play a game with someone else who has built a list to the points limit and have a reasonable game without needing to sit down and negotiate what models we're both using, how the terrain is going to work, or what subtle variations of the rules we're using. I do not have to worry about whether I have to buy $500 of new stuff for my PanO army to have a chance of playing against a Yu Jing army the way I have to worry about whether my Mechanicum can play a game with Space Marines. I do not have to ask people to not bring models they bought, painted, and really like because the existence of the YT-1300 hard-counters the entire Scum faction the way Dominus Knights hard-counter the entire Deathwatch Codex.

Have you played a WMH game recently? There are numerous ways to play it, unfortunately, trying to get anything besides a Steamroller can be counter-productive, which is considered part of the failure of that game system right now.

I have never had to discuss permission to field a unit in 40K or WMH, just explain what the unit was capable of, a different story.

I have never had to worry about whether I can play a game with my army, the only question was if I could win. One time I had a good shot at winning, but my dice failed me at a very crucial point.

My first Tabletop game was Battletech. Do you know how much WYSIWYG is NOT used there, and so what explanations have to be made then?

$500 will get everything you need in a Pan-O army and make 3 more lists. If I want to just go in to one of the newest Themes for my Mercs, I'll be lucky if I can get by with spending $500, those new units cost almost as much as a Colossal on sale.

40K is hardly alone in these standards.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Monopoly was designed to be a terrible game to try and convince people of the horrors of rampant capitalism.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

It's a god damn slog.

Also the trick to winning is buy everything every time forever. If you have to mortgage property to buy more property, do it.

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

Don't. The basic problem is that whoever wins has won in the first couple of goes around the board, but it takes another four hours for them to actually win. (Also don't play with the Free Parking bonus money rule, I know it's a popular house rule but it just makes the whole thing take longer.)

Personally I hope that 9th edition will be an evolution and not a reset button again. I'd hate to have all my codexes and PA invalidated and have to start from scratch again in an environment where most SM and CSM chapters/ legions are barely distinguishable from one another.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

40K is a terrible game by apathy more than accident. It's not hard to make a bad game.

 kodos wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Most people house rule Monopoly. Jussayin.

Why are we talking about Monopoly? It's a terrible game.

Just like WH40k

40k is a terrible game by accident. Monopoly is a terrible game on purpose.

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

Monopoly is a great game if you don’t use the “free parking” house rule, which puts too many funds into the market.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

Not true.

It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

And it is very much like an RPG, except you're tracking the experience and skills of every model in your Kill Team/ Detachment/ Army.

And that's why all these conversations about a new edition make me uncomfortable. The new edition and its supporting games allow us to play in SO many different ways that you can create your own game with the tools you're given. Everyone who complains about bloat seems to think there needs to be only one way. The thing that makes this edition awesome is that there ISN'T one way to play.

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

 kodos wrote:

Maybe I should try and get a game in Monopoly, never played it as it is not very popular here, but now I am curios if it is really that bad

A lot of people play it wrong. Every time you land a property you're supposed to buy it. If you don't it goes to auction. There are house rules that you don't need to buy or auction an open property. There is also a house rule that fines go into free parking, which props up whomever is lucky enough to land on it. This basically drains money a lot faster and keeps them from skating, but actually knocking someone out is annoying - especially when they have no path to victory.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

The heck you are (if we naturally ignore the silly notion of trying to gain money from such endeavour). Jake is suggesting using official GW products and imagination for campaign purposes, sets like that pop up everywhere at clubs and forums and are just fine. Many gamers like doing things like that, while being happy to say they are playing 40k, the way they actually want to play. GW even commends people for doing so with their Hammer Heroes awards and occasional articles.

Restricting 40k to its bare minimum is just that, restricted. The game has more to offer.

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
40K is nothing like an RPG...

Not true.

It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

And it is very much like an RPG, except you're tracking the experience and skills of every model in your Kill Team/ Detachment/ Army.

And that's why all these conversations about a new edition make me uncomfortable. The new edition and its supporting games allow us to play in SO many different ways that you can create your own game with the tools you're given. Everyone who complains about bloat seems to think there needs to be only one way. The thing that makes this edition awesome is that there ISN'T one way to play.

And that is not 40K.

I really wouldn't worry about there being a 9th edition.

PenitentJake wrote:
Not true.

No it's true.

PenitentJake wrote:
It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it.

Using the rulebook and codices?

PenitentJake wrote:
I play exclusively Escalation campaign style using the Urban Conquest Streets of Death rules.

I also incorporate Blackstone, Kill Team and Apocalypse into my campaigns.

So you've incorporated things that aren't regular 40K into a combined house-rule hybrid system.

What you're saying is that your apple pie is no different from a regular apple.

So I was right. 40k is nothing like an RPG. You've invented something completely new.

That's fine, BTW, but don't pretend that you're still just playing regular normal 40K.

You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

The heck you are (if we naturally ignore the silly notion of trying to gain money from such endeavour). Jake is suggesting using official GW products and imagination for campaign purposes, sets like that pop up everywhere at clubs and forums and are just fine. Many gamers like doing things like that, while being happy to say they are playing 40k, the way they actually want to play. GW even commends people for doing so with their Hammer Heroes awards and occasional articles.

Restricting 40k to its bare minimum is just that, restricted. The game has more to offer.

Back up a step.

If I go into a game store and say "Hey, I want to play Warhammer 40k" what are we going to be playing? An RPG or a wargame?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If I go into a game store and say "Hey, I want to play Warhammer 40k" what are we going to be playing? An RPG or a wargame?

If I'm following this thread correctly, I think the answer is Monopoly.

Why not both?

Sure, many store games run on the expectation that games are easy to get going and one off affairs (I think? Clubs are more of my thing than stores), where just plopping guys down on the table and playing away is the thing. That's clearly more on the pure wargame side. But what if the answer to "I wanna play 40k" in there is "alright! We have a cool campaign going on, would you like to fight out one of these battles?" and a talk about what's the current situation. There might be maps, a narrative, tales of exciting individuals and so on that have come to be through normal 40k matches with a mindset towards the whole. I realise this is easier in clubs, but that's not up to the game system(s).

And just as a curious sidenote, most "real" wargames like Kriegspiel and modern military training systems have a lot of shared DNA with rpg's, because they pretty much are such in the broad "what if" sense of intellectual practice. This is very apparent in games like old school D&D, where the players have no right to succeed and making rulings for unforeseen situations between the participants is a constant part of the game, just as it is for the Kriegspiel umpire trying to answer the general who wants to explode an overhanging cliff on top of their enemies' camp.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

Not with that attitude, no. It doesn't have to be for you, it can be for others who want to know how their sergeant Cool Dude fares in this battle. The defining features of rpg's are far wider than you might think and 40k has from its very beginning had that possibility. Rogue Traders example scenario Battle at the Farm has hidden character agendas baked into its mission parameters, there are lots of battle reports of 8th edition 40k out there with wacky hijinks happening in them that make no tactical sense, people arm Their Dudes with weapons they just like because they are Their Dudes, make pew pew sounds to immerse themselves in the game, have campaigns that span years of recurring characters, there's the whole Inquisitor28 movement with many using 8th edition rules (just look up Iron Sleet) ...

40k absolutely can be used as an rpg system. You don't have to, but you cannot deny it from others.

In responding to all the responses to my response, Sherrypie for the win. I'm not sure any of the others have read the Urban Conquest rules, but they suggest using 40k and kill team together. And it is a 40k product; whether or not you choose to use it doesn't stop the game from being 40k. Did you read the missions in CA 2019 that use Kill Team, 40k and Apocalypse together? I suppose you're going to say that isn't 40k either, yet that's the book that you take your points from when you play in tournaments... So either combining the games IS 40k or playing in a tournament ISN'T because the rules for doing both of those things are in the same book.

Now we could hijack the thread and talk about what is and isn't 40k and argue semantics for weeks; it's actually irrelevant to the underlying point.

Which is this: Bloat is in the eye of the beholder.

In an OLD White Dwarf once upon a time, there was a soap box type article written by Rick Priestly, Jervis Johnson or Andy Chambers. The article talked about why they chose to name the company Games WORKSHOP. It explicitly stated that the design philosophy from day one was that GW didn't make finished games; instead it provided tools to create the game that is right for you. Roleplaying Games, Collectible Card Games and Games Workshop games all have this in common. You always have to make choices about what to include and what to exclude before you play; that's why these types of games have always appealed to me more than conventional static board games.

If you wanted a streamlined, play it out of the box system, that's fine, because the game is flexible enough that you can play it that way if you want to. Truth be told, I imagine many, and maybe even most people prefer that style. And for the health of the hobby, I want you aboard, and I'd never want to say anything to make you feel unwelcome. I kinda wish GW would make it easier for you by releasing an "Arena" version of 40k like they did with kill team.

But I would respectfully suggest, that if you want this game to ONLY be a streamlined, play it out of the box game that you start thinking about other hobbies, because by design, it will never be ONLY that. It never has been. Why would they go down that road now?

One last thing: I've played 40k since 1989; my play habits peaked from editions 2-5; not sure I played any 6th. but I know I never played 7th. In all my time, I've played in exactly ONE tournament. But I'd never imply that tournaments aren't 40k, even if they use ITC formats. I respect your preferences enough to embrace what you do as part of 40k. So please, don't imply that what I do isn't 40k. Taddeus the Purifier IS a Blackstone model, but him and Pious came with 40k rules in the box, and if you don't think that what we do is 40k, maybe we'll round up some Sisters and hunt you down at whichever tournament you most call home and light you on FIRE like the HERETIC you are!

Note:Not a real threat: I was ROLEPLAYING.

Peace.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Not with that attitude, no.

It's got nothing to do with attitude. 40k. Is. Not. An. RPG.

There are 40K RPGs, they're called "Dark Heresy", and "Death Watch", and "Only War", and so on. But 40k, as in the game that is published by Games Workshop, is not, by any measure, viewpoint or interpretation, an RPG. It is a wargame.

Again, it has ----nothing---- to due with "attitude". It just isn't one. Cut and dry.

People are free to do whatever house rules and add-ons and whatever they want, but that doesn't make 40k an RPG.

Maybe everyone can accept their experience isn’t universal and stop trying to police other people’s fun?

Different people have different definitions of things and different yardsticks. Move on.

Thanks Mr. Golden Mean.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

Chess is technically AA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Why not both?

Because it isn't. 40k is not an RPG. Not by any measure.

Not with that attitude, no. It doesn't have to be for you, it can be for others who want to know how their sergeant Cool Dude fares in this battle. The defining features of rpg's are far wider than you might think and 40k has from its very beginning had that possibility. Rogue Traders example scenario Battle at the Farm has hidden character agendas baked into its mission parameters, there are lots of battle reports of 8th edition 40k out there with wacky hijinks happening in them that make no tactical sense, people arm Their Dudes with weapons they just like because they are Their Dudes, make pew pew sounds to immerse themselves in the game, have campaigns that span years of recurring characters, there's the whole Inquisitor28 movement with many using 8th edition rules (just look up Iron Sleet) ...

40k absolutely can be used as an rpg system. You don't have to, but you cannot deny it from others.

You can do the same with Chess. Everything you say can be applied to Chess and any number of more balanced Tabletop Wargames. Why do you keep giving 40k this pass to be bad at its core?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You could make Chess into an RPG with a modicum of effort. Not an argument or support for the rules of 40k being any good.

As we know, chess is IGOUGO so must be flawed anyway...

Chess is technically AA.

For people used to GW games

actually, Chess is a classical IGoUGo and games with similar mechanics are named as such

GW uses the same term for a different system.

Just go into Boardgame Reviews that compare KilkTeam to other games with alternating unit/model activation. They will describe the other games as classic IGoUGo and Kill Team /40k as the alternative system that makes things different by alternating player turns.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Not with that attitude, no.

It's got nothing to do with attitude. 40k. Is. Not. An. RPG.

There are 40K RPGs, they're called "Dark Heresy", and "Death Watch", and "Only War", and so on. But 40k, as in the game that is published by Games Workshop, is not, by any measure, viewpoint or interpretation, an RPG. It is a wargame.

Again, it has ----nothing---- to due with "attitude". It just isn't one. Cut and dry.

People are free to do whatever house rules and add-ons and whatever they want, but that doesn't make 40k an RPG.

Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

FFG's games are certainly rpg's about 40k, but them existing doesn't somehow negate what GW does. Wargames and roleplaying games have a lot of overlap and shared history, as well as blurred lines as to what is what. Go ahead and find a universally accepted definition of either one without exceptions, I'll wait. "Doesn't have characters" or "is about armies rather than individuals" really doesn't work, when games like Polaris or Microcosm exist. We have about 40 years of empirical data up to this day that yes, there are people who use 40k rules to play games with roleplaying elements, including their very designers. It has everything to do with attitude and the mentality of play, because just like the division of different sciences, division of games to different categories is a largely arbitrary line drawn to make it easier to talk about games in general. There will always be fringe cases and 40k damn well is one, because it has one foot firmly in the wargaming side and one on the expansive rpg side with its sprawling libraries of background stories, hobbyist projects and narrative elements. Just using SOME wargame rules for conflict resolution between story focused discussions has been a staple in roleplaying since the 70's, just look at Battletech and Mechwarrior. It might not be that from YOUR viewpoint, but your's isn't a universal truth when the game that GW publishes has pretty much always been a pile of different tools and methods people are free to use just as they see fit. The 80's boxes even said it's 3D roleplaying, when anything with an rpg sticker tagged on it sold better

It's not hard to use 40k as an rpg, it doesn't even take that much houseruling mechanically when the players are simply all on board with what they want out of the game. This is true with almost every rpg in existence. I don't particularily care for D&D's modern versions for an example, especially the 4th edition which can be mechanicswise used as a simple board game, but I won't go and tell folks they sure aren't roleplaying if they aren't doing hardcore fictional logistics and war planning emulating reality like our elite group of übermenschen does. Systems matter, obviously, but the main deciding factor tends to be what is the game focusing on and how it is played. 40k is a wide, burgeoning sandbox that allows for pure 1 vs. 1 wargame shootouts, but so too it does allow and ruleswise support taking a lot more nuanced take on things. Even GW's current publications, if you look beyond the matched rules, talk a lot about ongoing narratives, named individuals changing as campaigns roll on, using umpires to run games and shake things up a bit every now and then, interactions between games, using wacky off the wall ideas to spice up your normal games and other elements of choice that the players are free to use as they see fit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You can do the same with Chess. Everything you say can be applied to Chess and any number of more balanced Tabletop Wargames. Why do you keep giving 40k this pass to be bad at its core?

What does being bad have to do with the subject? It is subjective as to what extent people don't like different systems, like I personally dislike d100 systems and see FFG's 40k rpg's as unfocused messes that concentrate on completely wrong things, but that won't change what they are. 40k being like it is allows it to be used as an rpg and many people do use it as such (Pilgrym project, Thorn Moons, Primogenitor, Inquisitor28 projects in general...), but that is in itself not a statement on the game being any good or not.

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

That sounds like fun

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Repeating your opinion, even slower and punctuated, does not make it a fact. "Nuh-uh" does not a case make.

He is right though, just because you can turn any game into an RPG, doesn't mean the game itself is an RPG.

I (half-) remember a gaming session with too many drinks when we ended up turning this game in to an RPG - I was a Russian railroad official yelling at capitalist pigs from France and Britain, who were in turn were acting as angry french business man and distanced royal. Meanwhile the Ottoman player was fueling rivalries and just sabotaging everyone. All with thick fake accents, obviously.

While that sound hilarious and a lot like some Diplomacy games I've had (with funny hats, of course), the line between wargames and roleplaying games tends to be a lot blurrier than it is with more self-contained board games. The nature of the beast that is 40k requires more pre-game discussion and lends itself much more readily for such purposes than the more clearly cut and dry board games, and as such I vehemently disagree with absolutist stances like H.B.M.C. here has even if I too think that most players do not utilize it for rpg purposes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
...It may not be like an RPG the way YOU play it...

So you've built an RPG out of 40k. Good for you. If you publish the rules for what you've built so that other people can play 40k as an RPG without needing to build it themselves you're going to get sued by GW. Which suggests to me that the RPG you've built isn't 40k.

Didnt they already publish wh40k rpg books?

 CadianGateTroll wrote:
Didnt they already publish wh40k rpg books?

Plenty. Because those games are an RPG, whereas 40K is not.

It's almost like there are strong connections between RPGs and tabletop wargames that stretch back to the roots of each of Dungeons & Dragons, Games Workshop, and Warhammer 40K.

It's almost like even games studies scholars accept that there are a bunch of edge cases out there when defining games (and even when defining what is and is not a game).

It's almost like GW has been explicit since the Rogue Trader days that there are multiple different ways to play, from a more narrative-heavy approach to a more competitive approach, and if anything has offered more support for the former over the years, while recognising that there's a whole spectrum of play styles and that negotiation between players as to what kind of game you want, is explicitly a part of 40K game culture.

So yeah. Absolutist stances are bunkum.

An apple isn't an orange just because you believe it is, or your friends treat it as one.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
It's almost like there are strong connections between RPGs and tabletop wargames that stretch back to the roots of each of Dungeons & Dragons, Games Workshop, and Warhammer 40K.

It's almost like even games studies scholars accept that there are a bunch of edge cases out there when defining games (and even when defining what is and is not a game).

It's almost like GW has been explicit since the Rogue Trader days that there are multiple different ways to play, from a more narrative-heavy approach to a more competitive approach, and if anything has offered more support for the former over the years, while recognising that there's a whole spectrum of play styles and that negotiation between players as to what kind of game you want, is explicitly a part of 40K game culture.

So yeah. Absolutist stances are bunkum.

This

40 years of being a nice and expansive sandbox for multiple gaming styles, yet still some try to shoehorn it into a singular box. Talk about constructive use of time.

Just that the Sandbox days are over and GW is telling us that they are selling 3 finalized games of 40k based on the same core
Matched Play, Naritive and Open, and most supported version is Matched Play while the RPG part is the Naritive stuff.

Problem is that Matched Play can be used for RPG, but it is not sold as such by GW.

*Quietly being confused in the corner for several pages before realizing you guys are serious and actually have antennas shooting antennas, or know people who roll that way*

Literally has never even had to be a conversation, either in my friends group or at the FLGS.

Guess it carried over from 7th like calling all reserve deployments "Deep Striking".

Honestly shocked-but-not-shocked that people really play that way and model around it.

Sounds gross. Sweaty boys will be sweaty I guess.

The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

Indeed, and given that common understanding at the table it's fine and dandy, but heaven forbid this hobby seems to include lots of people who hold such discussions as a personal attack on their wellbeing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Fun guy.

Since we're wishlisting I would LOVE the Killteam terrain rules and alternating activations.

Even just adding a similar mechanic to the shooting phase as we have in KT would do a lot for the whole alpha strike issue imo.

But I'm definitely not an expert, has anyone experimented with something like that in 40k?

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

Exactly. I've literally never heard of it before today.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Fun guy.

Since we're wishlisting I would LOVE the Killteam terrain rules and alternating activations.

Even just adding a similar mechanic to the shooting phase as we have in KT would do a lot for the whole alpha strike issue imo.

But I'm definitely not an expert, has anyone experimented with something like that in 40k?

Yes, up to rewriting the whole turn structure to somewhat randomized alternating activations Bolt Action style. It works well.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

Exactly. I've literally never heard of it before today.

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Apple fox wrote:

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

I'm unconvinced that there is a rule that is simple, requires no communication, checking of tables / sheets, and creates no confusion/frustration when certain models slip between the designated bands.

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Refusing to take even the slightest initiative when playing a game and interpreting it's rules just seems...off.

Like it's weird to me that it's their fault not yours. If a menu recommends a wine with a particular dish, but conventional wisdom and your own experience tells you another wine would be much better, you don't order the recommended wine and then complain that they should've paired it better.

I mean, you can. But at that point there's no helping you.

The more I think about the PA release schedule the more I think an 8.5/soft reboot/change will happen.
Not sure it'll be the summer but certainly this year?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

I'm unconvinced that there is a rule that is simple, requires no communication, checking of tables / sheets, and creates no confusion/frustration when certain models slip between the designated bands.

You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Refusing to take even the slightest initiative when playing a game and interpreting it's rules just seems...off.

Like it's weird to me that it's their fault not yours. If a menu recommends a wine with a particular dish, but conventional wisdom and your own experience tells you another wine would be much better, you don't order the recommended wine and then complain that they should've paired it better.

I mean, you can. But at that point there's no helping you.

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

Apple fox wrote:


You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.

My method as explained involves no real rules. It is just interaction with my opponent. Stating intent and confirming it. There is no magic to it.

A system where every unit is assigned some sort of height value and then terrain has a height value, but this terrain has a slightly different value and this unit is kind of a weird size, but it got this value so we do what we can sort of thing...just isn't simple or always intuitive or straightforward. In smaller skirmish level games where there is more time to handle fewer models? Sure.

I'm sure Warhammer could have such a system, too. And I'd be fine, but what we have now is unencumbered, because I'm already socializing with my opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.

My method as explained involves no real rules. It is just interaction with my opponent. Stating intent and confirming it. There is no magic to it.

A system where every unit is assigned some sort of height value and then terrain has a height value, but this terrain has a slightly different value and this unit is kind of a weird size, but it got this value so we do what we can sort of thing...just isn't simple or always intuitive or straightforward. In smaller skirmish level games where there is more time to handle fewer models? Sure.

I'm sure Warhammer could have such a system, too. And I'd be fine, but what we have now is unencumbered, because I'm already socializing with my opponent.

A rule that covers it opens up other parts of the game for rules.
Terrain itself can be easy in such a system so that’s not a worry, again it really just comes down to competence of the 40k team.
It works fine in even games with models as high as 40k without issue.

As communication is great but tournament rules can benefit a great deal. Things like conversions are covered, strange poses as well.
As well as a place to fall back on when issues pop up.
And you could ignore it as it seems like you and your group have no issues.

They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

My point is not to make excuses for an admittedly laughable rules oversight.

My point is that people who insist that a flag pole counts as a viable target "bEcAuSe ThE rUlEs ArE wRiTtEn ThAt WaY" in defiance of all common sense and reasonable desire for a fun experience for the guy who put a banner on his squad leader's backpack is DMV-tier
levels of gormless bureaucratic thinking.

That's what I mean by taking the initiative. Rising above mindless obedience to an obviously sloppily-written rule. The fact that people are modeling their banner carriers holding the flag parallel to the ground is an obscene example of WAAC weirdos running a local meta.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

It's a wargame though. If the rules don't say "those wires and bitz don't count for LoS" sure you can't just shoot them. GW purposely did not create a tight rule set though. Why you bother to defend them on that is beyond me. Have some standards.

Klickor wrote:They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

Yeah, the previous editions had rules like this. Had several rules discussions on it here.

Games like Infinity and WarmaHordes get around it by basically abstracting the volume that the model takes up based on its base size no matter what overhang, squatting, or lying the model itself has involved. Terrain is often handled that way as well. Why GW just doesn't work that way is beyond me, but they honestly don't care about how their rules work so long as they can make it seem cool. They went to True Line of Sight way back and haven't looked at it again, apparently.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

My point is not to make excuses for an admittedly laughable rules oversight.

My point is that people who insist that a flag pole counts as a viable target "bEcAuSe ThE rUlEs ArE wRiTtEn ThAt WaY" in defiance of all common sense and reasonable desire for a fun experience for the guy who put a banner on his squad leader's backpack is DMV-tier
levels of gormless bureaucratic thinking.

That's what I mean by taking the initiative. Rising above mindless obedience to an obviously sloppily-written rule. The fact that people are modeling their banner carriers holding the flag parallel to the ground is an obscene example of WAAC weirdos running a local meta.

We aren't supposed to do the job of the rules writers. If it's such a silly oversight, why don't you email them to get it corrected?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

It's a wargame though. If the rules don't say "those wires and bitz don't count for LoS" sure you can't just shoot them. GW purposely did not create a tight rule set though. Why you bother to defend them on that is beyond me. Have some standards.

They have standards, they're just different than yours. They enjoy fun.

We aren't supposed to do the job of the rules writers. If it's such a silly oversight, why don't you email them to get it corrected?

Because I'm not slavishly locked into a line of text in a book. Because playing a game in an objectively not-fun way because it's "not my job" to play around a minor rules shortfall is a sweaty attitude.

 Charistoph wrote:

Klickor wrote:They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

Yeah, the previous editions had rules like this. Had several rules discussions on it here.

Games like Infinity and WarmaHordes get around it by basically abstracting the volume that the model takes up based on its base size no matter what overhang, squatting, or lying the model itself has involved. Terrain is often handled that way as well. Why GW just doesn't work that way is beyond me, but they honestly don't care about how their rules work so long as they can make it seem cool. They went to True Line of Sight way back and haven't looked at it again, apparently.

I would prefer getting rid of true LOS myself however in 40k the abstract system would have issues. Both of the games you mentioned are much more standardized in terms of unit types and sizes. All factions in infinity have LI, MI, HI, TAGS, etc. Units are given base sizes and heights based on type. For 40k the armies are much more varied and there are a lot of models without bases. My theory years ago on true LOS was that is was adopted because GW basically gave up trying to make abstract LOS work in 40k.

Removed - BrookM

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Ah so if there's rule that says "before game roll a dice. On 2+ space marine win the game" it's not your problem because rules say so?

Just because something is in rules doesn't mean it's good rule. And bad rules are everybody's problem. There's no excuse to have bad rules in games. Even less excuses to let them stay there.

No, you just don't have standards. With your supposed ones, you don't even NEED rules. Just go pewpew with the models and dont even bother to roll dice; whoever made the best pewpew noise wins!

To be clear your idea of "standards" is to continue playing a game I otherwise enjoy very much in a way that actively makes it less fun for me as both a gamer and a hobbyist while spamming GW with complaint emails?

And in your mind that is ethically superior to mentally adding a line that excludes saiyan hair from LoS rules?

OK buddy. As I said above, you seem like a fun guy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

well the thing is that this smells of intent play, not everywhere in the world do people play with intent in mind. In fact my country is known for not playing like that and over multiple systems, not just GW games. I remember polish judges getting in trouble with corvus belli over it.

It is okey when opponents let you change the rules, is a bad way to play, because it assumes that opponents, or at least the majority of them, are going to say yes. Everytime your in a place when they say no, your kind of a hit twice, once by a bad rule system, and the other time by people saying that the fix is not fixed rules, but people being lenitent with RAW.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

well the thing is that this smells of intent play, not everywhere in the world do people play with intent in mind. In fact my country is known for not playing like that and over multiple systems, not just GW games. I remember polish judges getting in trouble with corvus belli over it.

It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.

It's also usually acceptable to ask the opposing player whether or not a unit *you* think they can't see is visible to them. In most social games a good opponent will say yes or no rather than letting you think the unit is hidden before shooting them anyway. It's commonly considered bad etiquette.

Interesting that Polish players seem to favor a much more "gotcha" style of play.

There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.

Yes, it is as simple as: "to we use house rules for line of sight or not?"
If the answer is yes, everything is fine, if the answer is "no I don't like house rules and want to play according to the book" you get the situation above

if you hear the "no" more often than the "yes" for house rules, it is fine to ask the designers to change those rules as somehow they make the game not fun any more


A lot of people complain about 5th Edition 40k, but all those bad things that happend for them never happened for me because we used house rules to get over it.
but the level of acceptance declined over time and end of 7th it was more or less gone
people claim that 40k 8th is the best game ever made by GW and therefore any house rules just make it worse

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.

It's also usually acceptable to ask the opposing player whether or not a unit *you* think they can't see is visible to them. In most social games a good opponent will say yes or no rather than letting you think the unit is hidden before shooting them anyway. It's commonly considered bad etiquette.

Interesting that Polish players seem to favor a much more "gotcha" style of play.

Correct - we're not changing what the rules do. We're just communicating what we're trying to do so there are no "gotcha" moments.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

people claim that 40k 8th is the best game ever made by GW and therefore any house rules just make it worse

Wouldn't we all like to have some of whatever they're smoking?

ccs wrote:


So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?

No.

I move models into cover believing they are in cover, but my opponent can actually see and shoot them.

VS

I move my models into cover and ask, "can you see these guys? I'm trying to get them behind cover." If they say yes then I move them until they are or I give up if there are no opportunities.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Ah so if there's rule that says "before game roll a dice. On 2+ space marine win the game" it's not your problem because rules say so?

Just because something is in rules doesn't mean it's good rule. And bad rules are everybody's problem. There's no excuse to have bad rules in games. Even less excuses to let them stay there.

Yes, and chances are you guys would defend GW saying "just houserule it". After all, it is done everything else, minor or major.

You don't see the problem here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

No, you just don't have standards. With your supposed ones, you don't even NEED rules. Just go pewpew with the models and dont even bother to roll dice; whoever made the best pewpew noise wins!

To be clear your idea of "standards" is to continue playing a game I otherwise enjoy very much in a way that actively makes it less fun for me as both a gamer and a hobbyist while spamming GW with complaint emails?

And in your mind that is ethically superior to mentally adding a line that excludes saiyan hair from LoS rules?

OK buddy. As I said above, you seem like a fun guy.

The way you "enjoy" does not need a rulebook if you're doing everything the rules writers should be doing. So no, you don't have standards. My standards aren't even that hard to meet.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

It's a wargame though. If the rules don't say "those wires and bitz don't count for LoS" sure you can't just shoot them. GW purposely did not create a tight rule set though. Why you bother to defend them on that is beyond me. Have some standards.

They have standards, they're just different than yours. They enjoy fun.

We aren't supposed to do the job of the rules writers. If it's such a silly oversight, why don't you email them to get it corrected?

Because I'm not slavishly locked into a line of text in a book. Because playing a game in an objectively not-fun way because it's "not my job" to play around a minor rules shortfall is a sweaty attitude.

No, you just don't have standards. With your supposed ones, you don't even NEED rules. Just go pewpew with the models and dont even bother to roll dice; whoever made the best pewpew noise wins!

Ah yes, how could I have been so blind as to think I'd have standards when I know quite well what I like to get out of a game, am willing to put effort into my own fun like a grown up human being, socialize with my gaming partners and constructively talk about these things with them to ensure we all have fun with a pastime we put a lot of dedication in and even find out those people think this is a most positive part of their lives. How dare we enjoy tinkering with systems that boldly declare in their sprawling pages that using them in any manner one sees fit, when all this time the answer was right there under our noses:

One can only be a shining beacon of hobbying correctly if they shut their ears from anybody elses' thoughts, entrench themselves in their own one true way of holy writ as made by the Authority (while loudly and incessantly deriding that set as a sucky one that could easily be fixed IF ONLY SOMEONE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT) since no-one else is authorized to do games design and for the final touch, always remember to imply anyone who has the gall to do something else must be on an immediate slippery slipe to making pew pew noises at the playground like a complete dolt. Because of course they are, despite overwhelming evidence of people having FUN with their hobbies just fine.

Yes, I must be the one without standards here.

IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!

You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung

Is there a point to this thread anymore? honestly.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!

You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung

No, it IS white knighting. You aren't fixing anything. What you're doing is supporting GW with their lazy writing. DIY means nothing when everything you mentioned can be done for anything from games with better rules down all the way to Chess. Yes, Chess can be done with all the garbage you say to "fix the game yourself".
So what other reason is it to put that effort in? The answer is simple. You'll simply defend GW for anything. Saying you can do both things in the first sentence is not true. Either you stand your ground and stop giving daddy GW money for their garbage printed rules or not. There's no middle outside your imagination.

Riiight. Keep on shouting into the void, mate, meanwhile those of us who aren't seemingly consumed by our selfasserted hubris of righteousness can carry on getting a lot of gaming out of those materials you so despise. How horrible, whole minutes of our lives might be wasted on improving the experience every now and then by such endeavours.

Seriously, take a breather once in a while, Slayer, you just sound more and more miserable the longer you keep on treading that argument. The dichotomy you're building there is just not any universal truth, despite your continued grumbling about it. A person can be perfectly happy to support GW as a whole, like most players probably do since it's nice to have your beloved games be supported by a non-dead company, while not agreeing with all they do.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:


So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?

No.

I move models into cover believing they are in cover, but my opponent can actually see and shoot them.

VS

I move my models into cover and ask, "can you see these guys? I'm trying to get them behind cover." If they say yes then I move them until they are or I give up if there are no opportunities.

Yeah, I figured that's how you & yours do it. It's how we normal people do it. I was asking Karol if his group would lie to him if he did this.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Seriously, take a breather once in a while, Slayer, you just sound more and more miserable the longer you keep on treading that argument. The dichotomy you're building there is just not any universal truth, despite your continued grumbling about it. A person can be perfectly happy to support GW as a whole, like most players probably do since it's nice to have your beloved games be supported by a non-dead company, while not agreeing with all they do.

To be honest, this is usually the case with most of the very vocal minority on Dakka.

For every person here that says 40k is a dead game, there are thousands who enjoy their hobby.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

Sounds like a terrible play group...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!

You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung

No, it IS white knighting. You aren't fixing anything. What you're doing is supporting GW with their lazy writing. DIY means nothing when everything you mentioned can be done for anything from games with better rules down all the way to Chess. Yes, Chess can be done with all the garbage you say to "fix the game yourself".
So what other reason is it to put that effort in? The answer is simple. You'll simply defend GW for anything. Saying you can do both things in the first sentence is not true. Either you stand your ground and stop giving daddy GW money for their garbage printed rules or not. There's no middle outside your imagination.

You realize that you come off as the crazy ranting dude on the corner waiving the cardboard Repent/End is Nigh sign, right?

Anyways, rant on if it makes you feel better. Me? I've got house-ruled GW games to play.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

Which is a problem if the main advantage of a game are easy to learn rules and easy to find pick up games

playing a game and realising in the middle that the opponent plays something different as he has different house rules under the same name without knowing that he uses house rules



And GW is lazy at best for now.
a reason why people think 9th must be near as there is no afford put into anything they are doing for 8th

so people hope that the reason is that the focus is on a new and better edition and therefore is no time to do releases properly

but this would be an excuse for old GW with a small studio that struggle and not the big company that could afford another design team

they just do the minimum work for maximum profit and if 9th does not come sooner than later (or GW stop being lazy at writing rules), there will be a lot of disappointed people.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Refusing to take even the slightest initiative when playing a game and interpreting it's rules just seems...off.

Why? It's like that for almost every other game.

"Let's play a game of magic!" "Commander or 60 card casual?" "Commander!" "Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*
"Let's play a game of risk!" "Starwars, GoT and classic risk?" "Starwars!" "Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*
"Let's play a game of chess!""Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*

Wouldn't it be awesome to have a game start like this:
"Let's play a game of Warhammer40k?" "Matched play or narrative?" "Narrative!" "Which mission?" "The one with the guards" "2000 points?" "Sure" "Ok, let's go!"
... and then play the entire game exactly like it is written in the rules and have fun while doing so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?

I've actually have had this happen once. I gave him the shot, stopped all unnecessary communication with him for the game and just refused to play with that person until he eventually apologized. If was forced to play him (in a tournament or league), I would have known what to expect. It's really not that complicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

I have played over a hundred games of Monopoly and never once used house rules to do so. That's probably why I hate the game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

Why? It's like that for almost every other game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.

Considering the amount of times I had to argue whether a deffrolla is part of the hull or not in 5th, it's not surprising that I noticed the lack of that rule in 8th quickly.

The point is that your friends (or everyone else) aren't sweaty douchebags if they insist they can shoot your banner - that's what the rules say.
It's fine to house-rule a game to make it more enjoyable. It's not fine to insult people who play game by its rules.

This is the relevant rule:

In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible.

Any part is any part, including banners, wings, antennas and sayan hair.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.

It is not a big deal because you are used to it and doing otherwise is strange or a big deal

A group that is used to target Banners and shot antenna with antennas, it us strange to do it differently

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Call us bad at reading the rules if you will, I'll be over here happily modeling my squad Sgt with an awesome banner on his backpack because my friends aren't sweaty douchebags who insist it's targetable.

If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed? Because if it's allowed, then I don't see how that's any different from using other ancillary parts to determine LOS, but if it's not allowed, then that's suggesting you have to trace LOS from the gun itself, which is a house rule that has a huge impact on game balance.

You don't need the condescension. We know things can be houseruled to make more sense; I have to houserule the terrain rules for my setup to be at all useful. The issue is that something as basic as LOS shouldn't need house rules to be intuitive.

 catbarf wrote:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Call us bad at reading the rules if you will, I'll be over here happily modeling my squad Sgt with an awesome banner on his backpack because my friends aren't sweaty douchebags who insist it's targetable.

If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed? Because if it's allowed, then I don't see how that's any different from using other ancillary parts to determine LOS, but if it's not allowed, then that's suggesting you have to trace LOS from the gun itself, which is a house rule that has a huge impact on game balance.

You don't need the condescension. We know things can be houseruled to make more sense; I have to houserule the terrain rules for my setup to be at all useful. The issue is that something as basic as LOS shouldn't need house rules to be intuitive.

You're right I deleted the offended content. Sorry for the crappy attitude. There's enough of that on the internet without me adding to it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

I have played over a hundred games of Monopoly and never once used house rules to do so. That's probably why I hate the game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

Then you probably didn't learn Monopoly rules from others who learned it from others and you bothered looking at the rules. Oddly enough, sometimes I would run in to that with 40K where someone remembered the rules from a previous edition (or two) and treated them as part of the current ruleset. Aside from things like Monopoly Kids or the more exotic editions, Monopoly really hasn't changed much since the Great Depression. 40K is on its 4th edition since I started collecting, and 5th since I started looking in to picking it up.

And those Monopoly house rules, or even 40K modifications like ITC, are not constantly requiring the creation of rules. They were created some time ago and are just constantly being put in to use. Utilizing the TLOS rules from 6th and 7th would be an example of both of these concepts.

 catbarf wrote:

If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed?

It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.

ccs wrote:
It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.

Am I being TFG if I want my Malcador Defender to be able to shoot more than one gun at a time? Because as sensible as 'weapons can only shoot from their physical location, through their modeled fire arcs' is, that's not in the rules, and it has a huge effect on balance. It also means that there are situations where you are visible but cannot shoot back, which is not the case for non-vehicles.

On that note, do infantry work the same way? My Death Korps heavy weapon teams are low to the ground and my buddy's Elysians are prone on bipods, are we both TFG if we measure LOS from their heads rather than their guns?

Does my Carnifex, on an oval base, need to pivot to shoot an enemy behind it? Or do based models get a free pass on fire arcs, while non-based vehicles are more constrained?

See, this is my problem with treating houserules as the solution to inadequate design: If you and I are in the same club and we've been doing this for years, sure, we can set up our own tweaks on the formula, and once we walk through all of the above then we can have a mutually enjoyable game.

But if I go to the club and play against a random opponent, I've always assumed we measure from any point of the hull because, hey, that's what the rules say, that's how the game's been balanced in 8th, and since the ground scale simply can't be 1:1 (otherwise the game starts to get utterly absurd), a tank's position must be more abstract than literally the space occupied by the model. And now it seems that makes me TFG.

I really don't think we should have to go through this long checklist of deciding how we want to modify basic game mechanics before we play a casual pickup game. I certainly haven't had to do that in other wargames.

Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.

The LOS rules are designed to be unambiguous and avoid debates over what ‘counts’.

That’s it.

If you find it unappealing and house rule it that’s cool, but that’s why the rule is the way it is. No point in posturing around it. There’s no intellectual high ground or low ground, just personal preference.

FWIW our group plays as written, as it speeds things up and saves time arguing edge cases. It works perfectly fine.

I wouldn't really blame TLOS in 8th but how currently ineffective cover rules are, both in its mechanics (Unit based cover, no cover for intervening units and obscuration from ruins is useless without putting a freaking feet into it) and effect (+1 Save for real? The fact that some armies may claim it and as well never use it like Daemons is a failure of game design).

If your cover is meaningless in games get a better terrain collection. GW plastic terrain is largely useless.

 catbarf wrote:

But if I go to the club and play against a random opponent, I've always assumed we measure from any point of the hull because, hey, that's what the rules say, that's how the game's been balanced in 8th, and since the ground scale simply can't be 1:1 (otherwise the game starts to get utterly absurd), a tank's position must be more abstract than literally the space occupied by the model. And now it seems that makes me TFG.

I really don't think we should have to go through this long checklist of deciding how we want to modify basic game mechanics before we play a casual pickup game. I certainly haven't had to do that in other wargames.

You don't have to when playing 40k either. This sort of thing only seems to happen on forums discussing the game in theory, not when playing.
When playing you use the LOS rules as is and its fine (much better than the old debates over what can and can't be seen, and if your predator is 0.5 degrees too askew to get both lascannons on target)

I remember when people celebrated the removal of templates on the basis that it causes less arguments due to ambiguity. Now read the last few pages.

Wayniac wrote:
Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.

See, this is a part of this dichotomy that grinds some peoples' gears. Why assume that people, who acknowledge there's a problem and fix it for themselves, are somehow pretending there isn't one when they've clearly located one? Again, what makes it impossible for these people to see there is a problem, inform GW through their channels that this problem annoys them, while fixing it for their own games while GW may or may not get to fixing it in the official rules corpus? Am I an alien, as I've done the seemingly impossible thing?

KurtAngle2 wrote:
I wouldn't really blame TLOS in 8th but how currently ineffective cover rules are, both in its mechanics (Unit based cover, no cover for intervening units and obscuration from ruins is useless without putting a freaking feet into it) and effect (+1 Save for real? The fact that some armies may claim it and as well never use it like Daemons is a failure of game design).

Demons couldn't really use cover saves in earlier editions either. Army wide invuls have that trade off.
The 8th ed cover rules indeed aren't great though. The all or nothing rule and lack of area terrain makes hiding from gunlines difficult, unless you made sure to bring a lot of BLOS terrain.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If your cover is meaningless in games get a better terrain collection. GW plastic terrain is largely useless.

GW terrain is alright, but definitely supplement it with more variety.

Darsath wrote:
I remember when people celebrated the removal of templates on the basis that it causes less arguments due to ambiguity. Now read the last few pages.

Different people. And/or just pro's and cons. I like the streamlining in general, but some things were lost. Flamers are poop now, which is sad. It's also hard to replace the ecstasy of landing a big blast right on a bunch of soon-to-be-burger models.

I know a few of the people arguing on here were making that argument.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.

See, this is a part of this dichotomy that grinds some peoples' gears. Why assume that people, who acknowledge there's a problem and fix it for themselves, are somehow pretending there isn't one when they've clearly located one? Again, what makes it impossible for these people to see there is a problem, inform GW through their channels that this problem annoys them, while fixing it for their own games while GW may or may not get to fixing it in the official rules corpus? Am I an alien, as I've done the seemingly impossible thing?

because until/unless it gets officially fixed, it's a problem. Regardless if you fix it yourself, it's a problem because you cannot expect everyone to also use your fix.

The problem isn't fixing the rule, it's acting like everything is find because you fixed the rule for yourself

Wayniac wrote:
because until/unless it gets officially fixed, it's a problem. Regardless if you fix it yourself, it's a problem because you cannot expect everyone to also use your fix.

The problem isn't fixing the rule, it's acting like everything is find because you fixed the rule for yourself

People are free to do as they wish. If they want to make red herrings about how bad the rules are using exaggerated examples and pretend there is no way to play the game competently despite occasional downsides - they are free to do so.

If they want to concoct a house rule that creates 'The Perfect Rule with absolutely no issues'™ they are free to do that as well.

And if they want to think that it is impossible to be unstressed about a rule and still be critical of it - totally fine.

I would be down to remove TLOS and change it back to how forests/buildings worked in 4th edition

Area terrain did make things simpler, as well as things allowing you to see in but not through.

Even beyond banner/antenna shooting, there’s an issue with TLOS in 40K.

How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?

I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.

If you've modelled your units in a way that reduces TLOS and is not according to how GW model their units you have modelled for advantage. It is not unfair if your Shadowsun is on an inch piece of terrain as the GW model. It is not unfair to use prone Pathfinders or squatting Fire Warriors if they are official GW models. Modelling Suppressors off of their flight stand is modelling for advantage, however.

In real life, I've seen very few examples of modelling for advantage. Almost everyone I play with does the opposite in that when they convert something it inevitably becomes larger and easier to shoot than the original model (because rule of cool).

My invictor warsuits are standing on pieces of terrain so are slightly taller but at the same time I removed the stupid antennas so it is overall slightly shorter and easier to hide. I didnt model for advantage but for looks. Some could argue my convertion is unfair but I also have a fully covered cockpit and have wrist Mounted heavy bolters instead of pistol gripped stupidity.

There are lots of people who dislike the looks of antennas, wings or banners that could get or get accused of modelling for advantage due to the Los rules. Old models that are smaller or built before the current rules might be either way to tall to be usable with normal terrain or invisible due to their much smaller size.

I always regret gluing back the top portion on the banners on my ancients every time they fall off. Without it they can hide much easier and dont need a unit infront to prevent shots due to that stupid flag reaching the second floor that isnt blocking los while 98% of the model is on the ground floor.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Why? It's like that for almost every other game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.

Why shouldn't Saiyan Hair be treated as eligible for Flamers?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

Umm...

How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?

Cuz'a that!

Wasn't this fine in 5th?

We had TLOS, but within reason: Banners and other accessories didn't count, and generally, if a model was modeled significantly differently from the norm, we didn't count it (ie, kneeling or extra height from bases). On top of that, most people counted 75%+ covered as fully concealed.

I remember there being a bunch of arguments over TLOS for the first year or so of 5th, and then it all dried up.

Also the abundance of cover in 5th went a long way to stop the dominance of shooting that we have in 8th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

Umm...

How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?

Cuz'a that!

Ahem...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.

E - it's worth noting that the reason TLOS has been used for 8th was to avoid the continual arguments that happened in previous editions where people claimed that less (or more) than 75% or 50% of the model was obscured.

I think the argument may just may be going over E’s head. 8E might have decided to use TLOS to stop the arguments, but to me it does the opposite, as even some of GW’s modeling poses are baffling to me (If I buy Shadowsun, for example, I’m not putting her on the included plinth). For my own games I use the older rules of area terrain and an adapted version of Warmahordes volume for miniatures. If I used the 8E Rules, I would, for example, shelf my rail-rifle pathfinders because I only have the 3E metal ones that are lying prone and drawing LOS to or from them strikes me as unfair. And which GSC brood lord should I use? If I use my 2E metal model that is smaller and walking forward on the ground vs. the current one standing atop a drain pipe, am I modeling for advantage?

Who is E?

In my case, An Actual Englishman. Don’t know who he may be referring to in his post, if anyone.

 Stormonu wrote:
I think the argument may just may be going over E’s head. 8E might have decided to use TLOS to stop the arguments, but to me it does the opposite, as even some of GW’s modeling poses are baffling to me (If I buy Shadowsun, for example, I’m not putting her on the included plinth). For my own games I use the older rules of area terrain and an adapted version of Warmahordes volume for miniatures. If I used the 8E Rules, I would, for example, shelf my rail-rifle pathfinders because I only have the 3E metal ones that are lying prone and drawing LOS to or from them strikes me as unfair. And which GSC brood lord should I use? If I use my 2E metal model that is smaller and walking forward on the ground vs. the current one standing atop a drain pipe, am I modeling for advantage?

I've answered all of these questions above. If you have changed GW models so that they are more difficult to draw LOS to, you are modelling for advantage. Regardless of whether you believe it looks better or not. Technically you're also supposed to use the most modern sculpt of a unit (so no prone Pathfinders) but I suppose you'd talk to your opponent before the game about it and figure things out with them.

I find it hard to believe that TLOS has somehow created more arguments but even if it has, the key is that these "arguments" (read - discussions as part of the social contract of playing the game) happen before the game begins rather than during, as was the case before. This is what GW want to avoid, a stopping or slowing of the game mid way through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
In my case, An Actual Englishman. Don’t know who he may be referring to in his post, if anyone.

"E" = "Edit" then the additional text. I gathered you were addressing me. Your argument has not gone over my head, I simply disagree. Though it would be easier if you quoted my posts if you're referring to me specifically or at least use "AAE".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

Umm...

How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?

Cuz'a that!

Someone having an issue with how the LOS rules work is not the same as the LOS rules themselves having issues. They’re about as simple, clear and concise as possible. “I’d you can see it, you can shoot it, and be shot”. Accounts for any permutation of models out there without special rulings, so in fact covers all of the things quoted just fine.

So, as someone who has been largely ignoring this conversation for the last few days/weeks/months... Is 9th ED confirmed or now? And are Templates making a come back? (I want the T)

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.

If you've modelled your units in a way that reduces TLOS and is not according to how GW model their units you have modelled for advantage.

In my very first game of 8th, it became apparent that TLOS means my kneeling Death Korps heavy weapon teams can't see over chest-high sandbag walls intended as cover.

The rules are simple, straightforward, concise- and utterly bs.

Oh, and since TLOS means you can draw line of sight from anywhere, why is making a smaller target profile modeling for advantage, but making a larger target profile isn't? I can stick a rod on the top of a Baneblade to ensure that it peers over the entire table, and that's not modeling for advantage, but my buddy's got prone Space Marine Scout snipers so he's a dirty cheater?

Clearly the solution is to only assemble Games Workshop™ Citadel Miniatures™ exactly as instructed in the box. Any conversion could be modeling for advantage. Can't have that.

 catbarf wrote:

ccs wrote:
It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.

Am I being TFG if I want my Malcador Defender to be able to shoot more than one gun at a time?

Depends, do you shoot out of the wrong sides of your tank to do so? Do you shoot things with your antena? Do the words "By the rules...." ever come out of your mouth to justify such silliness?
If so....