Frankly, I wish gw would take a look at infinity's silhouettes and give it a try. Considering how diverse their minis are it could serve.
I've used hidden info mostly in a campaign playing out the exploration of a new world by the mechanus, so he never really knows what he will bump into.
Otherwise, we rarely use it mostly because most questions we would have as to what unit has got what rules/gear, remembering the stats of some of them I forgot etc... It's a 5 minute phase but truly speeds up the game afterwards.
lord_blackfang wrote: Jesus Christ someone actually thinks actively hiding their dollies' stats is part of the competition
It might have something to do with the game turning into a "card game" with miniatures. can't let your opponent know what your trap card is.
Were back to the point GW used to understand, in fact they even put it in the rules back in 3rd-the game is supposed to be fun for both players as such having a game is by it's very nature giving consent, as you are not forcing the other player to play you.
If you are not a fun person to play against because of your attitude you will quickly find you have no people to play with, outside of those forced to play against you in tournaments.
Actually the card aspect is very accurate in my eyes because in project z litteraly both players have cards they keep hidden to play each other dirty tricks. For a fast paced skirmish game I must say it's kind of funny. They're drawn however, you can't choose which ones you get before hands.
just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn
because its widely known that on a battlefield only one small group at a time can crouch, and likely due to missing a few keywords and poor drafting tanks and titans will be able to use it
Actually a crouche rule would make entirely sense, as it used to.
After all, units were allowed to "go to ground" for added cover in exchange for not shooting straight that turn.
Strategems would poorly represent this to be fair.
I'dsay I actually even prefer USR over strategem for this reason. I see abilities linked more to the unit's gear, specialisation, members. Guess it's just a bias I've got.
After all, units were allowed to "go to ground" for added cover in exchange for not shooting straight that turn.
Strategems would poorly represent this to be fair.
I'dsay I actually even prefer USR over strategem for this reason. I see abilities linked more to the unit's gear, specialisation, members. Guess it's just a bias I've got.
something whereby a unit can elect to either remain stationary (and get "gone to ground") or move at half speed and get a size class reduction would be good as just a core rule. not a strategem. providing a bit of tactical choice, though GW do seem to be trying to remove any such from the game in favour of winning in the model buying phase
Dudeface 811321 11586042 wrote:
"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"
How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?
I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.
No one has to tell the other person what rules an army has before the game. And during the game you only have to anwser targeted questions, so can your unit do X, what does stratagem Y do. If someone wants to know the rules of another army in advance they have to do it on their own. Especialy when the clock it ticking and you have a specified time to play the game. It would be stupid to wait for someone to go through your entire rule set. especialy as if this maybe a time move, because their army loses steam after round 3, and by "checking the rules" for 20 min they can assure that the game will last only that long or close to it.
Then you don't use rule. Nobody has to just blindly believe opponent. Opponents are after all known to cheat.
You have the rules, hand over. Nobody uses rules without being willing to show them. That's admission of plan to cheat.
Or you can forfeit now that your plan to intentionally cheat was revealed
You can't go through every rule in your army before the game, like every WS, BS, M, S, T, A... stat and every ability and Stratagem. The question is how much is reasonable, in a casual game where neither player has said they're on a time limit you can ask a lot of questions. In a store with limited space or in a tournament you can ask a lot fewer questions. Reading all 30 Stratagems before the game in 9th was a lot, even when offered and people were not in a rush how many would accept instead of just getting on with the game?
You ask what your opponent's Movement characteristic is when it matters to your own actions, you'd forget them anyway if your opponent just vomited out all the stats at the start of the game. Then you warn your opponent if there is something it seems they don't know/forgot. I think Karol should try to shift the expectations to accept going through Stratagems since it's a lot more reasonable for 6 than for 30, but going through every stat for every model is too much, not just for time but to remember.
Apart from other being able to look while opponent does his stuff point is about stratagems.
Hand over stratagems. While you deploy i go over that.
If you aren't willing to do that i know you plan to cheat. So 2 options. Game not progressing until you do. Or i will metociously write down every single rule you use i'm not 100% familiar to check later.
Just consider which slows game down more. Handing over stratagems/det rules or me writing, by hand, down every single rule.
Nobody who has refused to provide rules when asked pre-game has yet to play without cheat. It's not about time. It's about trying to hide cheating.
tneva82 wrote: Apart from other being able to look while opponent does his stuff point is about stratagems.
Hand over stratagems. While you deploy i go over that.
If you aren't willing to do that i know you plan to cheat. So 2 options. Game not progressing until you do. Or i will metociously write down every single rule you use i'm not 100% familiar to check later.
Just consider which slows game down more. Handing over stratagems/det rules or me writing, by hand, down every single rule.
Nobody who has refused to provide rules when asked pre-game has yet to play without cheat. It's not about time. It's about trying to hide cheating.
Matches my reality. Almost everyone has the two pages of army-specific stratagems printed out, and if you ask your opponent whether you can see them, they just point to wherever the printout is and continue to move their models.
So if I get it right, in infinity, you use TLoS and when in doubt, check with the silhouette template? More or less.
Sounds very good to me.
Its more like you intuitively know what the average volume of the silhouette is so you very rarely need to take out the templates but yes. Infinity is also played much more "by intent" than 40k, moving a guy past the corner of a building and telling your opponent that "you only want him to see up to that other corner is something that frequently happens and makes determining LoS much faster
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn
because its widely known that on a battlefield only one small group at a time can crouch, and likely due to missing a few keywords and poor drafting tanks and titans will be able to use it
well taking infinity again, you can go prone with any model, which drops your silhouette to the size of a blank base
Flames of War, at least in its earlier versions, had "declarative movement", worked well
"this unit is moving here to be hull down behind this ridge", "these infantry are moving here so that artillery spotter cannot see them" - that was then time for an opponent to question this, maybe noting they needed to move further etc
removed a lot of debate when playing with sensible people, when you got a response along the lines of "well we will see when I come to shoot won't we" it told you a lot about the player
VladimirHerzog wrote: ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works
...snip...
Not gonna lie, that looks awful. I can see it being tolerable, if tedious, in a game like Infinity with half a dozen models on the table... but in a game the size of 40K, a chart like that would be the point where I close the rulebook and go do something else.
Game scale needs to be considered in these sorts of mechanics. Introducing a need to check the profile of every model against a template in a game with 100+ models on the table would be a nightmare.
For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.
90% of the time Infinity's system works exactly like 40K's, with it being intuitive and obvious whether a model is visible in the open or behind chest-high cover.
The remaining 10% of the time, you either pull out the silhouette template or just extrapolate from the base to quickly and cleanly resolve a question that would otherwise be an argument about 'does an antenna count', 'c'mon, the model's just kneeling, he should be able to see over the wall', 'no that does not count as 25%', 'I don't think it's fair that you converted the model to have his wings less visible', and so on.
Infinity's system is quick, with a deterministic mechanism to resolve ambiguity and edge cases. 40K's system is quick, and then falls apart as soon as you hit ambiguity, edge cases, or overly competitive players.
The prescribed silhouette system that Infinity uses would not be necessary for 40K; just the concept of using a model's base size (actually specified in the rules, because it's really stupid that it isn't) in conjunction with a specified height makes the mechanic viable. In a game like 40K that is generally more two-dimensional than Infinity, tracing paths between bases would suffice for LOS purposes most of the time, and height would only come into play with intervening obstacles. In practice it's a faster, not slower, system than getting down to model's-eye view to check whether an outstretched hand is actually visible.
leopard wrote: just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn
There's no need to tie it to size or stratagem.
Just make it a general move option.
Works just fine in Bolt Action - a unit can be ordered to "go down". Makes it harder to hit at the cost of not moving or shooting. It doesn't matter if the unit is a tank/vehicle, men modled standing up, crouching, or lying prone.
leopard wrote: just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn
There's no need to tie it to size or stratagem.
Just make it a general move option.
Works just fine in Bolt Action - a unit can be ordered to "go down". Makes it harder to hit at the cost of not moving or shooting. It doesn't matter if the unit is a tank/vehicle, men modled standing up, crouching, or lying prone.
and thats basically my point, it should just be a core rule, comment was basically how GW would make it a strat, and screw it up
this should be basic military training stuff, models can "advance" already, its sort of the reverse for "cautious" movement for a defensive adjustment, of whatever sort.
See also how Flames of War allows infantry to be concealed in the open if they do not move, and can then also go to ground for a bonus to defence
You make the model height a stat on each datasheet having nothing to do with base size. Tying height to base size doesn't work when you have vehicles taking up more horizontal space than giants.
Height, sure. But what about a model's width?
Base size is better than what we have now even if its not standardized.... or they could just standardize it.
a general "size" stat would be useful, would have it default to zero, then +/-1 as a to hit modifier representing the targets general "how can you miss that" through to "eck thats a bit small" stuff
combining with other modifiers under the cap or max +/-1
You make the model height a stat on each datasheet having nothing to do with base size. Tying height to base size doesn't work when you have vehicles taking up more horizontal space than giants.
Height, sure. But what about a model's width?
Base size is better than what we have now even if its not standardized.... or they could just standardize it.
Let me try and better illustrate the issue:
Spoiler:
You've got models like this, which are infantry-sized, yet would have a comparable volume to a dreadnought because of their stupid diorama bases.
But even more importantly, you've got models like this:
Spoiler:
If you try to use the same volume cylinder that Infinity uses, then you're saying a significant chunk of the model doesn't count for LoS purposes. Not just antenna or such but substantial parts of the main hull.
And if you instead disregard the base then you're right back to square one in terms of what parts of the hull do or don't count.
Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.
The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.
Well, really, nothing stops GW from producing bigger bases to encompasse said vehicule.
Plus, if in doubt about whether or not it is visible, then get the silhouette and check.
I really don't think any shape of form would actually be impossible to categorise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The issue then would probably migrate from rules to GW actually trying to have rule and miniature departments work hand in hand to get consistent results - and not change them too often once they are good enough.
As a side benefit, putting a lot of those grav tanks on a Knight base would solve some weird rules interactions due to 10th's "measure from the base"-only approach.
If your suggested rules change requires a new stat for every model in the game or new bases for dozens of kits can we stop pretending that GW are idiots for not doing it?
leopard wrote: Flames of War, at least in its earlier versions, had "declarative movement", worked well
"this unit is moving here to be hull down behind this ridge", "these infantry are moving here so that artillery spotter cannot see them" - that was then time for an opponent to question this, maybe noting they needed to move further etc
removed a lot of debate when playing with sensible people, when you got a response along the lines of "well we will see when I come to shoot won't we" it told you a lot about the player
That's a method of play that has been forwarded in competitive 40k for 5 years now.
LunarSol wrote: Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.
The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.
Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?
That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?
From a gameplay perspective its entirely reasonable, yes, but I'm also not trying to get LOS by drawing lines so I don't really care what the cylinder looks like. If you want to hide the model, you park the entire base behind an object defined taller than its height stat. Better than arguing over whether or not she can be wounded by picking off one of those birds.
LunarSol wrote: Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.
The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.
Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?
That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?
Seems fine to me. Models aren't utterly static, so the base representing the width of their footprint for seeing and being seen isn't a problem. Lemartes is quite a thin model and takes up probably about 60% of the width of his 32mm base when viewed from the front but I think we can safely assume the guy isn't zooming forward in that exact pose all game and the base is a good representation of the area he generally occupies.
I really can't figure out why it's so hard for people to grasp the concept of a model's base and/or type being used to determine its size. Of course, with a system like this you also probably need a little bit of restraint from the sculptors. Putting some random SM character on an 80mm base to facilitate his huge tactical rock wouldn't be a thing, for example. The model used as an example here is borderline in this regard, but still fine, IMO.
vict0988 wrote: If your suggested rules change requires a new stat for every model in the game or new bases for dozens of kits can we stop pretending that GW are idiots for not doing it?
Adding a stat isn't hard work that GW isnt willing to do, they did it with OC, they can do it with a "height" stat too.
As for requiring new bases for kits, yeah thats a better criticism than saying the proposed rule itself would somehow slow down the game or wouldnt apply to models like the triumph.
A fix (without rebasing) would be to include a top-down view of the vehicle's area. Or feth it, just say its supposed to be on a base and let players use that info to approximate. SW:Legion has all its models on bases, even vehicles and it makes for a much nicer aesthetic IMO, where the whole force seems to be present in the same environment.
Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?
That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?
yes, because that way you can model your hospitaler (is that what that model is?) anyway you want.
And theres abrastraction in the game already, the space a model occupies isnt a precise thing, or are you saying that dante litterally always has that "landing" pose and just glides everywhere with his tactical rock?
Spoiler:
Right now, TLOS feels bad because it assumes models cannot position themselves in a smart way (raised sword arm behind a wall for example). Saying "ALL of LoS is now abstracted to cylinders" suddenly doesnt make it feel bad because LoS is unrelated to modeling
So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?
Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.
It just seems daft. Again, if we assume models aren't static, things move, if it's not rational to think that dove sticking out represented the hospitalers backpack appearing overwhelming top, or her helmet, as she climbs over the wounded person on the base, the I don't se how firing at empty space because "she might be there" is any more rational really?
Personal perspective, not saying one is better or worse than the other, nor that GW are doing it right, just that the logic on display is causing a dissonance for me.
for me shooting at a cylinder that is roughly where the "core" of the body is on a base is an abstraction that makes more sense than shooting at something like the end of the staff of the rightmost sorcerer.
Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.
But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.
Karol wrote: Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.
But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.
No, because the store owner wouldn't let you play with cylinders, neither would people who bought armies. I don't see where the similarity lies here. TLoS for a game with a medicore terrain system and a large number of models is a detriment to quality of the game expiriance.
It is like, as if you tried to claim that in a game, the most important part of it, is not if the goals are the right and same size, but rather that everyone has to wear the proper shorts, socks and T-shirts. Because if they don't it breaks the immersion of watching a football game. IMO sacrificing the game quality for esthetics is just wrong.
Or if GW wants the game to be run with TLoS, then make it so it is played with 15-20 models, max 1 big thing and 1-2 medium things with infinity type density of terrain.
But GW is not going to do that, as they do want everyone to have to spend their minimum on building a 2000pts army.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.
It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?
As in literally the game aids are this:
Spoiler:
Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?
The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.
Karol wrote: Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.
But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
Nope. I play miniatures games. I won't even waste my time on it as a thought exercise.
Dudeface wrote:So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?
It's all an abstraction. Some abstractions are better than others. 'Core' space represents more than a bird on a 20 foot stick.
Dudeface wrote:
Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.
Disagree. Its a pragmatic solution. You can keep awesome models but minimise in-game friction. Worked a treat when I played wmh. Infinity too.
Dudeface wrote:
Karol wrote: Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.
But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.
It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?
As in literally the game aids are this:
Spoiler:
Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?
The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.
Uh huh, and what silhouette represents what, exactly? Pragmatically speaking, as it were? And not as some silly 'internet grammar gotcha!'? When you've got a hundred of term on the board all representing different things? Dont be that guy defending 'these empty bases are primaris and these empty bases are orks
Truth is, Considering the whole damn point of this Hobby is painting and putting together the miniatures in the first place if you were to drop thse bases with shapes on them and try anc be serious, id laugh, refuse to take you seriously
pick up, laugh again and walk away.
Dudeface wrote: So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?
Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.
It just seems daft. Again, if we assume models aren't static, things move, if it's not rational to think that dove sticking out represented the hospitalers backpack appearing overwhelming top, or her helmet, as she climbs over the wounded person on the base, the I don't se how firing at empty space because "she might be there" is any more rational really?
Personal perspective, not saying one is better or worse than the other, nor that GW are doing it right, just that the logic on display is causing a dissonance for me.
Tell me you don't have a high school level understanding of chemistry without telling me you don't have a high school level understanding of chemistry
Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?
The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.
Because the people who already invested in to armies, and the shop owners where people play the game, will not let someone waltz in with bottle caps glued to bases and play. I really understand the stand point you are having. And yes, the "tube" is needed when both players disagree on visibility. The same they do with TLoS. The difference between that system and TLoS is, that if GW decides that my dude should have his halabard pointing upwards, I am not getting punished, because the size of an infantry/tank/knight class thing is fixed. Problems like do I see X behind ruins are gone. No more shoting in to banners, outstreched hands, wings etc GW modeled your dudes kneeling with their sniper rifles? no problem seeing over a wall. GW decided to give your raven lord a stand with a litteral wall as a base? you are no longer being sniped from the other side of the table. Terrain no longer has to be only L shaped and higher then a knight.
Also you remove models from the game all the time. When they die, when they move. if the model physicaly leaving the table is such a big problem, then I can not even imagine how you are actualy (as in technicaly terms) you play the game.
Dudeface wrote:So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?
It's all an abstraction. Some abstractions are better than others. 'Core' space represents more than a bird on a 20 foot stick.
Dudeface wrote:
Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.
Disagree. Its a pragmatic solution. You can keep awesome models but minimise in-game friction. Worked a treat when I played wmh. Infinity too.
These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.
Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.
No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.
It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?
As in literally the game aids are this:
Spoiler:
Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?
The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.
Uh huh, and what silhouette represents what, exactly? Pragmatically speaking, as it were? And not as some silly 'internet grammar gotcha!'? When you've got a hundred of term on the board all representing different things? Dont be that guy defending 'these empty bases are primaris and these empty bases are orks
Truth is, Considering the whole damn point of this Hobby is painting and putting together the miniatures in the first place if you were to drop thse bases with shapes on them and try anc be serious, id laugh, refuse to take you seriously
pick up, laugh again and walk away.
I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary. As to what that cylinder represents? On the narrative justification sense; the potential space your mini can possibly occupy in that "game second" when someone is firing. What it represents in a practical sense is a volumetric area to make cover rules simpler to implement irrespective of the models used that is likely to be detached from the dimensions of the mini itself.
I agree that the minis are what draws people into the mini, they're important, hence when I see a method that basically makes them irrelevant for gameplay purposes and is touted as better, it seems a little odd to me.
Gamewise, Models still would be a huge benefit for referencing what unit of what type of soldiers holds what equipment. I mean, you can do it with NATO signs but this quickly gets as messy as playing with bottle caps. What's more, I'm pretty sure many people are in for the minis first. Otherwise you could solve the problem of Line of sight by playing a game such as Rossiya 1917 at divisionary level.
There's still a pragmatic use to models in the games we're talking about here.
I feel the mods looming over us ready to terminate this thread at any turn because it's no longer got anything to do with the original question by the way
One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.
Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.
I really can't figure out why it's so hard for people to grasp the concept of a model's base and/or type being used to determine its size.
The base and type doesn't work because there are so many varying sized models on the same sized base, and models of a given type likewise come in a huge range of different physical sizes. A separate 'Size' stat would be the only option that would work for 40K without resculpting or rebasing a huge chunk of the miniature range... at which point you're adding an additional stat to remember, for which you need to remember the height that corresponds to. That's not super-difficult, but it is additional mental space for something that proponents of the silhouette system admit is only an edge case.
Clarity in the rules is a worthy goal, but if you're adding a bunch of extra stuff for players to remember for situations that rarely actually arise, the question has to be asked whether those rules are actually necessary.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.
Despite really liking Infinity and supporting height and base stats as a mechanic, I don't like drawing sight as a line with cylinders. While I think its an improvement in the sense that you can no longer model for advantage, it's still effectively a TLOS system and results in a lot of subjective model placement and arguments. I prefer a system where models have a height stat and you assign heights to terrain as one of their properties. Larger terrain blocks LOS. It just a very clean way that lets players position their models with clear intent of LOS.
Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.
LunarSol wrote: Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.
The flip side of that is that if your buildings all count as solid walls anyway, then you are forcing players to play with big solid walls, regardless of how they are modeled. I'd rather have terrain that has parts you can see through, and leave the full LOS blocking for the terrain that actually blocks LOS. A good table should have a mix of both.
It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?
As in literally the game aids are this:
Spoiler:
Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?
The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.
Because actual minis look better than play aids, like thats not hard to grasp at all.
And the "swap the mini for the template" scenario rarely happens, only for the weirdest fething angles, usually its pretty obvious if you have LoS or not, but thats been explained multiple times on here already
I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning.
bruh ..... youre reaching HARD on that one
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.
what human sized model comes on a 60mm+ base? genuinely asking, unless you consider stuff smaller than 60mm to be for monstrous creatures
I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning.
bruh ..... youre reaching HARD on that one
This isn't a reach at all. If the rules solely use the base and an arbitrary height, and there is no interaction with the physical model, then the physical model is irrelevant. It's only there to look pretty.
insaniak wrote: Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.
what human sized model comes on a 60mm+ base? genuinely asking, unless you consider stuff smaller than 60mm to be for monstrous creatures
No idea, I haven't been keeping up with GW's releases that closely. It was an impression based on the models I've seen, rather than an objective fact. There are plenty of human-sized models on 40-50mm bases, though, and in most cases they only need that size base because of extreme posing or the inclusion of tactical rubble.
This isn't a reach at all. If the rules solely use the base and an arbitrary height, and there is no interaction with the physical model, then the physical model is irrelevant. It's only there to look pretty.
Determining unit size and loadouts?
And yeah, we could play current 40k with cardboard cutouts from the back of the boxes if we really wanted or even just random printed pictures (poorhammer anyone?)
I'm unsure how that whole argument is pertinent when talking about silhouette systems tho? Is it supposed to be a "haha, ackhually, silhouettes dont work" ?
No idea, I haven't been keeping up with GW's releases that closely. It was an impression based on the models I've seen, rather than an objective fact. There are plenty of human-sized models on 40-50mm bases, though, and in most cases they only need that size base because of extreme posing or the inclusion of tactical rubble.
honestly, is that really a problem anyway? If GW decided that a guardsmen needed to be on a 100mm base, so be it, the model should still have that big of a footprint considering base size is already a relevant metric in the system
Empty bases with the weapon name written on them will serve the same purpose.
I'm unsure how that whole argument is pertinent when talking about silhouette systems tho? Is it supposed to be a "haha, ackhually, silhouettes dont work" ?
Not at all. It's simply an observation, as explained earlier, that the silhouette system makes the models irrelevant, while using TLOS means the models have an actual function beyond looking pretty. Whether or not that matters is obviously going to be a matter of personal preference.
honestly, is that really a problem anyway? If GW decided that a guardsmen needed to be on a 100mm base, so be it, the model should still have that big of a footprint considering base size is already a relevant metric in the system
For determining LOS, yes, if you're tying LOS to base size, then the size of the base is relevant, and some bases being too large is a problem, particularly when other similar models have smaller bases... If a human sized model occupies a cylinder of a specific size, then all human sized models should occupy that same sized cylinder.
Conversely, a TLOS system should also make allowances for posing, so that a model crouching down, a model standing up, and a model with a backbanner* leaping into the air off a giant pile of rubble while accompanied by a purely decorative flock of cyborg cherubs should all be treated the same, so that you don't penalise players based on how the model is sculpted or how they choose to build it.
ProfSrlojohn wrote: One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.
Despite really liking Infinity and supporting height and base stats as a mechanic, I don't like drawing sight as a line with cylinders. While I think its an improvement in the sense that you can no longer model for advantage, it's still effectively a TLOS system and results in a lot of subjective model placement and arguments. I prefer a system where models have a height stat and you assign heights to terrain as one of their properties. Larger terrain blocks LOS. It just a very clean way that lets players position their models with clear intent of LOS.
Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.
For what it's worth, most legion vehicle units fit this very neatly, really the only ones that come to mind where this doesn't fully work are some of the Wookie vehicles, certain speeders, and maybe the Droid AAT tank where the turret can extend a good ways away from the hull and base. Other than that, basically everything in legion fits pretty nicely on their base, and even those they fit on them enough it's not that bad of a issue.
As for terrain hight, Legion splits things into Light cover, heavy cover, and none. Generally it's up to the players to decide, but generally it's less than half, half, and none obscured respectively.
insaniak wrote: Not at all. It's simply an observation, as explained earlier, that the silhouette system makes the models irrelevant, while using TLOS means the models have an actual function beyond looking pretty. Whether or not that matters is obviously going to be a matter of personal preference.
Unless you are modeling for competitive advantage, that's all models are supposed to do.
Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).
All miniatures games are abstractions, and it is to GW's credit that they found a way to keep a game going for decades without every figuring out exactly what the abstraction part is.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).
There has never been a version of 40K where a model would have been able to count cover from its own base, and attempting to do so would be a fairly guaranteed way of cutting the game short.
And the six-inch spire of rock is only a bonus if the rules allow it to be so. Which I addressed previously. But even if the rules technically allow it, there's nothing forcing an opponent to play against you when you plonk a model like that on the table, so, you know, good luck with it.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).
There has never been a version of 40K where a model would have been able to count cover from its own base, and attempting to do so would be a fairly guaranteed way of cutting the game short.
You forgot to add the "yet." Give it time.
And the six-inch spire of rock is only a bonus if the rules allow it to be so. Which I addressed previously. But even if the rules technically allow it, there's nothing forcing an opponent to play against you when you plonk a model like that on the table, so, you know, good luck with it.
But what about a prone model?
I mean, if models matter, tean they will matter, and people will game them just like everything else.
That's why having a common understanding of size, terrain, their ability to conform to terrain, etc. is the way to go.
I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.
Which is exactly what I've been saying is the way I would prefer it to work.
The model is used as a reference for what should be visible, but players should allow some leeway for posing. Essentially you use the physical size of the model, not its pose, to determine whether or not you have LOS to it. That's how it worked back in 2nd edition, and how it has sort of worked in various other editions.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.
Which is exactly what I've been saying is the way I would prefer it to work.
The model is used as a reference for what should be visible, but players should allow some leeway for posing. Essentially you use the physical size of the model, not its pose, to determine whether or not you have LOS to it. That's how it worked back in 2nd edition, and how it has sort of worked in various other editions.
If you are asking me if 2nd ed.'s LOS rules were the best, you know what my answer will be.
I think the question is whether models should be assumed to be consistent, and that edition was clear that base size mattered, as did the size class (recall the distinction between "troops" and "monstrous" critters).
The Infinity system seems intuitive, and I suspect people who know it would internalize that X unit has Y size/width elements, and tailor their shooting accordingly.
Since no one asked, our 2nd ed. group will ask before moving about certain terrain so that everyone is on the same page. We love the urban nightmare battlefields, and our rule is that models adjacent to any wall will be presumed to have broken windows/punched holes allowing them to fire from hard cover. This also puts them in LOS once they shoot, but they could start hidden.
Models an inch away from the wall, however, are out of LOS, regardless of how the building is shaped.
Now, when fighting inside the building, that depends on the structure, and we go over that during terrain setup.
Honestly, that's the time when all this can be worked out. As the terrain is set, a discussion ensues about what counts as what, and everyone is on the same page when the bolters start firing.
All this talk of a codified LoS system such as those used in many other games leading to people not using models seems like such a red herring to me. Infinity games all seem to use miniatures on the tabletop. Even WM/H, which was famous for its hordes of grey models always used the actual models to play with, at least where I'm from. You could play without the miniatures, but it just doesn't seem to happen.
Using a silhouette-style system, or a size system as 40k briefly used, allows for more creative modelling, not less. You don't have to worry if your cool conversion is going to put you at a huge disadvantage because there are bits sticking out everywhere. You don't have to worry about being accused of modelling for advantage by converting a model to be crouching or prone. I just can't understand why people think it's immersion breaking to assume a roughly human-sized model takes up the same general volume as another, but it's not immersion breaking that you can shoot the blade of a sword sticking out on a sergeant model, or the top of Dante's axe because he's apparently permanently fixed in that pose.
There are abstractions in both systems. One set of abstractions seems like a sensible modelling of reality given the constraints of the models we use. The other leads to all sorts of bizarre situations or the requirement for house rules about what counts for LoS.
These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.
Some level of abstraction is required, regardless.
One is better for gaming, full stop. Regardless of whether it's narrative, competitive, pick-up etc. The alternative isn't more 'immersive' either, it's just clunky.
I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary.
.
I think its less a case of one overrides the other and rather both are equally important. Function and form. And its not like infinity fans treat their models (or painting) with contempt - like gw, corvus belli value the 'look'. infinity's range is sublime and its aesthetics and quality are one of its main draws.
In terms of rules writing, Gw continues as they do because they don't do 'technical' writing, it's all 'flowery prose'. Gw rules, as we all know, are often awful. Corvus belli are more like privateer press than gw in that they lean towards clean, technically accurate rules.
I completely disagree that 'cylinders' makes the miniature itself 'secondary' in any sense. Abztract Cylinders support the use of miniatures when it comes to their practical use (ie gaming), they dont override or replace. Like i said above its form and function. And cb clearly love their minis. The infinity fans also love their minis. If the minis were secondary, they wouldnt give a hoot about the aesthetics/quality nor would they have the likes of angel.giraldez painting them.
While The game isn't necessarily more important than modelling/collecting, it completes the circle. Clean, sensible and intuitive rules doesnt take away from awesome minis. you need clean rules. Abstract cylinders for los help the game side of things just as much as the various tokens etc that you can drop on the board as visual aids. It's a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That's been coming back in this topic but GW seems to terribly lack cooperation and consistancy between rules and miniatures' departments, and I'd say it has an impact on how they interact in the end, then leading to even more unstable or awkwards rules, leading to reboots...
They would really benefit from coming together and trying to work with common goals and requirements in mind.
These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.
Some level of abstraction is required, regardless.
One is better for gaming, full stop. Regardless of whether it's narrative, competitive, pick-up etc. The alternative isn't more 'immersive' either, it's just clunky.
I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary.
.
I think its less a case of one overrides the other and rather both are equally important. Function and form. And its not like infinity fans treat their models (or painting) with contempt - like gw, corvus belli value the 'look'. infinity's range is sublime and its aesthetics and quality are one of its main draws.
In terms of rules writing, Gw continues as they do because they don't do 'technical' writing, it's all 'flowery prose'. Gw rules, as we all know, are often awful. Corvus belli are more like privateer press than gw in that they lean towards clean, technically accurate rules.
I completely disagree that 'cylinders' makes the miniature itself 'secondary' in any sense. Abztract Cylinders support the use of miniatures when it comes to their practical use (ie gaming), they dont override or replace. Like i said above its form and function. And cb clearly love their minis. The infinity fans also love their minis. If the minis were secondary, they wouldnt give a hoot about the aesthetics/quality nor would they have the likes of angel.giraldez painting them.
While The game isn't necessarily more important than modelling/collecting, it completes the circle. Clean, sensible and intuitive rules doesnt take away from awesome minis. you need clean rules. Abstract cylinders for los help the game side of things just as much as the various tokens etc that you can drop on the board as visual aids. It's a good thing.
Very well worded response, thank you. Again I agree the minis are the key to the hobby, and infinity minis are especially well sculpted. As long as people are enjoying the game and the rules aren't jarring for them then that's a fantastic outcome. I think it's also ok for it not to gel with me, there is no one perfect solution for everyone and as much as I know people can't understand the cylinders = minis are less relevant angle (I wouldn't play with just a load of cylinders either fwiw) again, I think that's fine as I do have a weird perspective on things sometimes.
I think the GWLoS rules need some improvements irrespective, regardless what form those take but I can see how the Infinity system is more gameplay driven where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products which isn't exactly a solid foundation.
Dudeface wrote: ...where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products ...
While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.
It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.
*The 'so long as...' bit there admittedly does some heavy lifting, but as has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, 40K's rules have never been written for hard-bitten, tournament play. It's a game that is intended to be played by like-minded people who make that social contract to work together for a better experience. They've always been fairly clear on that point.
Dudeface wrote: ...where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products ...
While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.
It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.
*The 'so long as...' bit there admittedly does some heavy lifting, but as has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, 40K's rules have never been written for hard-bitten, tournament play. It's a game that is intended to be played by like-minded people who make that social contract to work together for a better experience. They've always been fairly clear on that point.
This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.
its one of those things that only ever really crops up with "TFG" type players pushing this or some other rule to absurdity and then getting it pushed back
the rules are too fragile for it, state intent when moving e.g. "I'm moving here to be out of sight of that unit but to be able to see this other one" and move on, if neither player extract the urine its very seldom an issue
where it is I find the following guideline helps
its a wargame, stuff should explode, err on the side of stuff exploding
I don't think it's remotely TFG to put a model assembled just as it comes from GW behind cover and then notice, huh, nobody can see it and it can't see anyone, that isn't right, how do we handle this?
It's something that can usually be resolved on the fly but I'd submit that if you've never, ever run into a LOS question that you had to roll off for or have a significant discussion about, you haven't played much 40K. See also: vehicle obscuration percentages.
insaniak wrote:Conversely, a TLOS system should also make allowances for posing, so that a model crouching down, a model standing up, and a model with a backbanner* leaping into the air off a giant pile of rubble while accompanied by a purely decorative flock of cyborg cherubs should all be treated the same, so that you don't penalise players based on how the model is sculpted or how they choose to build it.
That's the entire point of the silhouette system, except in a coherent and codified way rather than 'well, like, just imagine if he was crouching and had no tactical rock, he'd totally fit behind that wall', let alone 'okay, so going by the webstore I think the official model is just a little smaller than my conversion...'
Again, you are seriously overstating the complexity of a deterministic LOS system or the cognitive load it imposes in play. The overwhelming majority of the time it's just TLOS, until you do hit those edge cases where LOS isn't immediately obvious, and then having the silhouette system resolves it quicker than trying to get to model's-eye view to figure out whether you can see the LOS-eligible hand or just the non-LOS-eligible sword.
Outside of GW this is a solved problem. But GW has some real not invented here syndrome when it comes to their design.
that gun team can go behind any wall a guardsman can see over and fire/be fired at, no issues from me
used to playing games with crouching and prone models on bases, weirdly its only ever 40k where this sort of thing seems to crop up, historical games for example just never seem to have this issue
stick models on good looking bases, mini diorama etc, no problems there
my point was the sort of person who does have a problem with it tends to be someone you will have all shades of problems with anyway
Agreed. That's also a common understanding that comes back regularly: if you play with nice people, you'll have no problem solving issues in a friendly manners. Problems come up when people start being douches.
However, while ultimately, it is up to the players to make sure everyone involves enjoys himself, this does in no way excuse bad rules or for that matter rules churn because "well ya know it's nothing you can just agree to be nice and patch every bad rule we designed" continuously, thus perpetuating a circle of writing bad, unchecked rules and suffering no backlash because of it.
GW's relative monopoly over the market makes them probably extremely confident that they can wave away any criticism because after all, people get along by themselves and keep playing (buying).
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: Agreed. That's also a common understanding that comes back regularly: if you play with nice people, you'll have no problem solving issues in a friendly manners. Problems come up when people start being douches.
However, while ultimately, it is up to the players to make sure everyone involves enjoys himself, this does in no way excuse bad rules or for that matter rules churn because "well ya know it's nothing you can just agree to be nice and patch every bad rule we designed" continuously, thus perpetuating a circle of writing bad, unchecked rules and suffering no backlash because of it.
GW's relative monopoly over the market makes them probably extremely confident that they can wave away any criticism because after all, people get along by themselves and keep playing (buying).
Sure, I'll send them another Email/letter/smoke signal detailing the issues & wave my fist angerly at the in the direction of Nottingham.
Maybe they'll listen this time.
They don't seem to have paid much attention over the last 30 years, but maybe THIS time....
Meanwhile, as I await thier response, I've got games to get on with playing. Several of them 40k/AoS.
I'd prefer a game written to the same level as Star fleet Battles personally, which for all the flak it sometimes gets for being able to kill your opponent with the rule book is well written, consistent and comprehensive
I suspect I may be in a minority though
40k is designed to sell models, the rules are set out to not get in the way of this (hence why "bring anything!" is a thing), fully expecting allies to be brought back at some point as well in various ways to further push this
any rule that means a new player gives up in frustration is a "bad rule" regardless of how good it is at leading to a better actual game
its never going to get better, sadly, destined to be some very nice models (and some horrible ones) with rules that are more or less an afterthought
but a game that can be a fun way to spend a few hours with friends
insaniak wrote: While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.
The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.
Indeed, whenever GW comes to the fork in the road between "needless complexity" and "elegant simplicity" we know which path they choose.
Indeed, if GW wanted to keep things simple, they wouldn't change the entire rule book every three to five years.
Just having a stable system with years of feedback, FAQs and unwritten understanding of how it works would solve almost every rules problem. As someone else said a while back, does Battle Tech have any rules questions left at this point?
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.
I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"
Indeed, if GW wanted to keep things simple, they wouldn't change the entire rule book every three to five years.
I think you're confusing the company's corporate goals with those of the design studio, there.
I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"
Because you would internalize the idea that it's representational and not literal.
Also, GW players can estimate size and distance pretty darn well. People were sniping with Great Cannon and catapults to the quarter of an inch from across the tabletop for years.
Most (if not all) have at least one finger whose length will correspond in some way with either inches or centimeters. I guess those without, can mark their prostheses. Either way, it's not that hard to gauge height if the base is known.
It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.
And then GW adds towering and 10th ed overwatch combined with fate dice, and a WK is blowing up a unit on the opponents turn. A size system removes the problem of two people having to argue what ever a model is 45% seen or 50%. In fact it is so clear you don't have to engage in talking with the other person at all. On top of that is universal. Removes the problem of "but at my store we play with first floor blocking LoS no matter how many windows it has.
Good rules stay good. Rules that require the opponent to be a good person, and do what you want AND neither of the person wanting to use a clear adventage is bound to fail and create negative expiriances for players. Especialy when playing strangers or in new places.
Dudeface wrote: This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.
All it takes is one person in your group to play it exactly as written and you'll see it taken to the extreme: Whole squads vulnerable becase of the tip of a gun barrel. Tanks blown to pieces because of an antenna sticking out above a hill. And so on.
There's nothing intuative about TLOS. Being fast doesn't make it better.
The shooting phase is faster with the current line of sight rules since it is very easy to see if you have line of sight or not.
On the other hand the current line of sight rules make movement slower since you have to put much more effort in trying to hide your models so not a single chainsword or antenna is sticking out and dooming an entire squad.
If they at least added more modifiers for movement, distance or obstructions and made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit(defender can pick any model as casualty so not possible to snipe individual models) then it would actually help speed the game up since then you don't have to be so careful in your movement phase. If 1 guy sticks out a bit then it's fine. He will get some nice cover bonuses and at worst die. But right now that tip of a barrel can doom his entire squad.
It also makes terrain much more boring.
Line of sight rules, shooting modifiers, lethality, weapon ranges, model speeds and terrain rules all need to be made with each other in mind to have a good experience and good mechanics. If some parts, like line of sight, movement and weapon ranges as in modern 40k, are very generous then it forces the game to be either quite non lethal in the shooting phase or have there be a ton of line of sight blocking terrain that mitigates those factors.
You didn't need as much terrain in some of the earlier editions because models had shorter weapon ranges on a larger table. If they moved to get better shooting angles they were usually penalized quite harshly for it. Most models were also slower and if there were terrain in the way it slowed models down even more. Models in cover also got huge protection bonuses against high powered weapons compared to what they get now. In such an environment the current line of sight rules could probably work since there were other limits than just pure line of sight to make the game less lethal. But now its all about if a model can be seen or not and thus it makes effective terrain quite boring and one dimensional.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.
I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"
I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play.
One problem may be that the Infinity system works fine but it was presented ITT without the context of the game itself and the models. In reality, it's just a system that defines height because the width of the silhouette is equal to the model's base. It makes much more sense and is much more intuitive when seen alongside the models in an actual game situation.
Dudeface wrote: This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.
All it takes is one person in your group to play it exactly as written and you'll see it taken to the extreme: Whole squads vulnerable becase of the tip of a gun barrel. Tanks blown to pieces because of an antenna sticking out above a hill. And so on.
There's nothing intuative about TLOS. Being fast doesn't make it better.
Yup. Not so long ago in another thread I wrote:
Cyel wrote: I get what you're saying. It was only after I moved from wh40k to Warmachine when it suddenly turned out that knowing and following the rules and measuring distances neatly and transparently makes you a good player and a desirable opponent and not a ruleslawyering powergamer.
Now I started playing Kill Team, and, what do you know, there are some players in the group who just misinterpret the rules and do impossible things when it comes to distances (interestingly only when it favours them) but when you play correctly they look down on you making comments on how they are casual players and leave such approach to tournament powergamers who just want to win at all cost.
and this is exactly an example of that. If playing by the rules makes me "that guy" in some of my opponents' eyes it means these are just pretty bad rules.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.
I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"
I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play.
One problem may be that the Infinity system works fine but it was presented ITT without the context of the game itself and the models. In reality, it's just a system that defines height because the width of the silhouette is equal to the model's base. It makes much more sense and is much more intuitive when seen alongside the models in an actual game situation.
Honestly Malifaux has a much easier LoS system.
That fence? Height 1. This gremlin? Height 1. This human? Height 2. The gremlin is obscured and out of LoS, the human gets partial cover. Anything Height 3 or higher gets nothing.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
I'm with you there, I'm pretty sure this has existed in a past edition as well?
I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"
again
In infinity, you only ever need to actually use the templates once per 10 game, and in infinity, LoS is much more complicated than in 40k.
(shooting a sniper through a car, between two bushes to hit the top of the head of a guy behind a garbage container)
Spoiler:
Example where we wouldnt even need silhouettes, add a bush in front of the target and then maybe we'd use a silhouette
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.
Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?
vict0988 wrote: A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines.
Plus, if a mini can't fit, in say, a tunnel then the silouhrtte system comes in handy because you can use it instead of the mini for reference. Further point to it.
Finding points in favor of a silhouette system is easy, but it's easy to find points in favor of removing the psychic phase and all the useless psychic powers, I'm saying it's complicated because needing cylindrical tokens to stand in for your models is a hassle, it might be worthwhile to some, but it'd be a huge change, much bigger than anything 10th edition did and people complain that it changed too many things. It's possible to find points in favour of Stratagems despite a lot of people hating them. Making the perfect 40k edition isn't easy, it requires iterating and constructive criticism from fans. Implementing D12s into 40k would require a huge amount of changes and wouldn't add much to the game.
vict0988 wrote: A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines.
Do you have knees and/or a waist?
What a great image, Space Marines walking on their knees, squats jumping in the air so they can be shot. If you want Space Marine-sized squats put them on tactical rocks and if you want squat-sized Marines have them laying down, I don't care, it's all pie in the sky gak anyway.
The implementation of capture weight and unique abilities for every unit in 10th has been awful. Rules should first and foremost represent the fluff, secondly each unit should have a niche. Random abilities that have nothing to do with anything and randomly generated objective control numbers add nothing to the game. The game would be far better served with a handful more USR including sticky objectives and objective secured instead of this new nonsense stat and the countless nonsense abilities.
vict0988 wrote: Finding points in favor of a silhouette system is easy, but it's easy to find points in favor of removing the psychic phase and all the useless psychic powers, I'm saying it's complicated because needing cylindrical tokens to stand in for your models is a hassle, it might be worthwhile to some, but it'd be a huge change, much bigger than anything 10th edition did and people complain that it changed too many things. It's possible to find points in favour of Stratagems despite a lot of people hating them. Making the perfect 40k edition isn't easy, it requires iterating and constructive criticism from fans.
Given people are now complaining that they've "changed core rules" to improve things, I'd say they cannot ever get it right for some.
I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play..
I don't think I am. I don't recall claiming at any point that it was complex. Merely that it's not as simple as just looking at the table to see what you can see. Whether or not it's a huge mental load, it's an additional one, as it adds extra things to remember or lookup which only apply to edge cases, compared to just 'I can see what I can see'.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?
Or that 1 in 10 heavy weapon?
If it's the only visible model... yes? Not sure what point you're trying to spin there.
A reasonable proposal I've seen for LoS and Rhino Sniping is as follows:
The defending player chooses which models to remove. However, if at any point there are no more models in LoS of the attacking unit, any further shots (that require LoS) are lost.
So, if they set it up with terrain or vehicles or whatever to take out your one Lascannon, you can either remove the Lascannon first, losing only one model; or you can keep it and take casualties out of line of sight, requiring more shots to take down the heavy weapon.
For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.
* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb
lord_blackfang wrote: For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.
* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb
I forgot about that, I was in a happy place and, for some ungodly reason, assumed people would have a little integrity. But yes, rhino sniping aside, seems better.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?
Or that 1 in 10 heavy weapon?
If it's the only visible model... yes? Not sure what point you're trying to spin there.
That attacker can in essence choose whom he kills.
Term rhino sniping rings a beli? Use rhinos to ensure all your bullets fly to specific model.
lord_blackfang wrote: For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.
* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb
I've never even heard of this. I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but the heavy weapon or sergeant you take is likely not going to compensate for the all-but-assured loss of two Rhinos parking in the open. And of course in the Good Old Days, vehicles could go up with a thunderous roar or flip over on anyone near them.
This does raise another point, though, which is that TLOS isn't simple if you can kill a squad because some dude left his banner pole hanging out. If one is going to use it, really use it - you can't shoot what you can't see. Target model by model, and then we'll see what happens.
Now it was possible for a template weapon to hit models outside of LOS, and I recall a dude who for some reason left a lone marine visible with the rest of the squad out of LOS. Unfortunately, they were within reach of the pie plate template I threw at that guy.
GW always seems to find the sour spot. It's a gift.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I've never even heard of this. I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but the heavy weapon or sergeant you take is likely not going to compensate for the all-but-assured loss of two Rhinos parking in the open. And of course in the Good Old Days, vehicles could go up with a thunderous roar or flip over on anyone near them.
Not so much, by the time rhino sniping was a thing. The most likely outcome of shooting at the vehicle was that it would be unable to shoot back next turn.
And while sergeants or heavy weapons might not be as valuable a trade, that 200 point Captain in the unit is definitely worth potentially trading a 35 point rhino.
Interestingly, there was a similar tactic in 2nd edition, where thanks to fire arcs you didn't even need the rhino... you just had to face your models so that the target you wanted to shoot at was the only thing in their fire arc.
This does raise another point, though, which is that TLOS isn't simple if you can kill a squad because some dude left his banner pole hanging out. If one is going to use it, really use it - you can't shoot what you can't see. Target model by model, and then we'll see what happens.
The premise was that if you can see a single model, then you effectively know where the unit is, and ultimately it was the best solution to rhino sniping. What replaced it was removing casualties from the front (ie: closest to the enemy) which resulted in characters and special weapons needing to be buried inside the unit instead of up front where they would be useful, to stop them from being always being the first casualties
insaniak wrote: The premise was that if you can see a single model, then you effectively know where the unit is, and ultimately it was the best solution to rhino sniping. What replaced it was removing casualties from the front (ie: closest to the enemy) which resulted in characters and special weapons needing to be buried inside the unit instead of up front where they would be useful, to stop them from being always being the first casualties
Yeah, I'm not going to defend any of that nonsense. It drove me out of the game, in fact.
But if you look at the original version in 2nd, it worked and made sense. Yes, it was possible to play "fire arc" games, but your opponent also knew the score and could maneuver accordingly.
And yes, shots flowing from the front typically meant riflemen were in front of the heavies, but isn't that the case today? Does any army doctrine call for the AT weapon or MMG to be put out front to be killed without support? Usually you want those guys back a bit, and one of the neat ways it worked was that while the heavy weapons couldn't move and shoot, the troopers could (Space Marines lost Rapid Fire, but whatever), and so combat became a very fluid affair of subtle maneuver.
Getting back on topic, it was intuitive and consistent. There was even a basic size system so that your gretchen couldn't screen a dreadnought.
If GW had just built on that, refining it, the game would be a much better place than basically wiping the slate clean and starting over.
Oh, and the bases were very much the key part of LOS, so Infinity isn't exactly being innovative here. GW was doing this with WHFB for decades.
But when the design philosophy turned from iterative improvement to constant churn for fun and profit, well, certain sacrifices had to be made.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.
Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?
I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.
What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.
EDIT: For what it's worth, Crusade implies a different understanding of what is signified when a model is removed from the table. In a stand-alone game, when a model is removed, most players say it's "Dead;" in Crusade, being removed from the table merely means the model has been rendered "Combat Ineffective."
Through that lens, the whole "I'm being removed from the table because your bolter shattered my sword" makes at least some sense. Sure, it's debatable whether the destruction of a weapon- particularly a mundane one- would render an operative combat effective, but a hand or a foot would do the trick in most cases..
I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.
What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.
40k used to work like that, only being able to kill the models in a unit you could see, what a great system too, you'd only be as exposed to damage as you'd be outputting in terms of shooting, so if i only put half a squad on the second floor able to shoot and the other half on the bottom floor of a ruin out of los, my firepower is half but so is my exposure to damage. This is also a very good model of real life and why infantry are needed in terms of clearing/holding built up areas.
We don't use them. Most people I know play Titanicus because they fell out of love with 40k upon the introduction of 783 stratagems.
Same, especially now after the matched play book where it's basically a hand of cards, feels like being forced to play magic while also playing AT. Worse still, it's not like they could be asked to actually make the cards easily available, but they'll sure make them a core mechanic of almost every mission/scneaio for some reason.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.
Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?
I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.
What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.
Sure. Care to provide rule that does that without allowing rhino sniping?
Sorry, can you explain what you mean by rhino snipping? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
Do you mean a rhino being destroyed because an antenna is visible?
If so, I'm not sure.
But I'm also not putting vehicles on bases just so that I can draw a silhouette because a base on a Land Raider or a Rhino would look stupid enough to me that I wouldn't want to play regardless of how good the rules were.
So like I said, agnostic about silhouette vs TLOS- pros and cons on both sides. So I'm leaving other people who care more about it than me continue that debate- their arguments on this issue, regardless of their side in the debate, are likely to be more cogent than my own because they are invested in the issue.
I just don't think nine guys behind a building can be killed by bolters because of the one guy who isn't, and conversely, nine guys behind a building shouldn't be able to shoot an enemy unit they can't see just because one guy can.
Fix that and any system- TLOS or Silhouette or something else entirely- is likely to be good enough for me.
Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.
But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.
Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.
PenitentJake wrote: Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.
But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.
Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.
9th edition basically brought back Rhino Sniping for the Black Legion and their +1 to the closest eligible target. Trust me, it wasn't that tough to angle using a building or a couple of vehicles (empty Rhinos work great since they don't have much else to do) to target the real unit I wanted a +1 to shoot. Especially if I had a squad of Legionaries, and I really just wanted the Lascannon to shoot.
And that's where the problem comes in. It doesn't really take a lot of resources to significantly trade up via Rhino sniping. That's why GW nipped it fairly fast.
I find the best solution, as mentioned, is the one that allows the targeted player to decide which models the wounds are put on. Where that player can choose to place them on the exposed models until no exposed models remain, or on the complete concealed models to retain exposed models armed with weapons/powers they'd rather keep.
This creates more interesting decision points in the game. Because sometimes it's better to remove/take the saves on bolter Legionaries just hiding in a building. And Sometimes it's best to lose that heavy weapon instead of the entire squad.
Even on the attackers side, it creates a little more of an interesting dynamic. Going full overkill on a squad that is only partly visible is likely to be a waste, since the targeted player is going to take the visible stuff to keep at least some of the squad around. So target priority requires a tad more consideration.
So there's more risk and reward on both sides. It also tends to promote maneuver to cut the angle to get more/all of the squad. One of the few downsides I've encountered is it makes long range small arms less useful. Something I'm fine with in 40k.
Thrown in a simple and decent suppression mechanic, and 40k starts to have a rudimentary Fire and Maneuver system. Which given the strong assault/melee component of the setting/game should be a core principle of 40kIMO. It shocks me that this game seems near perfect to make use of simplified modern military tactics while further enhancing the fantastical elements, such as glorious melee combat.
Concerning narrative, the weapons used in 40k are very much powerful enough to punch through much of the terrain we use in our games. I know we like to pretend that ruins are tougher to penetrate than terminator armor with a relic Iron Halo and a void shield, but it probably isn't. We can imagine that a targeted squad is being hit with a barrage of gunfire and some of it is hitting those in cover. Conversely, maybe it is hitting the exposed members and the concealed one are taking up their positions and/or weapons relatively quickly. There's more than a few ways for your Mind's Eye Theater to play out the situation beyond, "Legionary Raladrik Foecrusher is attempting to hold back the enemy with his heavy bolter while the rest of his battle brother hide like children in the nearby ruin."
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.
Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?
I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.
What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.
Sure. Care to provide rule that does that without allowing rhino sniping?
You can't, any permutation you do come up with has knock on effects worse than rhino sniping. I'd suggest either "owner allocates damage, once the visible model is removed, stop allocating damage" is the nearest you can get, or simply throw a rulebook at your opponent and call them something unkind.
In the end, in it's gakked over state, 40k would need drastic changes anyway. And if they're for the better - go ahead. But not just in rules: in design philosophy.
Concern would be as to whether or not they'd be able to improve on it rather than change it all over again or kill it under the weight of a thousand silly rules piling on afterwards.
Again, they need to start getting rules and minis departments working togetherw listen to feedbacks, and come back to fixngnand improving an existing solid set of rules rather than throwing zog at the wall and see what will stick.
Again, TLoS has advantages in Bolt action, where to hit modifiers are a thing, where 90% minis are roughly the same height/width because only humans, and were what counts/doesn't counts is written clearly. In 40k with it's modelling emphasis and variety of models and beasts, it won't work just nearly as good.
You yourself said the rules must be done for fluff first. I 100% agree on that about 40k. But this, is nowhere against using RPG dices or silhouette systems - quite the contrary.
PenitentJake wrote: Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.
But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.
Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.
I think you are misunderstanding how it was actually used.
There was this popular guide von the 3++ blog how to use it best, but it's now defunct. Essentially it showed a unit of long fangs aiming at a squad of imperial guardsmen with a heavy weapon team sitting in the back of the squad, but the squad not forming a perfect wall in front of it.
With no rhinos involved, the long fangs would fire 4 krak missiles into the squad and blow up most of the regular guardsmen, with the heavy weapon team alive.
You now drive two rhinos into the path, and create a 1-2mm wide slit which only allows the heavy weapon squad to be seen through it. Suddenly the long fangs, despite shooting the same missiles from the same position at the same unit would be able to kill the heavy weapon squad. Even if there was a guardsman in front of it, that guardsmen would take the first missile before the HWT is killed by the second.
This works for pretty much any unit which has certain members that are more valuable than others, which is a rather common theme for 40k.
You can also do horizontal LoS sniping, like using horde units to block vision to the regular dudes and just kill the ones with banners, raised swords or guns - which traditionally includes a ton of squad leaders and upgrade characters. It would be pure poison for the current leader mechanic which works surprisingly well.
As pointed out, rhino sniping is not limited to rhinos, but could be done with the help of other units, ruins and hills. It was both immersion breaking and fun-draining because it allowed your opponent to eliminated the dangerous aspects many units(and thus, armies) without counterplay. And of course, it was never taken into consideration for balance, as some armies didn't care about single models being sniped (aspects, necrons), while others couldn't snipe as well due the shape of their vehicles or because of the guns they had available.
"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"
now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works
this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable
PenitentJake wrote: Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.
But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.
Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.
In real life you would hit rhino shooting from gap smaller than ammunition...
Show me irl video of abrams shooting through gap of millimeters betmeen 2 friendly vehicles. Go on. I'm sure you have many examples since you claim that's realistic.
So sorry your realism arqument fails.
If there's choice between unrealism to whom defender can do something and unrealism where he can't choose the one defender can deal with his own choices. Don't expose that 1 guy.
That or you need to provide rule that works vs both. Out of los don't die, no rhino sniping and no way for other abuses(repositioning that model replacing other opens up exploitations)
"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"
now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works
this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable
How do you check TLOS if there is two battlewagons, a landraider, a knight, a character on a tactical pile of corpses and a baneblade between the two units trying to shoot each other?
insaniak wrote: The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.
"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"
now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works
this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable
How do you check TLOS if there is two battlewagons, a landraider, a knight, a character on a tactical pile of corpses and a baneblade between the two units trying to shoot each other?
most games that use such manage it reasonably simply, imaginary (or laser) line between the unit observing and its intended victim from above, if nothing other than army models obscure the line, model is visible, that bit is usually obvious. where you have hills, walls etc in the way its a bit more involved sometimes but again generally not too hard
its one thing Flame of War v4 got right over earlier editions where sniping unit leaders by carefully positioning tanks to make the poor sod the only viable target wasn't uncommon
and as for that twin battlewagons, a knight using them as roller skates while a hero climbs a pile of the dead to hit it with a sword and a baneblade is sneaking up is between a marine sniper and that grot who flipped him the bird... well the grot has it coming, though will get cover
unless the pile of the dead is a terrain feature of course
In real life you would hit rhino shooting from gap smaller than ammunition...
Show me irl video of abrams shooting through gap of millimeters betmeen 2 friendly vehicles. Go on. I'm sure you have many examples since you claim that's realistic.
So sorry your realism arqument fails.
Look dude, if a marine is 32 mm tall, and that represents 8ft, a 1mm gap on a table represents a 3 inch gap.
Is it rare for someone to shoot through a three inch gap? Absolutely.
Is it less rare than a guy out of view behind a building dying because his friend in the open got hit? Also yes, because that is a thing that is literally not possible, so my realism argument is fine. And if you want to prove otherwise, how about YOU show us a video of one guy dying when another guy gets hit.
insaniak wrote: The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.
insaniak wrote: The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.
Man I think you would enjoy legion, this basically how legion works. Not exactly, as depending on the number of models in the unit obscured you get cover, which removes 1-2 hits from the attack pool. Which can be anywhere from crippling to barely mattering depending on the unit, but it's very similar. A case where it's not explicitly stated, but due to the nature of the game it generally works out that way. Legion also gets around the "park the vehicle and leaving the heavy weapon visible" problem by drawing targeting LOS from the squad leader, while actual attack LOS made is drawn from the individual models.
"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"
now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works
this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable
How do you check TLOS if there is two battlewagons, a landraider, a knight, a character on a tactical pile of corpses and a baneblade between the two units trying to shoot each other?
In real life you would hit rhino shooting from gap smaller than ammunition...
Show me irl video of abrams shooting through gap of millimeters betmeen 2 friendly vehicles. Go on. I'm sure you have many examples since you claim that's realistic.
So sorry your realism arqument fails.
Look dude, if a marine is 32 mm tall, and that represents 8ft, a 1mm gap on a table represents a 3 inch gap.
Is it rare for someone to shoot through a three inch gap? Absolutely.
Is it less rare than a guy out of view behind a building dying because his friend in the open got hit? Also yes, because that is a thing that is literally not possible, so my realism argument is fine. And if you want to prove otherwise, how about YOU show us a video of one guy dying when another guy gets hit.
Casualties being pulled from anywhere in the squad is, at least in older editions, explicitly identified as an abstraction to represent troops picking up heavy weapons from dead squadmates, moving forward to fill the gap, et cetera. It's not a perfect abstraction, but it is explained and reasonably intuitive.
What's the abstraction behind two Rhinos perfectly positioning so that the guy behind them can only see the enemy squad leader? What does it represent?
Not everything in a wargame needs to be a 1:1 simulation of how things actually work, and the games that try that usually suck. But whatever abstractions a wargame does implement need to be coherent, logical, and readily explainable. Rhino sniping was always a feels-bad experience because it isn't logical; it was an unintended edge case of well-meaning casualty removal rules that tried to be simulationist and in the process created undesirable side effects.
The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
just move to a position where you see more of the squad...
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
Dangle the lascannon of a tac squad in the open, rest of squad out of Los. No matter how hard you try that lascannon would see the game through unless you get a better angle
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
Dangle the lascannon of a tac squad in the open, rest of squad out of Los. No matter how hard you try that lascannon would see the game through unless you get a better angle
1: Oh no I need to manoeuver! Woe is me!
2: Plink one wound at a time from multiple sources to whittle the unit down around the lascannon. Not one wound per turn - one wound per source of incoming fire.
3: Block the lascannon's line of sight. (This might be dangerously close to maneuvering though...)
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
Dangle the lascannon of a tac squad in the open, rest of squad out of Los. No matter how hard you try that lascannon would see the game through unless you get a better angle
If the entire unit is effectively just wounds, and shooting with them holds not value. Then I would surmise that GW has probably failed in other places.
Since being honest, I don’t think this is too much an issue.
They could also use Warmachine style, where the one mini that dies. If it’s imported can replace another mini in the unit, so heavy weapons at least need to move back into position.
Also could create an interesting way to use blast weapons, since they could be blowing up the full unit behind cover. And we certainly need more chances for opportunity options.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
Dangle the lascannon of a tac squad in the open, rest of squad out of Los. No matter how hard you try that lascannon would see the game through unless you get a better angle
1: Oh no I need to manoeuver! Woe is me!
2: Plink one wound at a time from multiple sources to whittle the unit down around the lascannon. Not one wound per turn - one wound per source of incoming fire.
3: Block the lascannon's line of sight. (This might be dangerously close to maneuvering though...)
It's just reverse rhino sniping, where the answer for that was "manoeuvre properly to be hidden" where are you're suggesting "manoeuvre properly so they're not hidden". It's honestly all pretty dumb as I don't think anyone in the confines of the current system can actually suggest a fix for the idea of kill what you see that doesn't just introduce a different wrinkle.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
If you can only kill how many you see but defender chooses model(s) die then he exposes just the 1 guy that needs to see. You shoot, he kills max , defender picks bolter guy.
Defender gets max usability, you kill max 1, no downside.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
Dangle the lascannon of a tac squad in the open, rest of squad out of Los. No matter how hard you try that lascannon would see the game through unless you get a better angle
1: Oh no I need to manoeuver! Woe is me!
2: Plink one wound at a time from multiple sources to whittle the unit down around the lascannon. Not one wound per turn - one wound per source of incoming fire.
3: Block the lascannon's line of sight. (This might be dangerously close to maneuvering though...)
1: same could be said on now. Don't be dumb enough to leave 1 guy vislble.
But no. Manouvering too hard. Let's change rules so you don't need to think.
tneva82 wrote: So you have lone guy standing in open shooting big gun and rest of squad wound markers stand out of los so enemy can kill max 1/turn?
Again new exploit. Not easy to come up with rule that doesnt open up exploits
We've actually had this before: Where the unit takes wounds until the one guy in LoS is removed.
It creates a dynamic where the entire unit CAN be killed around the corner if the model standing out is one you want to keep alive (heavy weapon / sergeant), and offers a good trade off of in not being forced to remove full squads because one guy sticks out, but also not auto-losing your squad sergeant because you kept him out front.
I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play..
I don't think I am. I don't recall claiming at any point that it was complex. Merely that it's not as simple as just looking at the table to see what you can see. Whether or not it's a huge mental load, it's an additional one, as it adds extra things to remember or lookup which only apply to edge cases, compared to just 'I can see what I can see'.
If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit
This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.
Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.
The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.
In my full post I did specify that defender picks the casualty in the unit to prevent sniping. So if the defender wanted to it could remove models out of line of sight one by one until the entire unit like now is dead or they only remove the model in line of sight and that is the end to that shooting sequence. It is a very easy fix and I think it even were part of the core rules many editions ago.
tneva82 wrote: So you have lone guy standing in open shooting big gun and rest of squad wound markers stand out of los so enemy can kill max 1/turn?
Again new exploit. Not easy to come up with rule that doesnt open up exploits
We've actually had this before: Where the unit takes wounds until the one guy in LoS is removed.
It creates a dynamic where the entire unit CAN be killed around the corner if the model standing out is one you want to keep alive (heavy weapon / sergeant), and offers a good trade off of in not being forced to remove full squads because one guy sticks out, but also not auto-losing your squad sergeant because you kept him out front.
Yeah, I suppose you could call it an exploit tneva82, as any mechanic can be called an exploit. However, I see it as interesting decision mechanic. Because it often creates tough choices for both the attacking and defending players.
Correct, bolter marines out of LoS become what they are now: wound counters for the heavy weapon. Where I think you are going wrong, tneva82, is the only way a tactical squad like that loses one marine is if the defending player puts the wounds on the heavy weapon marine that's in LoS. If the defending player puts the wounds on the bolter marines outside of LoS, they still have to deal with all the wounds dealt to them. Which, with poor saves, could still wipe the squad. Even a decent amount of worthwhile attack should force a Leadership test. Which if Battleshock had more teeth, would still affect the heavy weapon marine.
What it does it prevent is the attacking player from putting 1,000,000 AP -5 wounds into the same Tactical squad. Since at that point, the defending player would be dumb to not just sacrifice the heavy weapon marine to keep the out of LoS marines on the table. Again, you could call that an exploit, I guess. But I see it more as forcing the attacking player to be more thoughtful with target prioritization than hit targets with brute force. Which I see as a good thing.
Like morganfreeman said, this isn't new to miniatures war gaming. Many of the war games inspired or written by former GW employees that I've played used this mechanic. It worked fine in those. I find it amusing that GW seems to be dancing all around it, discovering all the issues with every other sort of LoS targeting mechanics instead.
I'm genuinely confused by people complaining that other LoS systems aren't 100% perfect, so they're just as invalid.
Yeah, having a little card you quickly stick behind a model to see if it's a viable target is immersion breaking. So is perma-prone model that refuses to rise even to look over knee-high walls.
Sure, it's complicated to have to draw firing arcs from vehicle weapons and establish facing. It's also complicated to try and hide every antenna and barrel on a tank out of LoS to avoid shooting, or play around vehicles that can unload every gun they have out their exhaust pipe.
Most definitely is it frustrating being unable to shoot through ruins / terrain features you can plainly see through just because they're "area terrain", similar to how it's frustrating to lose an entire squad to enemy fire because one model (or one model's sword) was peaking out from cover.
Some systems sacrifice immersion for functionality, others give a bit of ground in the simulation department for the sake of ease-of-ease. Determined complainers will absolutely find an issue with every system that exists, has existed, or can exist. There's absolutely no argument against this.
Similar to how there's no argument for the current GW system.
The issue with modern 40k is kind of.. All of these. Rather than sacrificing in some areas to gain in others, the current LoS system is a disaster which scrapes the worst parts of every system and bundles them all together. It's tedious, immersion breaking, non-simulation friendly non-sense which doesn't even have the decency to strive for ease-of-use. So while arguments can invariably be made for why any other system isn't perfect, any attempts to justify why they should be used instead of what 40k currently uses don't hold water.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
If you can only kill how many you see but defender chooses model(s) die then he exposes just the 1 guy that needs to see. You shoot, he kills max , defender picks bolter guy.
Defender gets max usability, you kill max 1, no downside.
Seriously this is so abc it"s obvious at glance.
Except you clearly didn't read what was proposed.
You can only kill what you can see - but if defender chooses to have models out of LoS die, then you can keep killing them because the model is still visible.
In your example, the defender gets 1 lascannon shot per turn.
If you shoot him, he can either remove the lascannon (meaning you no longer have LoS to the rest of the squad and can't kill any more), or he kills models out of LoS and you can keep killing models until either the squad is dead or he removes the lascannon.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
If you can only kill how many you see but defender chooses model(s) die then he exposes just the 1 guy that needs to see. You shoot, he kills max , defender picks bolter guy.
Defender gets max usability, you kill max 1, no downside.
Seriously this is so abc it"s obvious at glance.
Except you clearly didn't read what was proposed.
You can only kill what you can see - but if defender chooses to have models out of LoS die, then you can keep killing them because the model is still visible.
In your example, the defender gets 1 lascannon shot per turn.
If you shoot him, he can either remove the lascannon (meaning you no longer have LoS to the rest of the squad and can't kill any more), or he kills models out of LoS and you can keep killing models until either the squad is dead or he removes the lascannon.
Sadly tneva is right:
The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to
You can see 1 model - the lascannon, ergo you can kill a total of 1 model, but allocate it to whichever model you like. That's how I read it, anyway.
JNAProductions wrote: A reasonable proposal I've seen for LoS and Rhino Sniping is as follows:
The defending player chooses which models to remove. However, if at any point there are no more models in LoS of the attacking unit, any further shots (that require LoS) are lost.
So, if they set it up with terrain or vehicles or whatever to take out your one Lascannon, you can either remove the Lascannon first, losing only one model; or you can keep it and take casualties out of line of sight, requiring more shots to take down the heavy weapon.
JNAProductions wrote: A reasonable proposal I've seen for LoS and Rhino Sniping is as follows:
The defending player chooses which models to remove. However, if at any point there are no more models in LoS of the attacking unit, any further shots (that require LoS) are lost.
So, if they set it up with terrain or vehicles or whatever to take out your one Lascannon, you can either remove the Lascannon first, losing only one model; or you can keep it and take casualties out of line of sight, requiring more shots to take down the heavy weapon.
Lord Damocles wrote: The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to, but wounds inflicted can be allocated to models outside of line of sight by the defending player if they wish.
There. Fixed. I is smort.
No. So you have big unit with big gun. You shoot at full strength, enemy kills 1/turn max. No downside for defender.
You just created new exploit.
You not so smort.
What are you even talking about?
If you can only kill how many you see but defender chooses model(s) die then he exposes just the 1 guy that needs to see. You shoot, he kills max , defender picks bolter guy.
Defender gets max usability, you kill max 1, no downside.
Seriously this is so abc it"s obvious at glance.
Except you clearly didn't read what was proposed.
You can only kill what you can see - but if defender chooses to have models out of LoS die, then you can keep killing them because the model is still visible.
In your example, the defender gets 1 lascannon shot per turn.
If you shoot him, he can either remove the lascannon (meaning you no longer have LoS to the rest of the squad and can't kill any more), or he kills models out of LoS and you can keep killing models until either the squad is dead or he removes the lascannon.
Sadly tneva is right:
The solution is that you can only kill as many models as you have line of sight to
You can see 1 model - the lascannon, ergo you can kill a total of 1 model, but allocate it to whichever model you like. That's how I read it, anyway.
I don't really see the exploit. In this scenario you're paying for a full tactical squad to ensure* the game-long output of: a single lascannon. I'm not sure it'd be a tournament staple.
*as long as your opponent doesn't dedicate some unit to maneuvering and hunting it down of course.
I don't really see the exploit. In this scenario you're paying for a full tactical squad to ensure* the game-long output of: a single lascannon. I'm not sure it'd be a tournament staple.
*as long as your opponent doesn't dedicate some unit to maneuvering and hunting it down of course.
Well, 5 guys to nitpick, but it's more you could only ever kill 1 guy per squad firing. Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans. Not an exploit so much as a gak interaction, as others elucidated, let the wounds spill until LOS is broken and you're sorted.
Yeah, just have it be an abstraction of the guys moving out of cover to pick up the Lascannon - less sustained impacts from the enemy weapons destroy the Lascannon itself! While the rest of the squad stays in cover.
My take on this is that in 25+ years of playing 2nd (except for that unfortunate gap to burn out on 3rd), I never saw Rhino sniping.
The scenario is simply bizarre. Why would you make two Rhinos and a squad of Long Fangs dance around the board just to splat a single IG heavy weapon? That's more than enough firepower to waste the whole squad!
And if it isn't, then the rules of that edition were completely jacked up.
Sensible LOS rules are not difficult. They should be intuitive and easy to adjudicate and GW had a workable set of them. So do other games. I'm starting to think that GW makes lousy rules on purpose because given how many ways there are to get these things right, GW seems to be unique in always getting them wrong.
Rhino Sniping isn't about killing Heavy Weapon Squads. It's about killing the exact models out of an enemy unit that are most dangerous to your army.
Don't want that Power Fist to reach HTH combat? Snipe him down.
Worried about that Meltagun killing your tanks? Snipe it down.
Want that character dead? Snipe him down.
In all these cases, you can send as much firepower as necessary into the squad to neuter the units effectiveness without needing to dedicate the firepower to destroy the entire unit.
It was a legal, but not sporting, way to maximize the effects of shooting.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: My take on this is that in 25+ years of playing 2nd (except for that unfortunate gap to burn out on 3rd), I never saw Rhino sniping.
In 2nd it was blind grenade sniping. Used that a few times to pick off Warpheads, Exarchs and the like.
Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.
Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.
Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.
Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.
When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?
Rihgu wrote: When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?
TLOS in the sense of drawing LoS from one model to another was present, just like it is in every single LoS system.
However 4th ed explicitly gave permission to disregard weapons / banners / accessories / the odd hand sticking out, and IIRC gave models height characteristics to be seen over / blocked by things.
Rihgu wrote: When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?
When you are drawing TLOS from the model's eyes, you can't see under a Rhino.
Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.
Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.
Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.
Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.
Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.
Now if we're really talking about macro weapons in particular they could just have a rule that they can shoot through walls, but I guess now we're doing GW style layering of band-aids on top of band-aids.
Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.
Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.
Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.
Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.
Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.
It's more of a matter of "yeah, I guess you could do that, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good plan". There's no massive advantage to be gained by this "exploit" (lol). As opposed to the current mechanic's realism of unloading your firepower at the edge of a sergeant's banner and killing their entire squad through cloth ricochets or something?
Why is it always "whatever gw is currently doing is the only way, every other option is ridiculous"?
Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.
Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.
Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.
Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.
Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.
It's more of a matter of "yeah, I guess you could do that, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good plan". There's no massive advantage to be gained by this "exploit" (lol). As opposed to the current mechanic's realism of unloading your firepower at the edge of a sergeant's banner and killing their entire squad through cloth ricochets or something?
Why is it always "whatever gw is currently doing is the only way, every other option is ridiculous"?
It isn't, they're both dumb ideas. The "remove models until the model in LoS is dead is the best idea we've seen in here.
At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.
Its a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.
Why do you feel the need to assume that someone can't criticise an idea without defaulting to GW is correct? If someone disagrees, do they very ironically lose the ability for independent thought?
At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.
It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.
Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.
You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.
At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.
It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.
Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.
You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.
The whole squad dying due to a leg sticking out: the enemy sees movement and pounds the area with fire catching the squad as they move behind the rubble and struggle to pull their colleagues back from the fire
Once you get to "just use fluff and imagination" then almost anything flies.
Dudeface wrote: The whole squad dying due to a leg sticking out: the enemy sees movement and pounds the area with fire catching the squad as they move behind the rubble and struggle to pull their colleagues back from the fire
Once you get to "just use fluff and imagination" then almost anything flies.
Terrain is not this magical inpeneratable substance. If it was, our armies would be strapping it to their tanks. The lore has gone out of is way to say just how overpowered the weapons within the setting are.
The players have perfect knowledge of where all the units are. Narratively, the units on the table might not. Perhaps that leg sticking out is enough for the enemy to figure there's a squad in those ruins and light the whole thing up. There's bound to be weakened spots that gunfire can punch through, or the ruins are hit with so much firepower large chunks topple off doing the damage instead. Point is, I think players should at least entertain the idea that 40k weapons powerful enough that terrain can be more concealment than cover.
Additionally, maybe that leg sticking out is representing each soldier in the squad (or those that can easily access the spot) bracing against the corner to fire with more stability and changing with other soldiers out to reload and/or as casualties mount. I can't believe how often it has to be said that the way the models are posed is only a representative of a single moment. And that moment may have not even happened in that particular game. A leg sticking out could be a great deal of different things that are simply not possible with static miniatures.
It's probably going to be on a situation by situation basis to make sense of what is happening on the table, how the rule mechanics work and converting that into some sort of story/sitrep. And yeah, there's going to be "fluff and imagination" that is going to have to be twisted into a pretzel to make sense. It's crazy easy to nay say any possible lore explanation for a game mechanic.
***
And to be clear, I'm not much of a fan of the volumetric cylinder approach for determining LoS. Not because it doesn't work, it's more complicated or anything else like that. I think it's a pretty fair system to allow for all sorts of modeling that doesn't benefit or hurt the player in the game. My big issue with it is that it tends to make the hit boxes of stuff gigantic compared to what most people in a firefight are going to do. A lot of that negative space in a silhouette is never going to be occupied with anything if that thing wishes to continue to exist after the battle. Followed by the secondary distaste that it really does mean that the game could be played with wooden dowels with stickers on top of what the cylinder represents.
At the same time, a huge hit box does ensure that things are going to happen. And I'm a fan of things happening in games over nothing happening. So, if it were changed, my Mind's Eye Theater isn't going to like it as much, but I'll probably get over it. And I don't really think people are going to be 40k with wooden dowels. I most certainly won't play games with those do if it did happen (I don't care, call be a gatekeeper on that).
At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.
It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.
Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.
You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.
But the abstraction that you can see the enemy unit and therefore kill it as it is moving through an area is alien?
The reason why I don't find the current rules an abomination the same way you do is because I think they're as hassle free as you're going to get. You either obviously cannot hide, you obviously can hide or it's up in the air and your opponent agrees it's possible and you play by intent. Don't count swords and banners? Fair enough, now some of the situations which would have been clearly impossible become up in the air and some of the situations which would have been up in the air become clearly possible, you still have the same problems, you just change something less arguable for something more arguable (is that part of the hull or not) and way more thematic (although you can get pretty far currently with some theater of the mind). That's not to say the rules are perfect, they merely have some merit and shouldn't be changed for the sake of change. Do a poll and some playtesting, do a beta rules release. I liked remove the closest visible model from a thematic standpoint, I think that was 6th edition, Necrons falling over and teleporting forwards is silly and it was quite prominent in 9th. But that had tonnes of downsides, most notably being really sucky for melee units, that's not an impossible thread to needle (just make squishy melee hordes cheaper), it's just not something you should expect to hammer down in a thread about churn which many people dislike.
This is not saying "GW can do no wrong" it's the only sane take that rules shouldn't be changed on a whim, otherwise, you get unbearable churn, the only thing that is churn-like about 10th is the addition of all the unique abilities on datasheets which was not requested and seems totally at odds with the direction of the edition.
But the abstraction that you can see the enemy unit and therefore kill it as it is moving through an area is alien?
oh yeah, my unit that deployed in terrain and didnt move all game sure was shot "while moving through an area"
So your Tactical Squad has been sitting partially inside a ruin for the past 60 minutes before the battle begins with the lascannon sitting outside?
Think about the gameplay for a second, is having a single lascannon standing on one side of a wall and the mooks standing on the other side so you can't ever take more than 1 casualty per enemy unit fun and thematic?
Yes, it is, actually, it's just like when you've got the optics plus mahcine gun on the front foxhole and other people are behind watching your back and taking cover, observing, or reporting back. In the short time span a tunr represents no garantuee that others will see they got shot and do something about it in a timeframe that equals a turn.
In the end, abstraction can pretty much justify anything.
But what we'd like from GW is that they made fun rules, that try to balance reasonavle gameplay and allow for its varied universe to be aptly represented.
It's a tough question and they'll never ever get over it if they don't stop changing stuff in strange fashion or disregard any wiser alternative all the time instead of building it up.
And I mean that even prior to 10th for once because as we stated, not sure 5th edition's introduction of TLoS was a change for the better instead of refining their older LoS system.
GW seems to really discard the value of learning and experience and from a player's perspective that's irritating and frustrating, sort of.
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Well they kind of a have to do that. The destructive power of 10 EC lascanons or 10 IF AssC is gigantic, and most armies don't want to run 20 man tacticals and those that do, don't want to run tacticals, but rather the choppy guy, which GW, in their grace pushed years, to first squish in tanks which "you can use in w40k", so people can buy them and then see them legend. But it is true without certain factions a game of past edition w40k can be very fun. Around here a ton of people cast their armies, and more want to use their classic marine stuff to play the setting.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
Defender allocates. Unless you got a precision shot weapon. So no,not rhino sniping.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?
Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But what we'd like from GW is that they made fun rules, that try to balance reasonavle gameplay and allow for its varied universe to be aptly represented.
It's a tough question and they'll never ever get over it if they don't stop changing stuff in strange fashion or disregard any wiser alternative all the time instead of building it up.
I feel like your statements contradict. When GW tries to make fun and reasonable rules they get screamed at for changing things too much. At the same time they have to change things because people are always screaming that the rules are unthematic, unfun or unbalanced.
Absolutely criticize GW for changing things that were near-perfect that few disliked, that's silly and GW should stop. Criticize GW for releasing points with new editions and codexes in a broken state that leads to 30% and 70% win rates for different factions and needing half of the edition to fix. Criticize current rules you don't like and ask they be changed next edition and discuss what the best changes could be. But GW cannot make good changes without also accidentally making bad changes going from a 3/5 to a 2/5 is okay and part of the process, criticize the 2/5 rule, not the process of changing rules or the amount of rules changes because 10th is still built on the scaffolding of 8th and that is close enough that GW should be mostly upgrading things. Be specific about problems and send polite and properly worded feedback directly to GW.
It might actually be useful to have a community voting platform for each ability and datasheet to get deeper understanding of what needs to be improved once every codex has been released. 10th is not for me, but I still want GW to slow down by a year or two if it makes 11th that much better on release instead of having to wait for 12th for the game to become good.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?
Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?
The defender can continually send men out to scoop up the Lascannon, but if he chooses not to, the hiding gents don't die, but the Lascannon gets riddled with the remaining fire and destroyed...
Ok maybe not that last bit but it's an abstraction, right? Right?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?
Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?
Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.
So it's essentially one of several variations which multiple people have already presented as a solution (myself included), and which multiple past editions of 40k had.
The claim that it means 'no killing models out of LoS' was probably what caused confusion for people.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?
Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?
Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.
Hold on, you're contradicting each other, you're saying here you can rhino snipe to take out individual models based on field of vision, you and others above are also saying it doesn't work that way and you allocate the wounds into the unit until you're out of line of sight. Which is it?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?
As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.
But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?
Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?
Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.
Hold on, you're contradicting each other, you're saying here you can rhino snipe to take out individual models based on field of vision, you and others above are also saying it doesn't work that way and you allocate the wounds into the unit until you're out of line of sight. Which is it?
You can't allocate Wounds into anything out of LoS. Period. Can't see it? Can't shoot it. I copied the rule verbatim in my previous post.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.
...Yes.
The discussion is fundamentally about edge case line if sight issues which lead to unintuitive or 'feels bad' outcomes; of which Rhino sniping is/was one example.
You claimed that the 30k rule provided a solution, when actually it doesn't at all.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.
I think if you hadn't swooped in praising GW for successfully writing the same problem into multiple game systems, it might have seemed better. That aside, it is a niche problem but it is a contentious one for 40k, in 30k I can see that it would be even less frequent. Might be something to do will less 30k competitive events to the scale of 40k, so people feel the need to leverage dumb stuff less?
It is a good idea to build in solutions to this in the rules anyway because even though it probably won't happen in most games current 40k have so many profiles with a ton of terrain and models on the battlefield that the situation of sniping models much more important than single lascannons could easily happen. If it isn't a lot of text or make things very convoluted then cases like this should be in the core rules.
Expensive characters without an invulnerable save that is hiding in a unit that is there to protect said character can suddenly be in the open and the only visible model to someone with a weapon that can easily one shot said character even though the rest of the unit is completely hidden and undamaged. When Rhino Sniping first became popular as a concept there were very little terrain and models compared to now and you almost had to use something like Rhinos to block line of sight. Especially since you often couldn't move the shooter (since infantry couldn't shoot lascannons and the like at all if they moved) so you had to use other models to block line of sight with. But now you can just move that lethal gun in to position so all the line of sight blocking ruins do the job of the Rhinos in the past.
But as multiple people have pointed out there is a super simple solution to it that prevents "abuse" from both sides. Defender allocates wounds one by one freely in the unit, even if some models are not in line of sight or even range, until all wounds have been resolved or all models that are in range and line of sight are removed. Now the defender can choose to try to protect their "lascannon" or their unit but in any case they will either lose their tactical lascannon or suffer a lot of casualties. Can be a difficult and interesting choice for the defender. The same applies to the attacker in this case as well. Do they want to fire everything they got into that unit, enough firepower to wipe the entire squad and risk only killing the 1 exposed model, or do they just allocate enough shots to the squad that the squad suffers some casualties but the "lascannon" is still alive. Add in some better morale mechanics (so taking 2-3 losses rather than the "lascannon" risk the unit running or getting pinned) to the game and suddenly the shooting phase has more interesting decisions for both players.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.
...Yes.
The discussion is fundamentally about edge case line if sight issues which lead to unintuitive or 'feels bad' outcomes; of which Rhino sniping is/was one example.
You claimed that the 30k rule provided a solution, when actually it doesn't at all.
The fundamental question is what is a a greater problem? Rhino sniping, or having an entire squad wiped out because only one member was in LoS? I'd wager that the latter is a greater problem as even yourself admitted that Rhino sniping was an "uncommon problem". You can either have a functional LoS system, or avoid "Rhino sniping". Take your pick.
Lord Damocles wrote: Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!
Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.
Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).
As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.
I think if you hadn't swooped in praising GW for successfully writing the same problem into multiple game systems, it might have seemed better. That aside, it is a niche problem but it is a contentious one for 40k, in 30k I can see that it would be even less frequent. Might be something to do will less 30k competitive events to the scale of 40k, so people feel the need to leverage dumb stuff less?
Rhino sniping is a niche problem. Wiping entire squads because only one model is exposed isn't. Again, take your pick. Or, we can keep arguing edge cases.
You can have a system where entire units can't be wiped out just because one model is visible AND ALSO individual models can't be sniped because they're the only model visible.
Several workable solutions have been suggested. It isn't a binary case of accepting problem A or problem B.
Lord Damocles wrote: You can have a system where entire units can't be wiped out just because one model is visible AND ALSO individual models can't be sniped because they're the only model visible.
Several workable solutions have been suggested. It isn't a binary case of accepting problem A or problem B.
Hmmm? As I mentioned, I haven't been keeping up with the thread for several days. Can you articulate such systems? I'm entirely open to anything that's eliminates both problems without causing others.
I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?
Defender allocates wounds anywhere in the squad, all remaining Wounds are lost once the visible models are slain.
Owner can choose to keep losing out of los people or simply remove the visible mini.
Why is it better: prevents making it so you can target individual models in the unit using dodgy LoS tricks and stops who units being wiped unless it's by choice.
I quite liked the Flames V3 system, in a nutshell:
- attacker rolls to hit
- defender allocates hits to individual models
--- only models in sight, where some attackers can only see some models they roll individually
--- models within half range before models outside half range
--- models outside cover before those inside cover
--- models without hits before those with hits (in effect hits have to be spread out)
--- models with weaker armour before models with stronger
at that point the models make their saves (FoW had no to wound roll) and live/die as appropriate, its quite easy to kill fewer models than you do wounds due to overkill
it specifically noted that this meant "specialists" in infantry units can basically only be hit through enough volume of fire some has to allocate to them, but also specifically permits more damaging shots to be on basic guys (representing others picking up weapons etc)
it actually worked well, there were about two pages (with examples) on how the hit priority stuff worked - but no hitting stuff you couldn't see, heavy weapons go against bods behind walls etc while machine guns go against guys in the open
V4 changed it to the attacker allocating, with a "save" to swap hits to nearby models, takes less pages to explain, also means specialists die more or less immediately
and while you could "snipe" in V3 with careful positioning the defender could usually mitigate it by keeping leaders etc where there would always be someone else to take the hit first
key bit though was its hits that get allocated, not wounds
worked quite well, even with multiple hits per models having to be resolved independently, indeed in 40k would likely be even better as there is no now need to worry about mixed toughness/saves
the "to hit" roll being determined by the easiest model to hit giving the units general position away
I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?
How about instead of wandering into a thread when you don't understand the conversation, presenting a 'solution' which actually CAUSES the problem being discussed, and then demanding that people provide you solutions which you've already glossed over, you actually go back and read the last couple of pages.
I provided a potential solution. Go find it.
I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?
Defender allocates wounds anywhere in the squad, all remaining Wounds are lost once the visible models are slain.
Owner can choose to keep losing out of los people or simply remove the visible mini.
Why is it better: prevents making it so you can target individual models in the unit using dodgy LoS tricks and stops who units being wiped unless it's by choice.
But keeps the option for "hidden lascannons, characters, etc". Not saying that it's bad, but still has it's problems.
And thanks for still participating in the debate, Dudeface.
I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?
How about instead of wandering into a thread when you don't understand the conversation, presenting a 'solution' which actually CAUSES the problem being discussed, and then demanding that people provide you solutions which you've already glossed over, you actually go back and read the last couple of pages.
I provided a potential solution. Go find it.
Yes? The same solution as Dudeface seems to be proposing, with the same problems. You're just switching the advantage to the Defender. Yes, I've read you're proposal now.
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Yes. Which is the exact problem caused by Artificier armour equipped sergeants in HH. Well spotted, Karol.
Easy. Just make it so that unless the character is in LoS then you have to put the wounds on the troops. Or have all the wounds allocated before saves. Or have them be allocated evenly over the unit or just ignore that "problem". Lots of solutions. If the character have to use the units toughness and save rather than their own I don't really see how it will be abused.
Is it really a problem that will happen in game that people will use an expensive tank character to take hits to prevent exposed special weapons of getting wounded? Sounds very static and a waste of points rather than doing something more active. If you could make deathstars like in earlier editions with multiple characters then it could be problematic. Perhaps it doesnt feel right that a character out of LoS can tank for other models but I think that could be a small price to pay if allowed to have character tank shots for squad members in all the other situations.
Anyway, the important thing is that just because there might be a problem and GW in the current edition haven't been able to fix it doesn't mean that it is impossible or even hard to find a solution for. Sure GW is incompetent at this but they don't even have to come up with a brand new solution. They could just look at older editions of their own games or blatantly steal solutions from other game systems.
No one wants to stop and spend several minutes figuring how much of the target unit is visible to the firing unit, or worse, figure out how much of the target unit is visible to each individual model of the firing unit. Except people who want to complain about rules in a forum while they're not doing something useful.
As long as speed of game play is more important than anything else, you get the current edition's result.
I think a lot of people wouldn't mind that at all if it made the game feel more "real" to them.
You can even make it easy and have it so as long as a model in the targeted squad is seen by at least one model in the firing squad then it counts as visible to all models in the unit that can see the squad. This way you only need to see if a model can see the opposing squad at all and then figure out which models cant be seen at all and those are not eligible to be shot (unless defender wants it to). Quick and easy and takes barely any more time than the current system since every model that shoots still need to see at least one model in the opposing squad. No need to check every individual model.
solkan wrote: No one wants to stop and spend several minutes figuring how much of the target unit is visible to the firing unit, or worse, figure out how much of the target unit is visible to each individual model of the firing unit. Except people who want to complain about rules in a forum while they're not doing something useful.
As long as speed of game play is more important than anything else, you get the current edition's result.
You're opinion. Other's prefer a more comprehensive LoS/cover system which takes such things into account.
Again, it's opinion. You seem to prefer ankle water deep "tournament tactics". Other's will prefer real tactics.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.
However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.
However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.
I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.
If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.
Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!
Think about the gameplay for a second, is having a single lascannon standing on one side of a wall and the mooks standing on the other side so you can't ever take more than 1 casualty per enemy unit fun and thematic?
yes, because it forces your opponent to maneuver more meaningfully than "ok i see that dude, i'll wipe the 4 others that i can't see"
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.
However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.
I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.
If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.
Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!
I wasn't responding to rhino-sniping I was responding to the question of how (if defender can allocate wounds as he pleases) you stop the issue of characters with better saves or such tanking wounds.for their unit.
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.
However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.
5th ed.'s wound allocation was the best 40k has ever had.
Where it fell apart was with units like Nobs and Paladins* where every multi-wound model had different wargear. That could have been somewhat solved by reducing wargear choices for those problem units (boss poles and 'eavy armour shouldn't have been wargear for Nobs, and swords and halberds shouldn't have had different rules for Grey Knights), removing medic options (medics shouldn't be able to heal from bikes), and adding an extra step to wound allocation so that wounds are allocated in order of AP - which would mostly prevent stacking of instant death/armour ignoring wounds on single models rather than being spread across units.
*Really I'd argue that Nob bikers should be an entirely different unit to Nobs, and Paladins shouldn't exist...
Karol wrote: Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.
Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.
However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.
I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.
If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.
Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!
I wasn't responding to rhino-sniping I was responding to the question of how (if defender can allocate wounds as he pleases) you stop the issue of characters with better saves or such tanking wounds.for their unit.
Right, I was saying 4th solved that, so if you solved rhino-sniping you would have a pretty good system.
Is it really a problem that will happen in game that people will use an expensive tank character to take hits to prevent exposed special weapons of getting wounded? Sounds very static and a waste of points rather than doing something more active. If you could make deathstars like in earlier editions with multiple characters then it could be problematic. Perhaps it doesnt feel right that a character out of LoS can tank for other models but I think that could be a small price to pay if allowed to have character tank shots for squad members in all the other situations.
.
Have you ever engaged a necron brick. Warrior or L.Guard with all the characters, plasma cytes everything taking wounds for something else, then resurecting etc? Because a defenders allocating the wounds would be very bad for any frankestein monster style of units. Iron Priest with 4 servitors attached to a unit of Long Fangs type of situation, and the wound allocation would take "hours".
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
And then we are back to rhinl sniping with bullet wider than 1mm flying through 1mm gap to kill lascannon/warlold/whatever opponent wants to kill.
Every rule results in abuse.
At least current one blame goes to owner. Don't be dumb leaving 1guy in open.
Lord Damocles wrote: , and swords and halberds shouldn't have had different rules for Grey Knights), removing medic options (medics shouldn't be able to heal from bikes), and adding an extra step to wound allocation so that wounds are allocated in order of AP - which would mostly prevent stacking of instant death/armour ignoring wounds on single models rather than being spread across units.
*Really I'd argue that Nob bikers should be an entirely different unit to Nobs, and Paladins shouldn't exist...
Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason. Custodes have halbards and axes or halbards and swords. Armies have options for chainswords, power weapons, power fists, L.Claws, thunder hammers etc.
What would be the reason to make GK, so special that they should have the option to take a Thunder Hammer in a melee army or have a force staff, with specific GK rules? The eldar autarch has more weapon options then the entire GK army right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 811321 11588290 wrote:
Every rule results in abuse.
At least current one blame goes to owner. Don't be dumb leaving 1guy in open.
Okey, but you can't fight the "dumbness" of how designs the models. If attaching Crow to a unit suddenly makes it impossible to hide, because it require a wall higher then a dreadnought, then I think, there is something wrong happening. What ever people value and what rules people prefere, a player should not be punished because of how the company that made the game shaped his models. I don't want to see paladins shot in the books above their armour.
Lord Damocles wrote: , and swords and halberds shouldn't have had different rules for Grey Knights), removing medic options (medics shouldn't be able to heal from bikes), and adding an extra step to wound allocation so that wounds are allocated in order of AP - which would mostly prevent stacking of instant death/armour ignoring wounds on single models rather than being spread across units.
*Really I'd argue that Nob bikers should be an entirely different unit to Nobs, and Paladins shouldn't exist...
Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason. Custodes have halbards and axes or halbards and swords. Armies have options for chainswords, power weapons, power fists, L.Claws, thunder hammers etc.
What would be the reason to make GK, so special that they should have the option to take a Thunder Hammer in a melee army or have a force staff, with specific GK rules? The eldar autarch has more weapon options then the entire GK army right now.
It's funny how Grey Knights got on just fine with swords and halberds being the same stat-wise prior to the 5th edition codex...
And Custodes having different rules for which angle the blade of their polearm is attached at is pretty much peak bloat.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for Crow to make his unit much easier to spot than any other GK character. But viewing the game as a stop-motion theatre is pretty insane from my POV. "Every time a Necrons unit finishes its turn a new guy goes out and picks up the lascannon". What the hell is a turn in your theatre of the mind? Space Marines should be out shooting their bolters, not hiding in a ruin and taking turns to pick up the squad lascannon.
You already have the abstraction of being able to assign wounds in most editions to represent picking stuff up (on top of not being a hassle).
Why are so few arguing in favour of bullets hitting the closest visible enemy? How does it make sense the defender gets to choose? It's a tabletop game! You can't make it into a perfect simulation.
Try writing a game for realistic space combat in the 40k universe, it's madness, does Battlefleet Gothic make sense from a physics perspective? No, it'd be unplayable if you had to calculate vectors for 4-15 spacecraft changing in real-time, so you have turns and spaceships acting like naval ships and it's a well-loved game. The sword thing is nothing more than a common pet peeve. I think GW should try to appeal very broadly, so if they did a poll and swords being considered part of the miniature was hated by a majority then I'd be in favour of changing it and working out clarify what parts of a model count as part of the model and what parts of a round model counts as its corners, things GW haven't done well in the past but whatever.
The reason to make GK have fewer weapon types would be to eliminate wound juggling, something the rules thankfully removed, I hope it never returns, yay for modern targeting and wound distribution rules that allow for the full breadth of 40k to be displayed in a fun way. Another reason is because GW cannot balance anything and having them all use the same rules prevent any of them being trap choices for newbies.
Karol wrote: Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason.
Oh yes, I love the variety afforded to my Dark Eldar.
The Archon gets a Huskblade and that's it.
The Succubus gets a Glaive and that's it.
The Haemonculus gets Tools and that's it.
Wyches don't even have Wych Weapons anymore.
But sure, Grey Knights are the only army to have lost weapon options.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But what we'd like from GW is that they made fun rules, that try to balance reasonavle gameplay and allow for its varied universe to be aptly represented.
It's a tough question and they'll never ever get over it if they don't stop changing stuff in strange fashion or disregard any wiser alternative all the time instead of building it up.
I feel like your statements contradict. When GW tries to make fun and reasonable rules they get screamed at for changing things too much. At the same time they have to change things because people are always screaming that the rules are unthematic, unfun or unbalanced.
Absolutely criticize GW for changing things that were near-perfect that few disliked, that's silly and GW should stop. Criticize GW for releasing points with new editions and codexes in a broken state that leads to 30% and 70% win rates for different factions and needing half of the edition to fix. Criticize current rules you don't like and ask they be changed next edition and discuss what the best changes could be. But GW cannot make good changes without also accidentally making bad changes going from a 3/5 to a 2/5 is okay and part of the process, criticize the 2/5 rule, not the process of changing rules or the amount of rules changes because 10th is still built on the scaffolding of 8th and that is close enough that GW should be mostly upgrading things. Be specific about problems and send polite and properly worded feedback directly to GW.
It might actually be useful to have a community voting platform for each ability and datasheet to get deeper understanding of what needs to be improved once every codex has been released. 10th is not for me, but I still want GW to slow down by a year or two if it makes 11th that much better on release instead of having to wait for 12th for the game to become good.
On the one hand I agree that GW will forever be yelled at whatever they do because people need to complain anyway. So you'll always have got at least a few people on your hands bitching and you can't do anything about this. To sort the mess out, I also agree that there should be a platform, where people fill in a formular of some sort, explaining what they think is a problem and then have a team play testing to check and play test fixes.
However I don't think I'm contradicting myself, because, as is the original topic, GW doesn't seem interested in these gradual tweaks of the rules to refined them and fix them to a point when most problems would have been more or less dealt with. Instead, they take to path of brutally punching the table upside down regularly and starting the learning and refining curve from zero. This indeed means changes will have to be made to accomodate fixes and remove/wholesale reinvent that rule or mecanic identified as detrimental to the game's enjoyment or balance.
For that reason i say again: in my view, GW should strive to achieve a balance between lore and solid mechanics. No system is perfect, even Bolt Action, for as good as it is, has got it's little oddities and downsides, like the 1 man squads running around wreaking havoc in late game or how heavy tanks are utterly at disadvantages compared to armoured cars. But on the whole, the rules ar emore than solid and do a decent job at protraying their timeframe. Why couldn't GW achieve the same? Because it seems they won't dedicate the time and efforts it needs to go from point A all the way to point B by improving. Not having the dedicated voting platform we both agree it should have got is a symptom of this churning mentality in a sense.
On a final note, to address again the idea of adding new stuff in order to enhance the lore aspect, I think that for what it's worth they supplement way is not the worst for the game's health at large. If you have got a solid set of rules, then you can use appendices and optionnal supplements to attach fluffier rules (duels, strange unit types, and the like) for player to use if they so wish. This way, it is possible to mitigate the effect on the overall balance and the competitive scene because as it will only ever be optionnal, they won't change drastically how the game works in and of itself and can be dismissed entirely if they end up being to strange. While adding ideas and ready to use depth for players eager to bring into their games RPG mecanics, fluffy units and characters, environment special rules... or whatever fancy stuf you can come up with.
The only downside is that this could get costly. At the same time, you wouldn't need to own any of these additions to the game to actually play.
Karol wrote: Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason.
Oh yes, I love the variety afforded to my Dark Eldar.
The Archon gets a Huskblade and that's it.
The Succubus gets a Glaive and that's it.
The Haemonculus gets Tools and that's it.
Wyches don't even have Wych Weapons anymore.
But sure, Grey Knights are the only army to have lost weapon options.
Both are tragic and the loss that results of the way GW designed the game now.
Just got to send lots of emails and hope there is some player creative space left for some of these factions when the next editions comes.
And then we are back to rhinl sniping with bullet wider than 1mm flying through 1mm gap to kill lascannon/warlold/whatever opponent wants to kill.
Every rule results in abuse.
At least current one blame goes to owner. Don't be dumb leaving 1guy in open.
Yeah. It’s the owners fault of someone can draw LoS to a sword tip or singular hand through terrain. If anyone wants to play with something other than solid L-shaped blocks for terrain, such as structures with windows or fields of trees, it’s their own fething fault and war gaming is clearly not for them.
Karol wrote: Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason.
Most unique melee weapons in the Tyranid army just got made generic. Tyranid Warriors lost all their melee options.
Stop moaning about your GKs like they're the only army GW gaks on. I mean, have you ever played CSM? GK ain't got nuthin' on the crap CSMs have been through.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Tyranid Warriors lost all their melee options.
Wait, what?
you used to have a tyranid warrior, standard load out then a whole slew of stuff you could equip them with
you now have "melee tyranid warrior" and "ranged tyranid warrior"
see also Death guard who lost most of the different melee weapon options for plague marines, or how combi-weapons became a single profile
simpler yes, blander, also yes
It's very weird though to make specific weapon parts on the sprue only to move away from that level of specificity. It's fair to say that most players have an easier tme recognizing like a melta from a plasma than the more esoteric nid weapons but in a game all about detail they're ironing over the wrong parts.
They consider that there's enough difference between a Deathspitter, Devourer, Fleshborer, Spinefist, Spike Rifle and so on (unless you're a Ravenet or a Sporocyst!) but Swords and Claws and Talons and Whips?
Karol wrote: Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason.
Most unique melee weapons in the Tyranid army just got made generic. Tyranid Warriors lost all their melee options.
Stop moaning about your GKs like they're the only army GW gaks on. I mean, have you ever played CSM? GK ain't got nuthin' on the crap CSMs have been through.
DW got the same treatment. They got rid of everything but the Missile Launcher, frag cannon, infernus bolter, Heavy thunder Hammer, xenophase blade, shield and the bolter, everything else got rolled into "Long vigil melee weapon" and "Long vigil ranged weapom" Which are just combi-weapons and Power Weapons in statline. We went from 35 Weapon options to 11. Like, half the fun of deathwatch was the wargear.
To nobz, everything is a klaw or a big choppa now. Knife? Big Choppa. Tiny axe? Big Choppa. Stabby Harpoon thing? Big Choppa. Mechanical arm with a saw? Klaw.
It's fairly obvious that GW wanted to go back to 5th edition style close combat weapons and isn't picking on anyone in specific, for the better or the worse. As usual, a great idea which has been poorly executed.
Jidmah wrote: To nobz, everything is a klaw or a big choppa now. Knife? Big Choppa. Tiny axe? Big Choppa. Stabby Harpoon thing? Big Choppa. Mechanical arm with a saw? Klaw.
It's fairly obvious that GW wanted to go back to 5th edition style close combat weapons and isn't picking on anyone in specific, for the better or the worse.
As usual, a great idea which has been poorly executed.
But if a Nob puts on mega-armour suddenly his arm with a saw actually becomes a saw...
Also, klaws have different profiles whether they are carried on a trike, by a beastsnagga or by someone else.
The general idea wouldn't be that bad if GW wasn't highly inconsistent.
In some ways simplification of weapon systems was not a shock to me. As model lines got bigger and bigger it becomes a lot harder to balance in new models without tripping over the features of existing ones.
Either that generic tactical squad that can do everything with weapon options has to become a lot weaker; or their weapon profiles need cutting down or simplifying so that their role is more constrained to give room.
I think the issue is alongside this there's clearly a mandate to make 10th edition MUCH simpler mechanically on multiple fronts. It's likely driven by lots of complaints on how complicated it's been to build armies for a few editions - however many of us can boldly see that a huge reason for that is GW scattershot their rules material and writing style. Not just between books but within the codex themselves the rules were shot all over the place making it much more fiddly.
So they've solved it - by reducing options drastically. Rather than a smarter layout of detailed information they've kept the same format and simply reduced the amount of options and information.
the removal of options fits right alongside the removal of points for options, here have a generic profile that on average over the units is meant to have roughly the same outcome
the net result is roughly the same as what essentially killed the epic scale a while back, you have a "better" game but one thats so bland its not worth playing, or so bland there are much cheaper options that are equally bland
its not so much the GenericMcGenericName naming that bothers me, GW equipment naming hasn't been good in a long while, its the lack of flexibility
e.g. with tactical marines, you can have a small cheap unit, or a larger one, or a smaller one kitted for a specific job etc
Karol wrote: Why is that, other armies gets different type of weapons for their units. In fact all other armies do, it is just GK that got punished with the nerf to weapon types for some reason.
Most unique melee weapons in the Tyranid army just got made generic. Tyranid Warriors lost all their melee options.
Stop moaning about your GKs like they're the only army GW gaks on. I mean, have you ever played CSM? GK ain't got nuthin' on the crap CSMs have been through.
Yes I did play vs chaos armies. Multiple times and chaos armies in 8th, 9th and 10th always had more options, more models, multiple books, higher win rates, carry units like abadon or demons etc. The number of models, updates, and high win rates various chaos armies had is mind blowing considering what GK had. And that is assuming someone played power armour spam in 8th and 9th.
Tyranids have more weapon option on a termagaunt unit then I have for my entire army. One would assume that if GW gives some faction more units options, then armies they don't have those, but have weapon options should have those options. Are you seriously saying a melee army should not have a Thunder Hammer as an option, even if it has it as an option on the unit sprue AND on a special character? That makes sense? A melee army without melee gear, and a psychic army without psychic powers? CSM or Tyranids at least feel like the armies, good or bad.
leopard wrote: the removal of options fits right alongside the removal of points for options, here have a generic profile that on average over the units is meant to have roughly the same outcome
the net result is roughly the same as what essentially killed the epic scale a while back, you have a "better" game but one thats so bland its not worth playing, or so bland there are much cheaper options that are equally bland
its not so much the GenericMcGenericName naming that bothers me, GW equipment naming hasn't been good in a long while, its the lack of flexibility
e.g. with tactical marines, you can have a small cheap unit, or a larger one, or a smaller one kitted for a specific job etc
all that has gone
Still advocating appendices here.
It's not necessarily bad to limit the number of different weapons and their special rules and stuff in the base rules, because that's easier to make a better balanced game .
Then for people who are out there for lore and giggles, release optional free pdf list called advanced Armoury or whatever to bring back variety.
Only need to actually bother to play test them preporly before hand of course, and to put that same disclaimer as on Stalker Anomaly launcher : installed add ons may causes
bugs or crashes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Removing points for options is still outrageous though, don't get me wrong.
See I agree I don't mind losing some options across some armies. Take Tyranids - I can well see that its hard to balance in new models to an army where many of the core models - Tyrant, Warriors, Carnifex- were originally designed to be modified with weapons and upgrades to fit multiple roles.
That worked great back in the 3rd edition era where that was basically your entire army. Tyranids didn't have 5 monstrous creatures; they had the Carnifex. It did your close combat; artillery; anti tank; anti-infantry etc... all in one model.
As the number of models has grown over the years it can be tricky to find new niches to put models into without removing some of the weapon variety that older models had so that there are tactical slots. The other option is ending up with units that trip over each other doing the same role for the same cost in points; or units that are just flat out better than another option.
I think GW has been too heavy handed and likely had some policy to try and make power values work so just decided to merge points and power into one monster.
Eg Tyranid Warriors lost all their close combat weapon variety. That honestly doesn't feel like GW was creating slots and more that they just heavily over simplified.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:
If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.
Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.
And then we are back to rhinl sniping with bullet wider than 1mm flying through 1mm gap to kill lascannon/warlold/whatever opponent wants to kill.
Every rule results in abuse.
At least current one blame goes to owner. Don't be dumb leaving 1guy in open.
The underlined is absolutely true. But what do you want to be "open for abuse"? The wiping of entire squads because of a single model being within LoS/range, which will happen all of the time in any system that allows it, or "Rhino sniping", which will happen much more rarely in any system that allows it, due to it being a much more difficult maneuver/trick to pull off. And I personally prefer a system that allows rare edge case abuses over one that allows the abuses to be both constant and prevalent.
Overread wrote: As the number of models has grown over the years it can be tricky to find new niches to put models into without removing some of the weapon variety that older models had so that there are tactical slots. The other option is ending up with units that trip over each other doing the same role for the same cost in points; or units that are just flat out better than another option.
But it's not consistent.
Again, Tyranid Warriors still have Deathspitters and Devourers, but it's somehow a bridge too far to to show the difference between a Bonesword and a Lashwhip? And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
Even the Combi-Weapon consolidation makes no sense: We know what Flamers, Plasma Guns and Meltaguns do. They weren't unique weapons. They were just Bolters and the other gun, both of which have already well-established rules.
Overread wrote: As the number of models has grown over the years it can be tricky to find new niches to put models into without removing some of the weapon variety that older models had so that there are tactical slots. The other option is ending up with units that trip over each other doing the same role for the same cost in points; or units that are just flat out better than another option.
But it's not consistent.
Again, Tyranid Warriors still have Deathspitters and Devourers, but it's somehow a bridge too far to to show the difference between a Bonesword and a Lashwhip? And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
Even the Combi-Weapon consolidation makes no sense: We know what Flamers, Plasma Guns and Meltaguns do. They weren't unique weapons. They were just Bolters and the other gun, both of which have already well-established rules.
Aye and I agree, hence why I think its not just a push to make slots for more models in the tactical sense but also a general push to get power-level as the main way the game is played. This is just the ham fisted approach coupled to resolving "its too complicated" complaints mostly created by GW's scattershot style of writing within a codex let alone between books.
Overread wrote: As the number of models has grown over the years it can be tricky to find new niches to put models into without removing some of the weapon variety that older models had so that there are tactical slots. The other option is ending up with units that trip over each other doing the same role for the same cost in points; or units that are just flat out better than another option.
But it's not consistent.
Again, Tyranid Warriors still have Deathspitters and Devourers, but it's somehow a bridge too far to to show the difference between a Bonesword and a Lashwhip? And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
Even the Combi-Weapon consolidation makes no sense: We know what Flamers, Plasma Guns and Meltaguns do. They weren't unique weapons. They were just Bolters and the other gun, both of which have already well-established rules.
Exactly. Again, with Orks you usually had CC weapons aside from the choppa: big choppa, klaw, saw. Most units could take these so it was well established what they do. Then you got the trike with its own (weaker) klaw. And Beast Snaggas with two bespoken klaws. And a new meganob with another unique big Choppa.
Also, the old options are now arbitrarily spread, some units can take them, others don’t, besides there always being the same nob with the same base profile (kits dictating rules). In the end it got more complicated and the only thing rightfully removed was the Power stabba.
Overread wrote: As the number of models has grown over the years it can be tricky to find new niches to put models into without removing some of the weapon variety that older models had so that there are tactical slots. The other option is ending up with units that trip over each other doing the same role for the same cost in points; or units that are just flat out better than another option.
But it's not consistent.
Again, Tyranid Warriors still have Deathspitters and Devourers, but it's somehow a bridge too far to to show the difference between a Bonesword and a Lashwhip? And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
Even the Combi-Weapon consolidation makes no sense: We know what Flamers, Plasma Guns and Meltaguns do. They weren't unique weapons. They were just Bolters and the other gun, both of which have already well-established rules.
Consistency isn't something that gw does well. It's obvious that the various indexes were written by different people with different perceived goals, both in their rules and layouts. I completely understand and agree with your complaints, but we have to understand that they stem from GW's complete lack of an overall comprehensive plan and any overarching individual that enforces said plan. They need an enforced plan, and someone that will make sure that the plan is followed. Instead, they allow the individual index/codex writers to just do "what they want".
the indexes were certainly a very poor rushed effort likely from a brief that only had one or two lines and in some cases apparently done by people who either outright hate the faction assigned or just had never actually played them
leopard wrote: the indexes were certainly a very poor rushed effort likely from a brief that only had one or two lines and in some cases apparently done by people who either outright hate the faction assigned or just had never actually played them
its not unique to 40k either
While they could have implemented summarised army lists in the rulebooks like in 3rd in the meantime but no instead they had to inflict another layer of mandatory books
Anyone knows whether the staff composition (how many people and at what posts) of GW is available somewhere? Wonder how they're actually organising themselves to seemingly have got very little coordination.
I think all we know is that there are two codex teams working on contents. Another thing we've picked up is that rules writing is really underfunded at GW in terms of how many resources they get compared ot other departments and how much workload/time they get.
Plus on top of that even if GW had good resources and a good attitude the 3 year cycle is insane for the size and complexity of game they produce. Throwing all the work of 3 years out the window for a new edition is honestly nuts. Esp when the actual time you can work on the rules is likely way way way less than those 3 years.
Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.
And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.
the kits dictating the rules is a big fething meme honestly.
Havocs
Crisis/Commander suits
also don't have all their options in the kit, right now the meta build for crisis isnt even doable with what comes in the kit and everyone has to print cyclic ion blasters
And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.
the kits dictating the rules is a big fething meme honestly.
Havocs
Crisis/Commander suits
also don't have all their options in the kit, right now the meta build for crisis isnt even doable with what comes in the kit and everyone has to print cyclic ion blasters
Weirdly crisis suits you would think would be perfect for a trimming down of options for this reason, give them 1 weapon that can be taken in multiples with 2-3 firing modes ala oblits and model as you please.
Weirdly crisis suits you would think would be perfect for a trimming down of options for this reason, give them 1 weapon that can be taken in multiples with 2-3 firing modes ala oblits and model as you please.
Yeah, they've always been a mess tbh, too many different weapon options and GW had to forcefully force people to not spam a single one in the past, so you were forced by the rules to run squads that fired 3+ different profiles often (which is a pain in the ass IMO)
given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty
leopard wrote: given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty
even with the penalty not in the calculations, running monoloadout is still the best choice
And then on Raveners, who used to have ranged weapon options similar to Warriors... and all their guns are consolidated.
The Raveners still have 4 chest options in the kit. So much for kits dictating the rules.
just wait, around will come 11th and those options will suddenly matter again, sucks to be someone who now has an "illegal" loadout...
and no I'm in no way bitter I built a single Zoenthrope & pair of Venomthropes from one box and not can't use either
nooooo not bitter at all
Happened to me in 10th edition already. Apparently deathwatch aren't allowed to take a non-bolter ranged weapon and a melee weapon anymore. It's Non-bolter weapon, Bolter+shield, Bolter+Melee Weapon, melee weapon+shield and that's it.
leopard wrote: given T'au are now essentially punished for splitting fire the only way to really run them is mono-load out, or include a smattering of flamers which don't have the to hit roll penalty
even with the penalty not in the calculations, running monoloadout is still the best choice
certainly the best for player sanity, now we have "reduced lethality" even to take down big stuff you need a good volume of shots, which by pure coincidence will usually also do a decent number of weaker stuff as well
only have one unit of three so far, six CIB and three flamers, they do ok
kodos wrote: Because it is an army level game, and everyone knows the more models there are on the table the more detailed the rules need to be
At a quarter the scale as well, so what's 40k's excuse?
Different author?
aimed at different players, the new Epic is aiming at nostalgia players who remember the game as it was, not the "perfected" but incredibly bland final version
at least with the new rules leak epic isn't a total free for all on weapon options, and with luck with say a Russ the hull heavy bolter will be situationally as useful as the hull lascannon.. maybe
Overread wrote: Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.
Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.
That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.
Overread wrote: Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.
Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.
That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.
Overread wrote: Until GW sheds either the 3 year cycle or the concept of rebuilding the rules from the ground up for each new edition; we will continue to have major issues and the same problems rearing their head all the time.
Yep. If the updates were based on an iterative approach to game design, refining the existing system and building on lessons learned, GW would probably have a world-beating game design.
That is the famous "road not taken," when the progression from RT to 2nd ed. was completely abandoned and a decade of gaming experience and FAQs were dumped. And it just keeps happening.
What would iterating on 9th look like to you?
An iteration would be keeping the majority of rules functioning the same way they did in 9th edition. Changes would be small/marginal. For example removing point costs for wargear and removing the psychic phase are BIG changes to the games core structure from 9th edition. So chances are you wouldn't do either of them. This would also mean most of the 9th codex would function with 10th edition more or less.
The idea would be more that a 10th edition would re-release the core rules material with all the FAQ/Errata documents baked into them (that's 3 years of updates alone); coupled with a few slightly bigger changes, but still small.
It would be all about making corrections and adjustments instead of straight up changing how the game is played and how it functions.
at this point 10th from 9th should be very small changes, basically rolling in what limited errata the 9th had over the 8th (which would itself have been evolution not revolution). plus any clarifications, perhaps revising diagrams to remove ambiguity and clarify edge cases identified
then any new mechanics required, e.g. rules from supplements related to new unit types or abilities being rolled into the core rules
the bulk of previous codexes, campaign books etc being largely compatible with a few sections replaced by the new book
finally evolved scenarios, any new methods to play (e.g. the combat patrol level game) added
the result would be a better set of rules, explained better, perhaps flowing better and taking on board lessons about how easy they are to learn for new players as well as how easy they are to reference for existing players - a commentary for existing players highlighting changes to previous rules and rule by rule noting the designers intent and intended functionality
I think in reality there isn't that much of a change overall though between 9th and 10th?
The USR's are just gathering and codifying rules that units largely had dotted around anyway. The free wargear isn't technically a core rules game mechanic and was also a thing in 9th. The unrestricted force organisation was again more or less a thing by the end of 9th.
The only parts that I think facilitates it not being an iterative change is the removal of the psychic phase. Battleshock is just supplanting the remove-more morale and OC/T scales are stat changes that facilitated the indexes, but not a core rules issue specifically.
Dudeface wrote: I think in reality there isn't that much of a change overall though between 9th and 10th?
The USR's are just gathering and codifying rules that units largely had dotted around anyway. The free wargear isn't technically a core rules game mechanic and was also a thing in 9th. The unrestricted force organisation was again more or less a thing by the end of 9th.
The only parts that I think facilitates it not being an iterative change is the removal of the psychic phase. Battleshock is just supplanting the remove-more morale and OC/T scales are stat changes that facilitated the indexes, but not a core rules issue specifically.
Yeah. Maybe this is special pleading - but the 9th->10th evolution seems reasonably clear. In terms of scoring there are some differences, but a lot of follow through.
Sure the codexes got revised - but by 9th we were at the point where basically every unit killed every other unit with their 30+ S10 AP-5 ignore invuls 3 damage weapons. (It was however balanced because everything was like this, unlike 10th where about 2/3rds of units got the memo and a third did not). GW had to have a reset so they could bring in the inevitable creep again. But in terms of the game it feels fairly iterative. 8th to 9th was arguably a bigger shift in terms of "how you played" - even if the codexes carried over.
The basic issue you have with the idea GW should be approaching a final edition is that codex creep sells. Churn sells. New systems and supplements sell. But eventually the bloat makes it impractical to play - and impossible to start. This has always been a problem for miniatures games - and those which can't produce this system of resets tend to just die despite the fact they were at one point in a healthy position. (See for example Warmahordes and X-Wing).
It's a mechanic to drive marketing and interest primarily yes. You change what's "good" or how things work and it keeps people interested in seeing how their existing collections change, inevitably gives them a reason to re-invest or try a new army. New editions also give them an excuse to handily charge for dead trees that are connected and used as a reasonable excuse to add new kits and options. People get excited and look forward to the point that their rules get a bit of love, which the churn ensures happens every couple of years at the least. Add in kill team units and other random side-game models they can use or campaign material and the idea is people are always fishing for that new interesting information.
Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset
even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop
the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it
yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)
saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it
while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl
I'm not really upset by producing new "specialists" or side games to be fair, or actual fleshed out supplements.
While I do agree that the churn may totally be a marketing strategy as discussed way earlier in this thread, to me it was not necessarly as a hype engine. Rather as a heavy handed attempts at forcing people hands, considering the kind of changes we get, and then people getting more or less enthusiasts when they look at what happened to their army.
I was not under the impression that their was that much hype, but I probably ovrlooked this in fact.
kodos wrote: Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset
even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop
the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it
yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)
saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it
while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl
Flames of War going from V3 to V4 didn't exactly go down all that well with the players
to the point Battlefront took down their own forums over it
How does one come to the conclusion that 10th isn't an iteration of 8th and 9th?
The one thing that was reset were the codices, and pretty much everyone agreed that they were by far the biggest cause of problems in 9th and beyond salvation.
All official narrative resources as well as game modes work fine in 10th with minor or no changes, boarding action even got updated for 10th.
If you really wanted, you could just play a 9th edition codex in 10th, it wouldn't be much different from someone playing a 3rd edition codex in 5th or a 4th edition codex in 6th - which was a rather normal thing to do.
kodos wrote: Well, WM/H and X-Wing died because they did the GW style of rules reset even SAGA almost died and their changes were on the level of a Chapter Approved/Generals Handbook update and it took years to recover from the player drop
the only game out there were this works is 40k, any other system trying to make sales based on resets die the moment they do it
yet any other healthy system that still is going on over several years and editions are those were changes are on the level of incorporating FAQ/Errata, balance changes and/or refining the rules (like splitting a single USR into 2 different ones for more granularity)
saying you must do it to grow and sell stuff is only true for 40k, as any other company that tried crashed with it while not doing it worked even for GW games, like Lord of the Rings, AoS or BloodBowl
Flames of War going from V3 to V4 didn't exactly go down all that well with the players to the point Battlefront took down their own forums over it
locally people changed from FoW to Battlegroup with V3 as the changes to the unit rules release so did not know that there was another drop with V4
I don't believe Vipoid means that codex in 9th were fine; he's meaning that you are incorrect in your assessment that the only thing which changed were the codex.
Removing the a whole phase from the structure of the game is a pretty big change to the core rules. Adjusting the game to run without modular model designs (ergo upgrades free/no upgrades) is also a big fundamental change to the game structure.
Again this isn't GW making small adjustments to refine the game, but big ones that change the nature of play of whole segments of the game. Sure you can kind of make an old codex work; but its going to have issues that will make it not work as intended.
The core rules were the entire reason that we ended up with borked codices. It's like blaming bad bricks because you demanded that your house be built on quicksand.
If you want a good game then you need to start with a solid foundation - not the shallow puddle of piss that was the 9th edition core rulebook.
The problem is that the rules were shallow to the point of being almost nonexistent. Units can move, shoot, hit things, and maybe do some magic (of which there is 1 core spell). There is no nuance to any of these mechanics (e.g. units can't dig in, go to ground, set up overwatches in lieu of shooting etc.). Nor are any USRs, special rules or other core mechanics that armies can build on.
Thus, one of the main reasons the 9th edition codices were so bloated was that they were basically having to work almost from scratch. For example, older editions had USRs that could be used to add thematic and functional mechanics to units, weapons or the like. But in 9th there were no USRs, so writers for each book were left to try and invent their own rules for each unit and weapon, probably with little communication between them.
Similarly, you've got a vague idea at each faction having a core mechanic and also a purity mechanic (the latter being lost if they ally). Honestly, the latter probably shouldn't have existed at all but GW was too busy overcorrecting for a problem it had already solved. Anyway, the lack of any depth to the core rules meant that all of these again were left entirely up to the designers to figure out because the core rules left absolutely nothing to build on. Thus, some armies got mechanics revolving around manipulating Fate Dice, Miracle Dice or the like, whilst others got 'AP-1 on a 6 to wound in melee.'.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that the core rules were about as flavourful as a bucket of wallpaper paste. Thus, once again, any rules to represent the fluff of a model, subfaction or such had to be invented from scratch, because the core rules offered absolutely nothing to work with.
Put simply, if you don't want codices to be bloated then you have to actually put some effort into the core rules, so that the codices are merely building on top of already solid foundation, rather than each one having to try and make its own core rules.
I should perhaps make it clear that I am in no way praising 9th's codices. What I am saying is that to claim they were the sole issue as though they somehow corrupted the poor, innocent core rules is to miss the wood for the trees. The core rules were the entire reason we ended up with bloated codices overstuffed with bespoke rules.
Well, 10th is clearly closer to 8th/9th than 8th was to 7th. It's also further away from 9th than 9th was from 8th (9th basically was: incorporated FaQ, new mission styles, small changes in morale rules, more detailed terrain rules, and worse points costs).
If you knew the basics of 8th you won't have many problems in dealing with 10th.
Many rules you already knew became a USR.
Engagement range was shortened.
Psychic powers and morale got a big change.
Points were thrown out the window in favor of rebranded Power level.
But overall it follows the same design philosophy: Pretty straight forward core rules, detailed datasheets. IGOUGO structure with added decision making in the form of stratagems. Units all behave the same basically and you don't need additional game aids aside from dice and a range ruler. The missions saw smaller changes between 9th and 10th than between 8th and 9th I'd say.
So, looking in the future I wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years or so, people view 8th - 10th as one era of the game, just like we throw 3rd and 7th together now, which actually are quite different from each other, probably moreso than 8th and 10th.
The core rules were the entire reason that we ended up with borked codices. It's like blaming bad bricks because you demanded that your house be built on quicksand.
If you want a good game then you need to start with a solid foundation - not the shallow puddle of piss that was the 9th edition core rulebook.
The problem is that the rules were shallow to the point of being almost nonexistent. Units can move, shoot, hit things, and maybe do some magic (of which there is 1 core spell). There is no nuance to any of these mechanics (e.g. units can't dig in, go to ground, set up overwatches in lieu of shooting etc.). Nor are any USRs, special rules or other core mechanics that armies can build on.
Thus, one of the main reasons the 9th edition codices were so bloated was that they were basically having to work almost from scratch. For example, older editions had USRs that could be used to add thematic and functional mechanics to units, weapons or the like. But in 9th there were no USRs, so writers for each book were left to try and invent their own rules for each unit and weapon, probably with little communication between them.
Similarly, you've got a vague idea at each faction having a core mechanic and also a purity mechanic (the latter being lost if they ally). Honestly, the latter probably shouldn't have existed at all but GW was too busy overcorrecting for a problem it had already solved. Anyway, the lack of any depth to the core rules meant that all of these again were left entirely up to the designers to figure out because the core rules left absolutely nothing to build on. Thus, some armies got mechanics revolving around manipulating Fate Dice, Miracle Dice or the like, whilst others got 'AP-1 on a 6 to wound in melee.'.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that the core rules were about as flavourful as a bucket of wallpaper paste. Thus, once again, any rules to represent the fluff of a model, subfaction or such had to be invented from scratch, because the core rules offered absolutely nothing to work with.
Put simply, if you don't want codices to be bloated then you have to actually put some effort into the core rules, so that the codices are merely building on top of already solid foundation, rather than each one having to try and make its own core rules.
I should perhaps make it clear that I am in no way praising 9th's codices. What I am saying is that to claim they were the sole issue as though they somehow corrupted the poor, innocent core rules is to miss the wood for the trees. The core rules were the entire reason we ended up with bloated codices overstuffed with bespoke rules.
Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th. There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.
The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.
Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did). Most of what you say is needed for depth also hasn't existed for decades in places, it's not a problem unique to 9th by any stretch.
I'd also argue that nothing in the core rules of the game actually care if your weapons are a consolidated profile, free or not. Those are simply design choices for unit construction and balance rather than a shift in the core rules of the game. Remember, many units had 0 points upgrades in 9th and the entire marine faction did by the end, so it clearly was compatible with 9th (if that's what you liked at least).
Jidmah wrote: So you are actually saying that 10th edition core rules are a full reset of the rules?
Because that would be a highly irrational stance to take.
well, it is easier to say what stayed the same than what was changed and even minor changes can have a big impact on how the game plays/works
just because some stuff is still similar does not mean it is a new game and yes 10th Edition is a new game and not a refined version of 9th
same as just because if you play 40k the rules of HH are similar enough for an easy transition still makes it is own game
kodos wrote: well, it is easier to say what stayed the same than what was changed
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, 10th is clearly closer to 8th/9th than 8th was to 7th. It's also further away from 9th than 9th was from 8th (9th basically was: incorporated FaQ, new mission styles, small changes in morale rules, more detailed terrain rules, and worse points costs). If you knew the basics of 8th you won't have many problems in dealing with 10th. Many rules you already knew became a USR. Engagement range was shortened. Psychic powers and morale got a big change. Points were thrown out the window in favor of rebranded Power level. But overall it follows the same design philosophy: Pretty straight forward core rules, detailed datasheets. IGOUGO structure with added decision making in the form of stratagems. Units all behave the same basically and you don't need additional game aids aside from dice and a range ruler. The missions saw smaller changes between 9th and 10th than between 8th and 9th I'd say.
So, looking in the future I wouldn't be surprised if, in 10 years or so, people view 8th - 10th as one era of the game, just like we throw 3rd and 7th together now, which actually are quite different from each other, probably moreso than 8th and 10th.
kodos, I guess you were proven wrong before even you posted
kodos wrote: really?
how does this post proves "a lot of small changes can make for a very different gameplay"
but ok, if you go that way, 10th 40k is basically the very same as 2nd Edition was.
still follows the same design philosophy and structures
maybe you should just play 10th index and directly after it a game of 8th index and tell me if you think those 2 are the very same game
You're missing the point entirely, the index are a set of profiles, points and rules for individual units, Jidmah is saying that the core rules haven't changed much. It's very obvious that army level rules and design space has changed a lot which is why the codex were taken out back and shot.
but 10th only has 1 Codex yet, so you cannot really compare them on the same level by playing Codex VS Codex in one game and Codex VS Index in another as those will be sure very different, simply because of the difference between Codex and Index
a fair comparison would be Index VS Index, which we had 3 times, 3rd, 8th and 10th
so for now this can be directly compared to see of the game plays the same for the core or not (or one need to wait for the Codex SM to be released until you could actually say that the game is the same as 9th or not)
but 10th only has 1 Codex yet, so you cannot really compare them on the same level by playing Codex VS Codex in one game and Codex VS Index in another as those will be sure very different, simply because of the difference between Codex and Index
a fair comparison would be Index VS Index, which we had 3 times, 3rd, 8th and 10th
so for now this can be directly compared to see of the game plays the same for the core or not
You almost certainly are missing the point.
What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook.
Dudeface wrote: Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th.
This is only partially true.
There certainly existed some bespoke rules in pre-8th. However, many of the faction abilities were made partially or wholly from USRs. e.g. ATSKNF, Fleet, Poison etc.
Dudeface wrote: There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.
They don't need to exist, sure, but if they're going to exist (which they clearly were as it was a constant throughout all the codices) then they absolutely should be supported by the core rules.
The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.
Except that many of them were inconsistent - either intentionally or simply because of the lack of any consistent vocabulary. For example, some Rending effects would add -2 AP, others might add -3 or -4 AP. Some would only add the aforementioned AP whilst others would also up the damage. The mortal wound versions were similarly inconsistent - some would add a mortal wound, some would replace the normal damage with a single mortal wound, whilst still others would inflict the damage as mortal wounds.
Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did).
"
Ah yes, thank goodness psychic powers were stripped back to be replaced by the... nothing in the core rules.
Thank goodness we now have a wopping three USRs that have been thoughtlessly copy-pasted onto every single unit and character so that they all feel exactly the same.
Thank goodness characters are now locked into units. I don't know what problem that solved but I'm sure it solved it very well.
Thank goodness wargear options was deleted wholesale from codices. Weapons that have existed for 6+ prior editions were definitely the cause of 9th edition's bloat.
Thank goodness, too, that the subfaction rules you claimed to be unnecessary will still exist. This was a bad thing in 9th but now we're into 10th so it's come full circle and become a good thing again. Woohoo!
Thank goodness points are gone! Truly 10th has ended 9th's reign of tyranny.
Thank goodness every book is now exactly the sort of bland, soulless tripe you would expect from the dismal core rules. Obviously everyone playing 40k really wanted their armies to be as thematic and flavourful as the sides in a game of checkers.
I think the issue is that some changes are significant, while others are less so.
For example, in 3rd-7th, the rules governing how a unit can move are I think fundamentally different to 8th-10th. There however clearly differences in the details of movement in 8th, 9th and 10th. But this feels more like a FAQ ruling. By contrast the 3rd-7th and 8th-10th systems feel incomprehensible if you'd only known the other system.
Flyers can do this or flyers can do that compared with "right so that unit is a fast skimmer, which means..."
Dudeface wrote: Here's a counter point for you: the core rules have never consistently established faction specific rules for the majority of factions prior to 8th.
This is only partially true.
There certainly existed some bespoke rules in pre-8th. However, many of the faction abilities were made partially or wholly from USRs. e.g. ATSKNF, Fleet, Poison etc.
So you could say they weren't very creative before because they were limited to that game-wide framework (if they existed)?
Dudeface wrote: There isn't a need for the purity bonus to exist, there was no need for subfaction rules to exist, there is no need for those to be supported by core rules.
They don't need to exist, sure, but if they're going to exist (which they clearly were as it was a constant throughout all the codices) then they absolutely should be supported by the core rules.
This I simply disagree with, but I think it's safe to agree to disagree here. I don't see the value in blood angles just having lethal hits, space wolves having sustained hits etc. that feels both dull and just asking to be gamed. If you want a universal rule for generating extra dice, that's a different conversation because it won't always fit for all the factions that can do it within the flavour of that mechanic, in my opinion.
The USR's existed in all but name due to recurring copy and paste rules across armies. There's a reason people were still able to call stuff FnP, Deep strike etc. despite not having USR's.
Except that many of them were inconsistent - either intentionally or simply because of the lack of any consistent vocabulary. For example, some Rending effects would add -2 AP, others might add -3 or -4 AP. Some would only add the aforementioned AP whilst others would also up the damage. The mortal wound versions were similarly inconsistent - some would add a mortal wound, some would replace the normal damage with a single mortal wound, whilst still others would inflict the damage as mortal wounds.
The entire reason they tried to not make USR's was to allow them to tweak every possible interaction or have them apply differently for flavour, which isn't a bad or unfair goal, but they were largely unified across multiple places and safe to say, they failed on that goal imo hence we got USR's.
Every problem you mentioned in that post is resolved by consolidating the copy paste rules into USR's (they did), stripping back the bloat in the codex (they did).
"
Ah yes, thank goodness psychic powers were stripped back to be replaced by the... nothing in the core rules.
Thank goodness we now have a wopping three USRs that have been thoughtlessly copy-pasted onto every single unit and character so that they all feel exactly the same.
Thank goodness characters are now locked into units. I don't know what problem that solved but I'm sure it solved it very well.
Thank goodness wargear options was deleted wholesale from codices. Weapons that have existed for 6+ prior editions were definitely the cause of 9th edition's bloat.
Thank goodness, too, that the subfaction rules you claimed to be unnecessary will still exist. This was a bad thing in 9th but now we're into 10th so it's come full circle and become a good thing again. Woohoo!
Thank goodness points are gone! Truly 10th has ended 9th's reign of tyranny.
Thank goodness every book is now exactly the sort of bland, soulless tripe you would expect from the dismal core rules. Obviously everyone playing 40k really wanted their armies to be as thematic and flavourful as the sides in a game of checkers.
- The psychic phase being removed is maybe the one contentious issue with 10th imo, although there was plenty of complaints how it was a literal waste of time and excuse to remove models for multiple armies, yours included. You're likely better off now and aren't having to sit through a phase with little to no interaction but removing stuff. I'm not sad it's gone but there is flavour lost.
- Yes, because those are the only rules on the characters /s
- It's a point, not sure if it matters, it's very different to 8th/9th but not the same as 3rd-7th. Another change I'm on the fence on, sometimes it seems dumb, other times it makes sense, it's poorly applied imo. I think it was a pre-emptive attempt at stopping deathballs ala screamerstar etc.
- Wargear choices aren't core rules
- Points costs aren't core rules
- The books still have as much if not more faction identity and flavour than most armies ever saw pre-8th
What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook
so for you, devastating hits are a refinement of the "to hit" rules from 9th and devastating wounds a refinement of to wound rules from 10th?
if this is the case, why is that one refinement a "broken" rule that needed to be changed?
how can a refinement of a core rule from a previous edition have unpredictable influences on the game that it needed to be changed before the first codex is released
if 10th is a refinement of 9th, the latest "hotfix" should have never been needed as there are 3 years of knowledge and data on how those rules work and what to expect when using them
but I guess I am wrong and refinement means "broken rules that turn the game around" and not "make things better", but I am also not a native speaker and happy to learn new things
Than it cannot be a refinement of a 9th edition core rule
You know core, without any index or codex rules as it was required by others above
So either the game changed in its core and got new rules added that change how the game works
Or these are refinements of the previous core rules
If it is an USR that was previously a codex rule added to the core, it can hardly be a refinement of previous core mechanics
Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that
kodos wrote: Than it cannot be a refinement of a 9th edition core rule
You know core, without any index or codex rules as it was required by others above
So either the game changed in its core and got new rules added that change how the game works
Or these are refinements of the previous core rules
If it is an USR that was previously a codex rule added to the core, it can hardly be a refinement of previous core mechanics
Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that
So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.
They have refined the various instances of "Ignores damage on a roll of X" into a central rule. This is not difficult as a concept.
You can pretty much play a game of 10th with the 9th ed necron/tau/dark eldar/sisters/world eaters codex with the most minimal of confusion and adaptation.
You'd have to treat all units as OC1, obsec as OC2, and just accept your aura characters can be targeted. It might suck, but it works functionally.
Oh and a minor reword of the leadership stat to invert it maybe.
Or "the game" is everything within an Edition including Codizes and not just the free rules part and by comparing Editions we compare everything from that
Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.
that was the challenge given and there is also the problem, because previously most of those rules were not in the core but with the codices, and now we are only allowed to compare the "core" to say what is fundamentally different
yet comparing the core only does not give us a good impression of the game in general, as the core rules were never broken beyond fixing by themselves, it was always the Codizes that were
And yet Devastating Wounds are such a thing that might have been in the game before, but not as part of the core if someone comes up with that:
Dudeface wrote: What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook..
Devastating Wounds are a fundamental change to the core that was not just a minor refinement of 9th as it was not there in 9th
so either we compare the whole Edition or just the Core, Dudeface wants to do the later so that:
Dudeface wrote: So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.
is wrong because you yourself came up with "just the core and nothing else"
and not "just the core but also any other rule from any other book it as long is it supports Dudeface arguments"
Having USRs change nothing. If applied and costed appropriately there is no problem. It created a couple of foreseeable problems that GW ignored, that's bad index writing. The indexes are more fleshed out than ever before, 8th indexes were poorly done considering how long some factions were forced to continue using them. While the pure index experience was sometimes, the idea for the new indexes are better.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, but then you'll hardly find something to even compare, say, 6th and 7th edition because the whole force organisation and ally system changed between these two otherwize very similar editions. But if you throw in Codizes you'll hardly find anything connecting an early 6th edition codex with anything post Necron 7th edition decurion codizes.
that was the challenge given and there is also the problem, because previously most of those rules were not in the core but with the codices, and now we are only allowed to compare the "core" to say what is fundamentally different
yet comparing the core only does not give us a good impression of the game in general, as the core rules were never broken beyond fixing by themselves, it was always the Codizes that were
And yet Devastating Wounds are such a thing that might have been in the game before, but not as part of the core if someone comes up with that:
Dudeface wrote: What is so fundamentally different in the core rules of 10th that it isn't a minor refinement of 9th? In the core rulebook, no indexes, no codexes, no crusade supplements, no campaign supplements, no WD content. Core rulebook..
Devastating Wounds are a fundamental change to the core that was not just a minor refinement of 9th as it was not there in 9th
so either we compare the whole Edition or just the Core, Dudeface wants to do the later so that:
Dudeface wrote: So there were some rules in 9th that were game wide in some capacity, under different names, they've been refined into one shared rule and called a USR, they've opted to list these in the rulebook.
is wrong because you yourself came up with "just the core and nothing else"
and not "just the core but also any other rule from any other book it as long is it supports Dudeface arguments"
So are you saying the entire game is incompatible between 9th and 10th edition because they created the USR devastating wounds? That one rule is utterly game changing and is the biggest change to you?
You're arguments are getting flimsier by the second.
What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?
Has there been a huge design change in how the armies are being priced or what options they have? Absolutely.
If they invented 200 new bolter variants with wargear costs for them, would that suddenly require a change to the rules in any way? No. Because they're not core to the rules of the game, but they are core to it's identity arguably.
Dudeface wrote: What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?
That's asking the wrong question. An edition of a game is more than the written text of its core rules, it also includes the design philosophy the rest of the material is written under. And 10th includes some massive shifts there.
Jidmah wrote: So you are actually saying that 10th edition core rules are a full reset of the rules?
Because that would be a highly irrational stance to take.
To anyone but the minority of psychic armies, killing off psychic phase was a small change.
HUGE Core Rule changes include:
Changes to terrain and LOS (via towering)
Removal of Psychic Phase
Decoupling WS/ BS from model statline to weapon statline
Limitations on Strats (not only in number, but also the way they are picked in batches of 6 based on detachments)
Single detachment systems/ elimination of 500 point games/ and other scaling mechanisms
Elimination of subfactions for everyone but Marines and bespoke God CSM Massive Weapon consolidation
Morale changes
Elimination of Mission Pack concept
Significant Crusade alterations (the Blooded xp cap for non-characters and the changes to Battle Scars are big)
It's true that in isolation SOME of these changes aren't as big as others... But that's like saying 5 inches of rain falling during a storm isn't a big deal, because it's just an eighth of an inch, and then another eighth of an inch, and then another eighth of an inch...
Or like not needing a parachute when jump out of a plane because once you're 3 feet from the ground, it's safe to jump the rest of the way...
"numbers aren't part of the core rules" is more or less what you're saying at that point. Bit of a hard sell for a game that requires a ruler with numbers on it and dice, with numbers on them, to play, that's just a thought now.
Dudeface wrote: What part of the core rules of the game have anything to do with your wargear options or points costs?
Has there been a huge design change in how the armies are being priced or what options they have? Absolutely.
If they invented 200 new bolter variants with wargear costs for them, would that suddenly require a change to the rules in any way? No. Because they're not core to the rules of the game, but they are core to it's identity arguably.
So, a distinction without a difference?
I mean, if Space Marines across the board see a 50% points cost reduction between edition, but all other units retain comparable point costs, that's not a change to a "core" rule, but it would radically change gameplay, no?
This isn't rocket science people. The core rules of Warhammer 40K consist of two documents: The Core Rules and the Rules Commentary. That's it. They cover the rules of the game outside of the various models and armies (Indexes & Codices) and the specific mission rules (Mission Packs).
They can completely overhaul an Index when make in the transition to a Codex and not tough the core rules. They can completely break the core rules with bad rules in the Indexes and Codices (let's give Aeldari high damage Devastating Wound weapons AND a rule that allows them to manufacture Critical Wounds). The change to Devastating Wounds was required because they created monster units with d6, 2d6, 12 damage and didn't seem to realize the effect of what they did.
alextroy wrote: This isn't rocket science people. The core rules of Warhammer 40K consist of two documents: The Core Rules and the Rules Commentary. That's it. They cover the rules of the game outside of the various models and armies (Indexes & Codices) and the specific mission rules (Mission Packs).
But what does that have to do with the topic of edition churn? As I said, an edition of a game includes things like supplements and design philosophy. The core rules text is only a part of the total picture and there's no point in limiting the discussion to just the core rules text.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: But what does that have to do with the topic of edition churn? As I said, an edition of a game includes things like supplements and design philosophy. The core rules text is only a part of the total picture and there's no point in limiting the discussion to just the core rules text.
They're just moving goalposts. Again. Nothing more.
That's more than enough firepower to waste the whole squad!
