Over the past week I've been reading some conversations on the "pros & cons" of TLOS in 8th. The general feeling I get, from this forum at least, is that this creates an issue with regards to Antenna vs Antenna shooting, DKOK Heavy weapons team not being able to see above sandbags cause they're on the floor, Social consensus before the game and GW's inability to write rules etc. While I do agree with some of the sentiments and I do lament some of the GW modelling decisions with TLOS in effect, the crux of the issue to me always seemed to be that you can obliterate an entire 20+ unit of Ork Boyz behindLOS blocking terrain simply because my Tesla Immortals saw the 1 dudes topknot from a window.
Isn't that the bigger issue here?
If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? Granted vehicles and monster are still in many aspects shafted but for infantry and particularly hordes, if all you could see was 2 or 3 Boyz with your Leman Russ Punisher then TLOS means nothing to me as all your Heavy 20 is gonna amount to is...3 dead Boyz...
I dunno, it just seems like the deeper issue is being forgotten amongst the debate of TLOS and functioning Terrain rules. (Or maybe it was already addressed before and I'm just late).
I think it's both really. TLOS is garbage for a variety of reasons, the fact that you only have to see a tiny part of one model to destroy a squad that's 90% hidden being only one of them.
I'll never understood why they switched to TLOS. It complicates things slightly but a "size" stat differentiating between infantry, large infantry and so on as well as some clear terrain rules would be an improvement
We play a mix of TLOS, as like it or not the game is designed around it, and what I have suggested.
That is the worst part with the current los and terrain rules. Either you have HUGE los blockers or it feels like a barren field for your melee units larger than 1-5 models when it comes to hiding from shooting. Things like fliers and knights make it even worse. Those models can all move quite the distance and shoot without penalties and are really tall so to hide something from them is almost impossible unless huge Ls are on the board. Usually the terrain is fine for infantry vs infantry or if the vehicles are no taller than an old dreadnought or rhino etc but as soon as you face Knights or fliers you will realise some of the terrain that make the table look crowded could as well have been removed since it doesnt really prevent any shooting.
One of the reasons I only used 15 Death Company in a single unit once. It was impossible to hide so many of them and even if 6 of them survived out of los I still lost 2+d6 models to morale.... so they all died...
There is some misunderstanding around what True Line of Sight can and should do.
The difference between TLOS and abstract LOS is, that with the first, models on the table can block the line of sight because of their physical presence and shape
For example, the Troop leader on a scenic base can block Line of Sight for the Special Weapons model right behind it.
Or that only those models can shoot from inside of a building that can truly see something
TLOS is a concept usually used for smaller Skirmish games with a lot of terrain were the placing of each individual model is important.
Larger games usually use an abstract Line of Sight to speed up the gameplay.
For example that models in the same unit never block LOS, or that shooting from inside a building is always possible.
But this has nothing to do with which models can be killed.
As this is Wound Allocation and independent from which version of Line of Sight rules are used.
that you can only kill models that are within range and line of sight of weapons VS it is enough to see 1 model to kill the unit is also a thing to speed up gameplay
Next thing are cover and terrain rules, which are also independent from the Line of Sight rules, but get into the same topic as True Line of Sight with True Terrain has different requirements on models and the table than abstract Line of Sight and abstract terrain
best example is a Forrest, as with "true" rules, a Forrest will only work with a lot of trees, making it hard to place infantry and impossible to place larger models
while with abstract rules, a sheet of paper declared as Forrest will do the job.
Problem with 40k is that its core is a small Skirmish game with a lot of micro management and detailed models (for armies and terrain) but it needs certain abstractions to handle the amount of models that are used.
And this abstractions changes with each Edition, some combinations of LOS, Terrain and Wound Allocation rules work better than others and all have their disadvantages.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: I'll never understood why they switched to TLOS. It complicates things slightly but a "size" stat differentiating between infantry, large infantry and so on as well as some clear terrain rules would be an improvement .
They changed from a size stat to TLOS because it was a problem with having fixed sizes (there were 3) larger models being on the way
and as GW does not consider future releases or development when writing rules and does not want people to know what will come it was easier for them to use TLOS instead of having an unlimited size stat
If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .
This was a rule previously.
Scenario:
30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?
If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.
If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.
Thanks for the breakdown and clearing a few things up. I guess what I was really trying to get at was that currently, wound allocation seems to be a much bigger issue IMO between the three game mechanics brought up whilst also being relatively the easiest issue to solve in this current iteration of the game.
kodos wrote: Problem with 40k is that its core is a small Skirmish game with a lot of micro management and detailed models (for armies and terrain) but it needs certain abstractions to handle the amount of models that are used.
And this abstractions changes with each Edition, some combinations of LOS, Terrain and Wound Allocation rules work better than others and all have their disadvantages.
Humour me for a moment but what combination of the three do you think works best as the game stands right now?
One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage
If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .
If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.
Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?
tneva82 wrote: One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage
If you just changed it to the amount of models you see is the amount you can kill but not the ones that have to die you get something in the middle. You cant snipe models and the defending player can remove models out of los to keep melee units close but if they do they still have models in the open that can keep making them vulnerable to shooting.
There are often middle grounds that could work well but GW likes to make huge changes each time they do something and since most rules dont exist in isolation you often need to tweak something else to make it work well. Like if you change LOS rules you might want to change terrain and wound allocation slightly. What GW often does is only change LOS or they also change something else as much instead of tweaking it slightly so they shift the problem instead of fixing ut
The biggest problem I have currently is that we have true line of sight but abstracted base-to-base melee.
An Eldar Wraithknight cannot hit a model on a 1.5" platform because he cannot physically get his base up there, so the guardsman that doesn't come up to his crotch is un-attackable.
This is done so that Powergaming Spike cannot model his Wraithknight holding his sword out super far in front of him and engage models in melee measuring off of the sword.
However, powergaming Spike can declare the antenna of his baneblade will unload all its ordnance into the hairdo of one chaos space marine, obliterating the whole squad as if they were standing out in an open field.
So, you do get situations with abstracted rules where things don't make intuitive sense, BUT it's much harder to powergame overall. for the most part, base to base melee works better and causes fewer arguments than "True Measurement Melee" would.
That's why I'd prefer abstracted LOS. Give each model a "Height stat" which means for LOS they count as an imaginary pillar a certain number of inches tall above their base.Want to see if you can draw LOS to a unit? Drop a tape measure to their base and see if you can see the tape.
Humour me for a moment but what combination of the three do you think works best as the game stands right now?
without fine-tuning:
models have a Size based on the bases or unit type keyword
Line of Sight:
TLOS with the following exceptions:
All models and/or solid terrain which have the same or bigger Size than the target model block the Line Of Sight completely
Solid terrain and/or models which are 1 Size smaller than the target model and loose terrain (eg Forrest) of the same or bigger Size give the target cover
Every terrain and/or model which is 2 Size smaller has no effect
Additional the shooting model ignore terrain of the same or smaller Size which is in base contact
Models of the same unit are also ignored when you check for line of sight. (models of other friendly units block line of sight normally)
Line of Sight works in both ways. Units which can draw a Line Of Sight to an enemy unit can also be seen by this unit.
If a model stands on a piece of terrain, sum up the size of the model and terrain to check line of sight.
Wound Allocation:
Only models that can be seen and are in weapon range can get a wound from ranged attacks.
No model can get a second wound until all models got their first one and non can get a third one until all got their second one etc.
Allocate Mortal Wounds first and remove the eliminated models.
Proceed with wounds that negate the armour save and remove the losses. Allocate the remaining wounds and make armour saves for the wounded models.
The owning player can choose which models are removed but always have to remove as many models as possible (eg remove full models if units consists of models with more than one HP).
models need to be removed from front to back
Attacks performed against a specific model (because of special rules) can only wound that specific model.
Terrain:
The size of a terrain piece is equal it's high or depth on the table in inch (Rivers or Lakes have a negative size value which is treated the same like a positive value, a size 3 model cannot be seen in a lake 4” deep)
If a model modes in or through difficult terrain whose size is equal or bigger than the size of the model, the movement is halved, hills and other high terrain which is not difficult does not slow models down.
Impassible Terrain
Models cannot move in or through impassable terrain whose size is equal or bigger than the size of the model.
If a model whose size is bigger than those of the impassible terrain moves in or through it, it rolls a D6 for the movement distance. It cannot exceed its normal movement distance.
Cover gives a bonus to the armour save and also apply to models that normally have no armour save.
Models inside or behind any area terrain or behind another unit add +1 to their armour save.
Models inside or behind and touching hard cover (rocks, walls, ruins, most buildings) add +2 to their armour save.
Fortifications or Shelter give a bonus of +3
the cover bonus can turn the armour save into a negative value and that models of the same unit can get a different cover bonus. Weapons that ignore armour saves do not automatically ignore the cover bonus (and the model still has a cover save)
Additional the cover bonus also apply in close combat if the unit is inside terrain or in direct contact with the terrain that gives the bonus (e.g. models behind a wall get a cover save if the wall is between the 2 units in close combat).
I'd prefer to move to a size stat for units and terrain where a unit or terrain piece that is equal or larger than the target provides a cover save to the target or obscures it in some way.
I dislike the TLOS where banners and antennas can be used for LOS as it stands now, but am not sure what the best way to deal with this would be.
As for wound allocation, I wouldn't go back to the system where the closest models are removed or where sniping specific models in units could happen. Equally the idea that a 20-30 model unit can be wiped out because one model is visible is not the right approach either.
I'd go for a compromise as suggested above where the number of models in LOS and in range of the weapons being fired would be used to determine how many models can be removed from play, but let the defending player determine which models to remove from anywhere in the unit. I like the idea that the one special weapon in the unit can't be sniped and the the abstraction that if that model is killed then another member of the unit picks up the weapon.
I'd consider going a bit further and stipulate that models have to be removed in such a way that unit coherency is maintained. However there would need to be consideration as to how this interacts with removing whole models at a time so that you don't have multiple models in a unit which have lost wounds. Perhaps that models are to be removed such that unit coherency is maintained except where doing so would result in spreading lost wounds throughout the unit. I'm sure that could be phrased more succinctly though.
That's why I'd prefer abstracted LOS. Give each model a "Height stat" which means for LOS they count as an imaginary pillar a certain number of inches tall above their base.Want to see if you can draw LOS to a unit? Drop a tape measure to their base and see if you can see the tape.
I'm not really opposed to that, but Warhammer carries such a large variety of units that height stats will either be too copious and require constant lookup or be so standardized that certain models benefit more.
Does this also solve the aforementioned melee problem? It doesn't seem like it does.
Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?
It used to happened often. Now? Probably not as much considering you can't pick out characters as easily and most people don't use generalists. There is still the choice of picking off TH Intercessor Sarges, or sarges in general to pull out more attacks.
Usually the whole squad gets picked off is avoidable with communication and better placement. Ork blobs are notoriously hard to hide and can benefit from KFF - kicking Boyz with Da Jump from the back edge is also a more secure method of delivery since most anti-infantry guns don't reach that far in the first turn or two.
Daedalus81 wrote:30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?
If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.
If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.
tneva82 wrote:One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage
Back in 3rd/4th at least it was explicitly stated in the rules that taking casualties from anywhere in the squad was meant to represent other soldiers picking up the weaponry of those who died.
So the logical compromise here is that the number of casualties should be limited to the number of models visible to the firing unit, but taken from anywhere in the squad. You used a Rhino to block you LOS so that you could only see the plasma guy, you killed the plasma guy, and someone else in the squad runs over to take his weapon.
I'm not sure how being able to take casualties from anywhere is game-able by melee units, can you explain?
Here is a Leman Russ (or land raider) firing at 20 Genestealers in single file, with a solid wall cutting the genestealer squad in 2 (the wall is less than 1" wide where the X is). Let's assume the genestealers are at max 2" coherency.
The LR will have to kill every single genestealer to deny a 7" charge. Killing 19 genestealers will be insufficient to keep it from being tied up. If the LR burns 19 genestealers, the narrative assumptions being made here are that:
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets OR 2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations
My biggest issue with TLOS at 40ks scale is that we shouldn't be worried about what individual models can see and do. We should be worried about what UNITS do. Apocalypse shows excellent unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit. It speeds everything up drastically, improves terrain rules a great deal. Makes fighting work better. Everything. When a single unit can comprise 30 models stop giving a gak what a single model does. Worry about the units.
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations
The problem with this is it allows sniping of key models within units - squad leaders, special or heavy weapons etc as mentioned earlier in the thread with positoning of tanks etc to ensure that that only specific models are in LOS and range.
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations
With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.
The good bit of 8th’s casualty removal is that you don’t have to stress about positioning useful dudes at the back, everyone 1.99999” apart, etc etc etc. So much time is saved and units become much more playable so I can swallow the odder abstractions.
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets OR 2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations
With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.
The good bit of 8th’s casualty removal is that you don’t have to stress about positioning useful dudes at the back, everyone 1.99999” apart, etc etc etc. So much time is saved and units become much more playable so I can swallow the odder abstractions.
Also, flamers and other short ranged specialist weapons just got drastically devalued. Can't put them up front where you could actually use them. They die first before they get to shoot.
Daedalus81 wrote:30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?
If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.
If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.
tneva82 wrote:One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage
Back in 3rd/4th at least it was explicitly stated in the rules that taking casualties from anywhere in the squad was meant to represent other soldiers picking up the weaponry of those who died.
So the logical compromise here is that the number of casualties should be limited to the number of models visible to the firing unit, but taken from anywhere in the squad. You used a Rhino to block you LOS so that you could only see the plasma guy, you killed the plasma guy, and someone else in the squad runs over to take his weapon.
^This.
Limit the killing of models to those you can see. Then let the defender choose which models in the unit to remove. Defender can remove the guy in LOS being sniped, and then the unit can take no more casualties. Or the defender can remove a model out of LOS, and the attacker can still attack the unit because of the single model out of cover.
Here is a Leman Russ (or land raider) firing at 20 Genestealers in single file, with a solid wall cutting the genestealer squad in 2 (the wall is less than 1" wide where the X is). Let's assume the genestealers are at max 2" coherency.
The LR will have to kill every single genestealer to deny a 7" charge. Killing 19 genestealers will be insufficient to keep it from being tied up. If the LR burns 19 genestealers, the narrative assumptions being made here are that:
1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.
Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.
Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
TBH though I think that's an outgrowth of at-will casualty removal in general- we already have the scenario where a unit of Genestealers strung out from 2" away to 20" away, when shot, remove the most distant ones first. Narratively, that implies the same choices- either the soon-to-be-charged are shooting the most distant 'Stealers first, or the 'Stealers are zipping forward as they get shot.
So like, if we're okay with how that currently works from a gameplay perspective, then I'm fine with the same weirdness applying when cover is involved too. It might be a gimmick and might be game-able, but I'm not sure how useful it would really be in practice.
In general I think Lance845 is right; handling units as a whole makes for a much smoother system. But that's neither here nor there short of a really radical overhaul to how 40K works.
With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.
With Overwatch, random charge distances, the current point costs and damage potential of melee units, this is their least problem
just because melee units need a complete re-work anyway should not be the reason to "solve" other problems
Karol wrote: I just want a rule that say you can't shot at banner, antenas or weapons of infantry models.
And if Santa exists, then bring in standar size, so even a converted or dynamic model doesn't get punished for existing.
But the first one would make me happy enough.
Agree this with opponent. As there is a designers note that staes banners, attenas etc are not viable LoS targets.
I cant remember if in CA19 or BrB, but it is there.
If that's true, folks have been playing it wrong a long time!
This does ring a bell actually, I think it was something about targeting only the hull of vehicles so wasn't applicable to infantry models with banners etc. I could be mistaken though.
EDIT: On second thought, I think it was in the Designer's commentary for vehicles without bases measuring ranges to and from the hull and had nothing to do with LOS.
If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .
If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.
Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?
/
Archievable enough it was actually real problem last time it was possible.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Over the past week I've been reading some conversations on the "pros & cons" of TLOS in 8th. The general feeling I get, from this forum at least, is that this creates an issue with regards to Antenna vs Antenna shooting, DKOK Heavy weapons team not being able to see above sandbags cause they're on the floor, Social consensus before the game and GW's inability to write rules etc. While I do agree with some of the sentiments and I do lament some of the GW modelling decisions with TLOS in effect, the crux of the issue to me always seemed to be that you can obliterate an entire 20+ unit of Ork Boyz behindLOS blocking terrain simply because my Tesla Immortals saw the 1 dudes topknot from a window.
Isn't that the bigger issue here?
If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? Granted vehicles and monster are still in many aspects shafted but for infantry and particularly hordes, if all you could see was 2 or 3 Boyz with your Leman Russ Punisher then TLOS means nothing to me as all your Heavy 20 is gonna amount to is...3 dead Boyz...
I dunno, it just seems like the deeper issue is being forgotten amongst the debate of TLOS and functioning Terrain rules. (Or maybe it was already addressed before and I'm just late).
Yes, perfect.
I would play that game.
Also, anyone who says that an antenna,
or an outstretched pistol,
counts as seeing a model is FoS.
If the base is visible, maybe 50% if this sounds better, then the model should count as visible but in cover.
If any less, then it is hidden.
And, measuring from model to model is the best way to roll imho.
This is easier than it sounds, with long sticks or laser pointers,
really- it takes as much time as looking for one's self.
And as for creating cover with purposefully (wrecked) vehicles, why not?
This should also block movement though infantry should be able to climb over
with a penalty, I would say half movement.
Speaking of which, I want a movement stat to come back,
charge to go back to 2x movement modulated by intervening terrain,
and for initiative to be a thing again...
with templates, beyatchiz!
Simply put a set height to base sizes to determent LOS, Like in warmachine/hordes. If you can not draw a strait line to from Base to Base or to the set height of a model, you cant shoot.That way you could do whatever you want when modeling your figures, you could have a whole squad of dudes squatting but you still know their true Base/Height/LOS. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about being punished for modeling your units in a game using models.
JohnnyHell wrote: Forget measuring heights for 20 model units shooting at 20 model units... not something that scales efficiently to 40K.
that's silly, you already measure to move 20 models in a unit... and measure weapon ranges for 20 models in a unit... measuring if the wall blocks LOS or not on a set height you would already know is easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also it's a set Height based on base, you would be measuring terrain not models.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
then link it to base size and unit type. If your infantry you are size 0 or 1, but if your infantry and have a dreadnought base you are size to. Vehicles are size 2, unless your on a knight sized base. For some older models that comes without bases, they could have an additional trait like huge or something, this way a Land Raider would be size 3 etc.
Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
how many infantry models have huge dreadnought sized bases? the vast majority of infantry would be the same size, wouldn't matter if something was an eldar or a termintor.
TLOS is horrible, because it makes a ton of terrain as good as if it wasn't there. Forests, if I can see through them, is as good as a plain. building with doors or window is the same.
And then the tables really start to look like cut outs or labirynths, because the looks or shape of terrain don't matter, only if it fully blocks LoS and is tall enough to hide knights or not.
you can of course fix it with house rules, but then good luck with no abstractions when you explain to a new player why the windows on the first floor of this building are not see through, but on that other one are, because it is elevated on a ruined based, and while this thick forests requires people to remove the trees and just leave the base shape of the forests while units enter it.
They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.
TLOS is easy to pick up and understand for new players.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.
Are we still clinging to that thing that hasn’t broken 8th three years on? Really?
it is just the point that you need new terrain each time GW get into the scale creep and your terrain from the beginning of the edition is not suitable any more for TLOS games with the new sculpts
so most people house rule those things to abandon TLOS and use something different
even ITC went away from TLOS, so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
kodos wrote: it is just the point that you need new terrain each time GW get into the scale creep and your terrain from the beginning of the edition is not suitable any more for TLOS games with the new sculpts
so most people house rule those things to abandon TLOS and use something different
even ITC went away from TLOS, so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Tha second paragraph simply isn’t true though. You can’t just state something based on your experience and say it applies everywhere. I’ve never played a game where we’ve houseruled LOS in 8th. ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.
This idea that players all use homebrew LOS rules just isn’t true.
ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.
So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"
This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something
You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
Except it works perfectly in WMH with a simple special rule added to the unit's statcard (or datasheet for 40k.). On all of the weapon team models, and others such as the Covenant of Menoth have a rule called "man sized" where they are treated as a small based model for LOS and other rule purposes such as trample attacks despite being on a larger base.
I think people are misunderstanding the height thing from WMH that was proposed. It's not the literal height on the model, it is based entirely on base size and all are a defined height given on a widget built into the spray template. If GW got super strict with base sizes (personally I hope not as I have things on slightly larger bases than they should be, as that is only what the conversion could fit on...) then they could easily implement it and sell a new, overpriced widget to everyone playing 40k.
Banville wrote: They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
Job done.
What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.
ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.
So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"
This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something
You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.
ITC uses true Line of Sight, the rules for the ground floor of ruins is what has changed.
Ground floor of ruins are counted as being completely Line of Sight blocking, the True Line of Sight rule remains unchanged just like units that get around game mechanics like Drop Pods first turn deepstrikes, first turn deepstrike rule hasn't changed, the Drop Pod just has the ability to ignore it.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.
The current rules does NOT allow that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thing new and even older players have a hard time getting is that if I have 10 marines. 5 in cover and 5 out of los behind a wall. The opponent can only see the 5 guys in front who are in cover but until the 5 guys that are out of los and maybe even out of range are dead the 5 guys in cover cant get a cover save bonus.
This is actually hard for some to grasp since its so against common sense or what any other game they ever played(including older GW games) do in this situation. A simple line saying "models in cover OR out of line of sight gets +1 to save" could fix that one. Would also nerf artillery a bit and represent the inaccuracy of not having a clear target.
There are multiple such additions GW could make to fix many things without making the game harder to learn. Sure it would add another page or 2 to the rules. But since they dont contradict common sense they would make the game easier to learn despite more text. If some things feels like obvious and not clearly and directly contradicted in the rules players might play like there is a rule like that even if it doesnt exist because they feel like it should be and why shouldnt it? It so obvious to some that they dont even look for it.
JohnnyHell wrote: Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.
Are we still clinging to that thing that hasn’t broken 8th three years on? Really?
I know this is the internet and nuance is hard but there's a huge gulf of possibilities between "perfectly fine" and "broken". I never said the TLoS rules break the game, I said they were not the best system to use and the game would be improved by moving away from it.
ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.
So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"
This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something
You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.
ITC uses true Line of Sight, the rules for the ground floor of ruins is what has changed.
Ground floor of ruins are counted as being completely Line of Sight blocking, the True Line of Sight rule remains unchanged just like units that get around game mechanics like Drop Pods first turn deepstrikes, first turn deepstrike rule hasn't changed, the Drop Pod just has the ability to ignore it.
So whatever the True Line of Sight is, as soon as it passes thru s specific piece of terrain, it is treated as blocked.
Making it not True Line of Sight any more as it doesn't matter if the model can truly see something or not.
And the same can be done for a lot of other things in the game that have problems with Line of Sight. Ignoring True Line of Sight for some terrain pieces, but insisting that it is impossible to do that for other terrain pieces or models because it won't be True Line of Sight any more is ridiculous
Even if there would be a "Size" stat related to the keyword of the models, it would still be True Line of Sight, as additional rules to clear things up for models and terrain (like ground floor always blocks no matter if there is a true line or not) do not change the True Line of Sight rules but just change the model and terrain rules
Theres honestly enough things in the game that ignore cover that they could still keep things very simple. Keep TLoS in the game but change wound allocation.
If an infantry model is within 1" of a terrain feature and is not standing directly in between the terrain and the model firing at it, it receives the benefit of cover. If an infantry model is completely behind a ruin or forest, even if it isn't within 1" of said terrain, as viewed by the firing model, it receives the benefit of cover.
When allocating wounds to a unit in the shooting phase, the owner of the model may allocate those wounds however they wish, however once all models that the firing unit can see have been slain, no other models can be slain and the remaining attacks are lost.
When allocating wounds to a unit in the assault phase, the owner of the model may allocate those wounds to whichever model they wish. If all models that were within 6" of base to base contact of the attacking unit have been slain, all remaining wounds are lost. Wounds may be allocated outside of 6" if the player chooses to do so.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.
The current rules does NOT allow that.
Yes I play the rules correctly thanks. I misspoke while writing my response to Karol. I suppose that's what happens when writing on a phone in a rush.
The point Karol made was completely irrelevant anyways, because if all of the models in opposing unit can fire Mr Halberd Terminator, next turn those Termies walk out of cover (or a position where they can all see be opposing units) and open fire. Its not like the Termies fire back on the opponents turn anyway is it? So the point was entirely moot.
The cover thing isn't difficult to understand. TLOS isn't difficult to understand. Positioning your models in a way that means they can do nothing despite knowing the rules and then complaining about it is difficult to understand.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.
The current rules does NOT allow that.
Yes I play the rules correctly thanks. I misspoke while writing my response to Karol. I suppose that's what happens when writing on a phone in a rush.
The point Karol made was completely irrelevant anyways, because if all of the models in opposing unit can fire Mr Halberd Terminator, next turn those Termies walk out of cover (or a position where they can all see be opposing units) and open fire. Its not like the Termies fire back on the opponents turn anyway is it? So the point was entirely moot.
The cover thing isn't difficult to understand. TLOS isn't difficult to understand. Positioning your models in a way that means they can do nothing despite knowing the rules and then complaining about it is difficult to understand.
I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.
I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.
+Shrug+ such is life I guess. Don't HWT have a certain, very popular weapon that ignores LOS anyway? Isn't it by far the most popular weapon for them?
Regardless - there are plenty of units that suffer a similar fate (Ork Boys immediately spring to mind, who cannot benefit from cover in 30 man units) and the game doesn't fall apart because of it.
There are also alternative terrain options that can be used to allow such units to function in cover or players can house rule. Really feels like people are choosing to make a mountain out of a molehill here.
I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.
+Shrug+ such is life I guess. Don't HWT have a certain, very popular weapon that ignores LOS anyway? Isn't it by far the most popular weapon for them?
Regardless - there are plenty of units that suffer a similar fate (Ork Boys immediately spring to mind, who cannot benefit from cover in 30 man units) and the game doesn't fall apart because of it.
There are also alternative terrain options that can be used to allow such units to function in cover or players can house rule. Really feels like people are choosing to make a mountain out of a molehill here.
Agreed. Was just trying to clarify. Honestly if your opponent won't house rule that your hwt can fire while behind low cover like sandbags I'd just not play them. Sounds like That Guy.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
Do snotlings and terminators the the same size base? If not why would they be the same size?
Also, thats not really how it would work. Each model would get a height stat equal to a number of inches above their base, representing the height of a typical model. Youd draw los from the top of thst measurement and to any part of that imaginary cylinder.
Thats basically how it works in infinity, and it greatly smooths oit los ans removes argument.
Banville wrote: They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
Job done.
What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.
Flyers that go into Hover mode, like Valkyries and Vultures are effectively helicopters at that point. Helicopters don't really avail of cover. They're hovering a hundred feet above the battlefield.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
Do snotlings and terminators the the same size base? If not why would they be the same size?
Yes, they used to have a larger size than terminatos. Snotlings were a swarm similar to scarabs, rippers or nurglings, all of which cause the same problem. Or ork buggies, which have huge bases compared to man taller models.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Because it generates more new players?
This is so rubbish. Enough people have an issue with TLOS, and have stated a multitude of reasons. You're going to say its needed for new players ? Where are all these new players that have the many hundreds to get into this game but lack capability to understand abstracted LOS with size for model types that would make the game flow quicker ? This game costs more than ever before, with each army needing like 2, to 3 different books for just their faction plus faqs and erratas. If a new player can buy all of this, understand all of those, I'm fairly certain they can handle the complexity of height mechanics. They are more than likely also young adults at least. I've seen no new players for 40k in at least the past 5 years who are less than 18 years of age minimum as the core game is too pricey for younger kids. So as to mean they should have the ability to read and understand a slightly longer take on cover, that will ultimately make the game better.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Dividing them up by keywords could possibly work.
1. Infantry.
2. Swarm, Biker, Beast.
3. Vehicle, Chariot, Monstrous Creature
4. Titanic.
As an added note models that have a minimum move characteristic greater than zero count as Titanic.
Why is a swarm of Nurglings bigger than an Allarus Custodian?
I guess the issue is that it doesn't work both ways.
You've got a squad on a level of a CoD building, and every other wall panel has no window. The guys can shoot through the windows, the guys without windows cannot shoot --but-- when their unit is shot at, everyone, including the guys without windows, can die from incoming fire.
If I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly please let me know, but it seems as though cover only works one way, and not in the favour of the people in the cover.
Open does not obstruct at all (craters, lakes, rivers etc...)
Light obstructs but does not block. Small barrier walls, fences, light foilage. -1 to hit when tracing los through it.
Heavy blocks los. Thick forest or full building ruins.
2 pieces of light count as heavy.
When targetting vehicles and monsters you treat the first piece of light as open.
When targetting titanic or fliers treat all light as open and heavy as light.
Interveneing units count as light terrain for establishing los. Guess what, characters just gained protection without needing convoluted special rules.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I guess the issue is that it doesn't work both ways.
You've got a squad on a level of a CoD building, and every other wall panel has no window. The guys can shoot through the windows, the guys without windows cannot shoot --but-- when their unit is shot at, everyone, including the guys without windows, can die from incoming fire.
If I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly please let me know, but it seems as though cover only works one way, and not in the favour of the people in the cover.
Yes this is the issue.
And about LoS I am anti extra abstraction and pro default to reslism. So called TLoS works great with reasonable restrictions. Fictional cones andvheight stats are all abstractions that destroy immersion and put added distance between the view on the tabletop and the way the game works.
The game needs to allow for infantry to take cover as in prior editions and to do so i would like to see a return to the use of counters including overwatch the way that it used to be done. Sure. Slower game. Less killy. More strategic. More realistic. And because of this ultimately easier to play imho...
Dakka Wolf wrote: Dividing them up by keywords could possibly work.
1. Infantry.
2. Swarm, Biker, Beast.
3. Vehicle, Chariot, Monstrous Creature
4. Titanic.
As an added note models that have a minimum move characteristic greater than zero count as Titanic.
Why is a swarm of Nurglings bigger than an Allarus Custodian?
They won't be - each unit would have a size stat, so the swarm would be height 1, humans/marines height 2, etc. This height stat is how tall they are in inches. I'd recommend checking out the height rules used in malifaux, they're great and would easily work in 40k. And using them would not only make the game quicker and smoother, it would also free up creativity for modellers so they don't get penalised for their awesome conversion of a Tyranid warrior standing on a destroyed vehicle roaring at the sky. Win win!
JohnnyHell wrote: Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
You dont of course put the height value strictly to a base size. That would be a stupid implemention. You do however start with it as a general guideline and then if you find out that there are only a handfull exceptions you make 25mm count as height 2, 32mm as 3, 40mm as 4 or what ever. And then you give the few extreme outliers like nurgling swarms or maybe just swarms in general a new Keyword called "small" or something and treat it as height 1. Exact implemention may vary but its not difficult at all to handle.
Warmachine made it work well when I played that and it works really well for me in KoW too. In my KoW army everything that isnt a monster or riding a horse is height 2, cavalry 3 and monsters above that but I dont own any yet so dont even have to bother.
My friends Ogre army is a more mixed army but its kinda the same. The goblins on foot is height 2. Goblins riders and ogres on foot all are height 3. Ogre chariots height 4 and his giant is height 6. Its super intuitiv and is the easiest stat of them all to learn since what it looks like is what it is 99% of the time.
The issue with codifying heights of terrain is that terrain isn't uniform, unless the only rules for terrain involve only Official™ Citadel™ Branded™ Scenery™ Kits™ (which I'm sure GW would love).
People can make just about anything as terrain, from a spare box to a carefully constructed and painted table of hand-built and sculpted terrain.
By abstrating terrain height you're making the terrain itself less important.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Because it generates more new players?
This is so rubbish. Enough people have an issue with TLOS, and have stated a multitude of reasons. You're going to say its needed for new players ? Where are all these new players that have the many hundreds to get into this game but lack capability to understand abstracted LOS with size for model types that would make the game flow quicker ? This game costs more than ever before, with each army needing like 2, to 3 different books for just their faction plus faqs and erratas. If a new player can buy all of this, understand all of those, I'm fairly certain they can handle the complexity of height mechanics. They are more than likely also young adults at least. I've seen no new players for 40k in at least the past 5 years who are less than 18 years of age minimum as the core game is too pricey for younger kids. So as to mean they should have the ability to read and understand a slightly longer take on cover, that will ultimately make the game better.
Yes, I'm sure I must be imagining all of those potential new players GW has already lost when we used to go over the old wounding mechanic, or the WS comparison mechanic and their eyes started glazing over. I'm sure it's just me and my very specific and special community where such mechanics were clearly boring to a new player because they took away from the "fun" (rolling dice).
Frankly all of those things you claim a new player "needs" to play the game are the actual rubbish here. Outside of a codex, models and dice a new player needs very little. New players don't NEED FAQ answers because there is a literal rule in the BRB and free Core Rule pdf that explains how to manage any rule irregularities. Similarly a new player doesn't NEED Vigilus, a supplement or Psychic Awakening to play the game.
You might like more complex rules regarding LOS, but you're likely not the majority of the potential market or the core demographic that GW are now trying to appeal towards.
E - the benefit of cover (+1 save) is the reward of enjoying cover. Though another unit can shoot said unit and in theory kill them all regardless of LOS of all model in the unit, they have to get through a cover save. Presumably the opposing unit is not enjoying cover since it has no problem tracing LOS from all of its models to the unit in cover? So this is a disadvantage?
E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Gadzilla666 wrote: There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
There should be a -1 for guns shooting things they can't see at all.
God damn missile pods ignoring cover and now with AP1 shooting Rubrics in cover they can't see...
Gadzilla666 wrote: There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
There should be a -1 for guns shooting things they can't see at all.
God damn missile pods ignoring cover and now with AP1 shooting Rubrics in cover they can't see...
*grumble grumble grumble*
Artillery should require a "spotter" in order to fire at full ballistic skill. Some model in your army should be able to see the target.
Banville wrote: They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
Job done.
What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.
Flyers that go into Hover mode, like Valkyries and Vultures are effectively helicopters at that point. Helicopters don't really avail of cover. They're hovering a hundred feet above the battlefield.
Unless it's Airwolf.
I miss 80's TV.
That's exactly how Apaches operate. Pops up from behind a hill, does a quick radar scan of the battlefield and hides again. It can then ripple fire its Hellfire missiles from behind cover.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Are you asking me this question?
Looks like it since there's a ? at the end.
Funny, give me a sec to sit down before my sides split while I take in this comedic gem.
I don't know who 'E' is so I'm going to assume it's for a poster who's tag at least begins with the letter.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Are you asking me this question?
Looks like it since there's a ? at the end.
Funny, give me a sec to sit down before my sides split while I take in this comedic gem.
I don't know who 'E' is so I'm going to assume it's for a poster who's tag at least begins with the letter.
Maybe it's in response to your edit, which you tagged 'E'? Maybe it's referring to the latter bit of your username? Either way, I would say context clues are enough to know it's responding to you- You said the benefit of cover (as it relates to LOS) is the +1 to your save, but the_scotsman is pointing out that you get no cover benefit if line of sight is 90% obscured by an intervening piece of terrain but you are not actually occupying a piece of cover.
The more I read in this thread, the more I get the impressions that the whole problem is how little benefit cover provides compared to being completely out of sight.
Jidmah wrote: The more I read in this thread, the more I get the impressions that the whole problem is how little benefit cover provides compared to being completely out of sight.
Which is only really an issue with TLOS. You can say things like "if 50% of the model is behind cover than..." but then people argue about what constitutes 50%. I had resin tyranid ADL walls that were made out of nid like spikes. Well spikes have high peeks and deep divots and as a result my warriors were not 50% covered and thus most of the wall did nothing for the units that were trying to use them (this was in 7th).
Well ALOS doesn't give a gak what you can see. It says that you are tracing LoS over x object so y effect comes into play. Done. Easy. No debate possible.
As I pointed out earlier, I think that an abstract solution for cover like the one you suggest would be vastly superior to any rule that leaves room for disagreement.
The only thing that I disagree on is that cover should provide -1 to hit, as this mechanic is extremely biased towards units with high BS and re-rolls.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The issue with codifying heights of terrain is that terrain isn't uniform, unless the only rules for terrain involve only Official™ Citadel™ Branded™ Scenery™ Kits™ (which I'm sure GW would love).
People can make just about anything as terrain, from a spare box to a carefully constructed and painted table of hand-built and sculpted terrain.
By abstrating terrain height you're making the terrain itself less important.
Discuss the handmade stuff with your opponent before the game, agree what things are (though a handmade forest is still a forest, for example), and make a note so you know for next time?
H.B.M.C. wrote: The issue with codifying heights of terrain is that terrain isn't uniform, unless the only rules for terrain involve only Official™ Citadel™ Branded™ Scenery™ Kits™ (which I'm sure GW would love).
People can make just about anything as terrain, from a spare box to a carefully constructed and painted table of hand-built and sculpted terrain.
By abstrating terrain height you're making the terrain itself less important.
Discuss the handmade stuff with your opponent before the game, agree what things are (though a handmade forest is still a forest, for example), and make a note so you know for next time?
And we are doing it even with current rules. What counts as a ruin or if something is impassable etc. And at tournaments I have been to there have been a short instruction on how the TO built the tables and what is supposed to be what and how they handle it at that event.
And with abstract heights it actually matters even less. You can say all the forest, hills and cliffs have height that is too tall to see over even if you only have 2" hills. Had a game in KoW yesterday against someone who hadnt played a game of KoW before or even read the rules. We put all hills at height 2 even though the 4 hills all had different size, the forests and cliffs at too tall to see over despite different sized trees and rocks. It worked great and it was really fast in deciding what our warmachines could see or not see despite lots of terrain and different units of all sizes. We had 13 pieces of terrain,which is more than average, and about 20% larger forces than usual at a 6x4 table. So despite a very crowded table LoS worked quick and easy due to abstract terrain and height rules.
Jidmah wrote: The more I read in this thread, the more I get the impressions that the whole problem is how little benefit cover provides compared to being completely out of sight.
That is really the gist of it. In a game where AP-1 and AP-2 weapons are all over the place, if you've got a 5+ save or worse you get next to no benefit from cover. So you have to stay out of LOS, but that's very difficult to do with TLOS on most terrain setups (hence the 'magic box' in ITC), and if you fail to be completely hidden then you die.
If the solution is to have more impactful cover rules, then the challenge is to come up with a system that doesn't disproportionately favor heavily armored armies (as the current one does), accurate/re-rollable armies (as to-hit penalties do), or lightly armored armies (as the old cover save system did)- while simultaneously providing some benefit for models that are obscured but not in cover.
Here's an idea: If no model in the firing unit can get an unobstructed view of any model in the target unit, the target gets a 5+ unmodifiable cover save that stacks with any other saves it already has. That way cover is baked into the TLOS rules (anything that you can at least partly hide behind gives you cover), being obscured by intervening terrain works as it should, and most of all there's a significant benefit so you don't have to stay out of LOS entirely.
The challenge is to find cover rules which are fair to everyone. Basically every solution has a downside: 1) "invulnerable" saves favor units with little to no armor and guns with low AP 2) +X to armor favors well armored units and high AP weapons, disadvantageous to units with just invulnerable saves like daemons 3) re-roll saves favors units with good saves and high ROF, and slows down the game 4) additional layer of saves is fair to everyone, but slows down the game 5) +toughness or -1 strength is useless in too many scenarios 6) -1 to hit makes units with good BS and re-rolls to hit more powerful 7) -1 to wound makes units with high toughness too hard to kill 8) reduce AP is worthless against weapons without AP and favors weapons with high AP 9) massive overhaul of the shooting rules would require new codices - not going to happen
So basically no matter what you do, someone is boned when shooting and/or cover is useless to others. Therefore my suggestion was that cover allows to "react" to shooting by taking cover, going to ground or bracing for impact. With three different types of reactions, you can have cover benefit a much wider range of units, plus you add player interaction during the enemy turns besides stratagems. What each of those reactions does, needs to be properly tested and balanced.
8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Blndmage wrote: 8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Which is the exact same thing as a bonus to armor save, though. That'd make it solution 2.
This set of rules is not designed to be played with tons of LOS blocking terrain. They have a special game mode for that called city fight. It is designed to be a quick game where most the models get destroyed in 3-4 turns. Lowering the time it takes to play a game is one of the main reasons they made the rule set the way they did.
There is a video-game I play called World of Warships. It is funny because the most realistic map called "Ocean" is one of the most hated maps - though I love it. It is literally open ocean. Every other map is loaded with giant 1km tall islands you can't shoot over. It creates such a stagnate game-play that most players burn out in a few months. Why? Because it's boring hiding all game and waiting for someone else to say screw it and just charge around the corner and get blasted by 12 ships. Not fun = no one plays.
Games are supposed to be fun. Hiding your whole army is not fun.
And losing your entire army or a massive chunk of it in one turn because you get blasted off with no countermeasures IS fun?
I certainly won't argue that you should be able to hide your entire army, but if you can't hide key figures from snipers or a single important transport from a decent chunk of firepower, your tables could do with some more terrain.
JNAProductions wrote: And losing your entire army or a massive chunk of it in one turn because you get blasted off with no countermeasures IS fun?
I certainly won't argue that you should be able to hide your entire army, but if you can't hide key figures from snipers or a single important transport from a decent chunk of firepower, your tables could do with some more terrain.
Agreed - that isn't fun ether. The problem here is clearly Igougo - if both players had an opportunity to units their units every turn -the game would be quick (EVEN quicker) and also more fun. TLOS isn't really a problem.
Blndmage wrote: 8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Which is the exact same thing as a bonus to armor save, though. That'd make it solution 2.
You could use 2 and 8 together for different types of cover.
The AP reduction deals with hard cover, and the current kind for soft or intervening models.
Cover should give a bonus to the armour save and also apply to models that normally have no armour save as cover save.
Models inside or behind any area terrain or behind another unit add +1 to their armour save (so everything that is slightly obstructed).
Models inside or behind and touching hard cover (rocks, walls, ruins, most buildings) add +2 to their armour save.
Fortifications or similar give a bonus of +3
Weapons that ignore armour saves do not automatically ignore the cover bonus (and the model still has a cover save)
Blndmage wrote: 8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Which is the exact same thing as a bonus to armor save, though. That'd make it solution 2.
You could use 2 and 8 together for different types of cover.
The AP reduction deals with hard cover, and the current kind for soft or intervening models.
I don't understand. If you're suggesting an AP reduction (which can reduce AP below 0), that is completely identical to adding 1 to your save. Why not just say that hard cover gives you +2 to your save, instead of achieving the same result in a roundabout way?
Blndmage wrote: 8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Which is the exact same thing as a bonus to armor save, though. That'd make it solution 2.
You could use 2 and 8 together for different types of cover.
The AP reduction deals with hard cover, and the current kind for soft or intervening models.
I don't understand. If you're suggesting an AP reduction (which can reduce AP below 0), that is completely identical to adding 1 to your save. Why not just say that hard cover gives you +2 to your save, instead of achieving the same result in a roundabout way?
If you use the AP reduction, then rules where a unit ignores AP -1 and what not would apply when in heavy cover, where as light cover would just add to the armour save.
Blndmage wrote: 8) reducing AP, can be totally valid:
If something has AP -1, it's now AP 0.
If something has AP 0, it's now AP +1.
Positive AP should totally be a thing! It would make things much easier to manage.
Which is the exact same thing as a bonus to armor save, though. That'd make it solution 2.
You could use 2 and 8 together for different types of cover.
The AP reduction deals with hard cover, and the current kind for soft or intervening models.
I don't understand. If you're suggesting an AP reduction (which can reduce AP below 0), that is completely identical to adding 1 to your save. Why not just say that hard cover gives you +2 to your save, instead of achieving the same result in a roundabout way?
If you use the AP reduction, then rules where a unit ignores AP -1 and what not would apply when in heavy cover, where as light cover would just add to the armour save.
That is a very niche situation. It's a difference, alright, but it's VERY niche.
Shooting at obscured enemies is -1 to hit/
Weapons/hair/aerials etc. don't count for LOS.
Also, I think we are a missing thing with different levels of cover and terrain.. Should a bit of woods/junk over the same level of cover a fortfied trench or a bunker?
Currently army wide traits are more effective at giving cover saves than actual terrain.. Of course then you have LOS ignoring AND Cover ignoring weapons. To which I would ask why is this possible.
Xenomancers wrote: This set of rules is not designed to be played with tons of LOS blocking terrain. They have a special game mode for that called city fight. It is designed to be a quick game where most the models get destroyed in 3-4 turns. Lowering the time it takes to play a game is one of the main reasons they made the rule set the way they did.
There is a video-game I play called World of Warships. It is funny because the most realistic map called "Ocean" is one of the most hated maps - though I love it. It is literally open ocean. Every other map is loaded with giant 1km tall islands you can't shoot over. It creates such a stagnate game-play that most players burn out in a few months. Why? Because it's boring hiding all game and waiting for someone else to say screw it and just charge around the corner and get blasted by 12 ships. Not fun = no one plays.
Games are supposed to be fun. Hiding your whole army is not fun.
Sounds like you game needs a time based mechanic such as mutual flag capture or points for having explored certain parts of the island or storms that can wreck static ships or fog that allows attackers to come in close or...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I think they should draw on from Killteam:
Shooting at obscured enemies is -1 to hit/
Weapons/hair/aerials etc. don't count for LOS.
Also, I think we are a missing thing with different levels of cover and terrain.. Should a bit of woods/junk over the same level of cover a fortfied trench or a bunker?
Currently army wide traits are more effective at giving cover saves than actual terrain.. Of course then you have LOS ignoring AND Cover ignoring weapons. To which I would ask why is this possible.
Yup. The current game is way too abstract. Supposedly for faster games as if this is a real thing. I mean tic tac toe is a fast playing game too! Anyways for short games why not better rules and fewer points? I would actually play 8th if the actual game was worth playing. I might have to play 500pt games because of time and have but am dpne with it. Just too many head scratching WTF moments...
Argive wrote: Shooting at obscured enemies is -1 to hit/
Weapons/hair/aerials etc. don't count for LOS.
I'm really at a loss why people don't understand that -1 to hit is a terrible mechanic for cover
Not for cover. For models that are obscured, meaning hard to see. It's harder to shoot something you can't see clearly. Ever try shooting something through dense brush or in a forest?
This is not a simulation, this is a dice rolling game.
A space marine cuddling with his chapter master doesn't give a damn about -1 to hit, an ork army loses 50% of its shooting. It's inherently unfair towards low BS units and therefore should not even be considered for a game-wide mechanic.
-1 to hit on artillery shooting at things without los or without at least another unit working as spotter would work fine though. Perhaps a point decrease on some of the bs4 artillery at the same time. Would work fine as it only affects a few units and not entire armies.
But as a general rule for hard to see would skew shooting a bit too much. If shooty marines and other very accurate ranged units were a bit more expensive and rerolls were much more rare than it might work even for obscurement but not without changing lots of pointcosts, buffs and stratagems as it is now. If GW factored in how units are affected by -1 to hit penalties in the pricing it could work but it feels like they never thought about it considering how they have treated such modifiers and rerolls this edition.
Mabey make cover a 4++ with no modifiers allowed or +1 to armor, whichever is better for your army.
But yeah, adopting a new system closer to Apocolypse's for the 9th edition update might be the right call.
Wounded models are marked, but not removed till the following battle round. Models that have a death mark cannot be chosen as bodyguards (savior protocols, grot shields, etc.). Models only get removed instantly if they are lost due to morale.
Jidmah wrote: This is not a simulation, this is a dice rolling game.
A space marine cuddling with his chapter master doesn't give a damn about -1 to hit, an ork army loses 50% of its shooting. It's inherently unfair towards low BS units and therefore should not even be considered for a game-wide mechanic.
In that case the problem is rerolling all failed hits. It's a bad mechanic and needs to be removed.
The problem is that -1 has more impact on unit with a low change to hit than it does on units with a high chance to hit, despite both units paying roughly the same amount of points for the same amount of hits.
Some armies having re-rolls while others don't just amplifies the problem.
Shooting at a target that is obscured is a 6+ to hit.
That is just the same problem but reversed. Bs 3+ lose 75% of its shooting while 5+ lose 50% and bs3+ probably costs more than 50% extra while also loosing 50% more shooting compared to bs 5+.
Xenomancers wrote: This set of rules is not designed to be played with tons of LOS blocking terrain. They have a special game mode for that called city fight. It is designed to be a quick game where most the models get destroyed in 3-4 turns. Lowering the time it takes to play a game is one of the main reasons they made the rule set the way they did.
There is a video-game I play called World of Warships. It is funny because the most realistic map called "Ocean" is one of the most hated maps - though I love it. It is literally open ocean. Every other map is loaded with giant 1km tall islands you can't shoot over. It creates such a stagnate game-play that most players burn out in a few months. Why? Because it's boring hiding all game and waiting for someone else to say screw it and just charge around the corner and get blasted by 12 ships. Not fun = no one plays.
Games are supposed to be fun. Hiding your whole army is not fun.
Sounds like you game needs a time based mechanic such as mutual flag capture or points for having explored certain parts of the island or storms that can wreck static ships or fog that allows attackers to come in close or...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: I think they should draw on from Killteam:
Shooting at obscured enemies is -1 to hit/
Weapons/hair/aerials etc. don't count for LOS.
Also, I think we are a missing thing with different levels of cover and terrain.. Should a bit of woods/junk over the same level of cover a fortfied trench or a bunker?
Currently army wide traits are more effective at giving cover saves than actual terrain.. Of course then you have LOS ignoring AND Cover ignoring weapons. To which I would ask why is this possible.
Yup. The current game is way too abstract. Supposedly for faster games as if this is a real thing. I mean tic tac toe is a fast playing game too! Anyways for short games why not better rules and fewer points? I would actually play 8th if the actual game was worth playing. I might have to play 500pt games because of time and have but am dpne with it. Just too many head scratching WTF moments...
It has capture points but also mechanics that make capturing points extremely risky. Ultimately an aggressive team will beat a passive one but with random team mates it's practically impossible to get a push going. The issue is mechanics that push passive play.
Shooting at a target that is obscured is a 6+ to hit.
That is just the same problem but reversed. Bs 3+ lose 75% of its shooting while 5+ lose 50% and bs3+ probably costs more than 50% extra while also loosing 50% more shooting compared to bs 5+.
Exactly. A unit in cover should have the exact same percentage of protection against ork lootas as against a unit of suppressors.
Therefore -1 to hit or hitting on 6+ are inherently flawed mechanics for anything that affects multiple units at once.
Depends. I dont mind marines being a bit better against units in cover than guard for example. But they then have to pay more for their shooting overall or guard being better at something else. Still needs to be more subtle than hit only on 6+ or - 1 to hit in the current system. You need more than 1 thing to change since the system is so bare bones that a single change will have drastic consequences
My point was that it would mean a obscured penalty as well as being in cover if actuay in cover as well a LOS blocking terrain would be more dimentional for manouvering.
You could cap the penealty at -2 for any other modifiers. So if you have heavy weapon and move its -1 if obscured its another -1. So if you have -1 for another reason like trait, psychic power you max out at -2 but get that benefit at other times.
If you were actualy in cover youd be obscured AND have a better save.
And yes reroll everything is a problem as it makes all of these chnges moot..
I get why Judmah is so against this is because he thinks orks would suffer the most. You'd have to tweak their rules somewhat and points I guess.
Or we just accept some armies will always be more accurate at shooting than other armies... Which then specialise in melee usualy so you have to fix melee next.
Shooting at a target that is obscured is a 6+ to hit.
That is just the same problem but reversed. Bs 3+ lose 75% of its shooting while 5+ lose 50% and bs3+ probably costs more than 50% extra while also loosing 50% more shooting compared to bs 5+.
Exactly. A unit in cover should have the exact same percentage of protection against ork lootas as against a unit of suppressors.
Therefore -1 to hit or hitting on 6+ are inherently flawed mechanics for anything that affects multiple units at once.
Making cover re-roll 6s to hit impacts every model the same (it's a 17% reduction in hits). Problem is, there's so many re-rolls in the game and they'd have to reconcile how that interacts with them.
You could have obscurement and cover be at different spectrum of who it benefits more, having them counter each other out so having both doesn't benefit one army more than the other. Mechanics are not made in isolation, and if you can get the system to balance out it doesn't really matter if one part of it benefit certain people more.
More toward the original topic, I think a good way to make LoS less finicky is to add a "hide" option (borrowing from Mordhiem). the unit can't advance, shoot, or charge, but they can't be targeted by a model if the unit is even partly obscured by cover (and before anyone says it, yes, character targetting would need to be fixed before this would be implemented.
Argive wrote: Or we just accept some armies will always be more accurate at shooting than other armies... Which then specialise in melee usualy so you have to fix melee next.
Oh, this (sorry) dumb argument again.
1) Orks are as much a shooting and melee army as marines are. The vast majority of ork units are shooting focused and marines are just as good or better in combat than orks.
2) Low BS is not the same as bad at shooting. It's just as hard to take cover from 15 lootas literally filling the air with lead than from 5 suppressors.
3) If regular cover halves ork shooting, then all marine units should go up by 33% to compensate because they now hit four times as often instead of three times as good OR you don't use -1 to hit because it's and inherently flawed mechanic
And no, it's not ok that some armies get invalidated by core game mechanics. That's why hitting on sixes because of cover is just as bad as -1 to hit.
carldooley wrote: Perhaps have obstructions grant a steadily improving FNP roll, and successful rolls taken against whatever granted the cover.(If applicable)...
Do we really need all attacks in the game to be made up of seven steps? (Hit/hit reroll/wound/wound reroll/save/damage/FNP)
carldooley wrote: Perhaps have obstructions grant a steadily improving FNP roll, and successful rolls taken against whatever granted the cover.(If applicable)...
Do we really need all attacks in the game to be made up of seven steps? (Hit/hit reroll/wound/wound reroll/save/damage/FNP)
Hey, you forgot the Save reroll, damage reroll, FNP reroll, + some misc roll/reroll!
carldooley wrote: Perhaps have obstructions grant a steadily improving FNP roll, and successful rolls taken against whatever granted the cover.(If applicable)...
Do we really need all attacks in the game to be made up of seven steps? (Hit/hit reroll/wound/wound reroll/save/damage/FNP)
Hey, you forgot the Save reroll, damage reroll, FNP reroll, + some misc roll/reroll!
And the exploding hits roll, exploding hits reroll, splitting wounds or saves into multiple steps based on some critical-hit/critical-wound condition, forgetting one of your stratagems or reroll steps and going back and starting over again...
Argive wrote: Or we just accept some armies will always be more accurate at shooting than other armies... Which then specialise in melee usualy so you have to fix melee next.
Oh, this (sorry) dumb argument again.
1) Orks are as much a shooting and melee army as marines are. The vast majority of ork units are shooting focused and marines are just as good or better in combat than orks.
2) Low BS is not the same as bad at shooting. It's just as hard to take cover from 15 lootas literally filling the air with lead than from 5 suppressors.
3) If regular cover halves ork shooting, then all marine units should go up by 33% to compensate because they now hit four times as often instead of three times as good OR you don't use -1 to hit because it's and inherently flawed mechanic
And no, it's not ok that some armies get invalidated by core game mechanics. That's why hitting on sixes because of cover is just as bad as -1 to hit.
That was uncalled for...
How you went from what I said to "armies being invalidated" does not compute.. I see I hit a nerve but I was just stating the obvious and certainly did not mean to antagonise. Was just sort of stating the obvious.. Are we really going to say the Orks edge does not come from CC potency? I'm not saying orks don't have a couple units that shoot good...
If you didn't just latch on the last part you'd have noticed I suggested adjusting rules or pts to reflect any change in this direction. Perhaps have the ORKS have different caps on the modifiers/tweak points and some strategems.
carldooley wrote: Perhaps have obstructions grant a steadily improving FNP roll, and successful rolls taken against whatever granted the cover.(If applicable)...
Do we really need all attacks in the game to be made up of seven steps? (Hit/hit reroll/wound/wound reroll/save/damage/FNP)
Hey, you forgot the Save reroll, damage reroll, FNP reroll, + some misc roll/reroll!
And the exploding hits roll, exploding hits reroll, splitting wounds or saves into multiple steps based on some critical-hit/critical-wound condition, forgetting one of your stratagems or reroll steps and going back and starting over again...
If you guys want to go back to the insanity of invisible death stars we can do that. But to balance that out... how about every shot that hits is a mortal wound?
carldooley wrote: ...If you guys want to go back to the insanity of invisible death stars we can do that. But to balance that out... how about every shot that hits is a mortal wound?
And you can't conceive of a game that doesn't have either invisible deathstars or ten steps to resolve every attack?
Jidmah wrote: This is not a simulation, this is a dice rolling game.
A space marine cuddling with his chapter master doesn't give a damn about -1 to hit, an ork army loses 50% of its shooting. It's inherently unfair towards low BS units and therefore should not even be considered for a game-wide mechanic.
In that case the problem is rerolling all failed hits. It's a bad mechanic and needs to be removed.
Full rerolls only matter when there are negative mods. I made this to illustrate some of the issue.
It shows the effectiveness of rerolls for various BS rolls and modifiers. Then it shows how much of an improvement of each step there is over the base of no rerolls.
You'll notice how much full rerolls improves odds for Marines w/ BS2 / BS3 on -2 to hit. BS2 does well with -1 to hit also being twice the improvement. With marines taking a lot of BS2 dreads it is no wonder people feel like they're absolutely oppressive.
(And this is why negative hit mods for cover would not really save us much.)
Jidmah wrote: This is not a simulation, this is a dice rolling game.
A space marine cuddling with his chapter master doesn't give a damn about -1 to hit, an ork army loses 50% of its shooting. It's inherently unfair towards low BS units and therefore should not even be considered for a game-wide mechanic.
In that case the problem is rerolling all failed hits. It's a bad mechanic and needs to be removed.
Full rerolls only matter when there are negative mods. I made this to illustrate some of the issue.
It shows the effectiveness of rerolls for various BS rolls and modifiers. Then it shows how much of an improvement of each step there is over the base of no rerolls.
You'll notice how much full rerolls improves odds for Marines w/ BS2 / BS3 on -2 to hit. BS2 does well with -1 to hit also being twice the improvement. With marines taking a lot of BS2 dreads it is no wonder people feel like they're absolutely oppressive.
(And this is why negative hit mods for cover would not really save us much.)
Thank you for taking the time to put this together.
(I think we should all spam this to GW email address so maybe they will take note of math )
Interestingly, if we applied the obscure rule, with no re-rolls involved a -1 penalty penalises every faction with about 16%-17 loss in effectiveness evenly. The spread remains similar with re-roll failed. Howver once we get to the re-roll all we can see the divide.
How about making cover have a save and a modifier. It replaces your armor save but still is affected by AP. If your armor is equal, you end up with a slight boost. So for example a wood wall might provide a 6+ or a +1 up to a 5+ save. It doesn't help most, but if you are running around in your skivvies, it gives you a little protection against small arms. However the heavy bolter unloading on you doesn't care and will chew through it easily. A ruin could be 4+ or +1 to your save up to a 3+. A fortified bunker could be 2+ or a +1 to a 1+ ( 1 always fails). Basically it protects everything inside except against dedicated bunker buster weapons like a demolisher cannon. Terminators now have a reason to jump into cover but only into extremely heavy duty pieces. Otherwise they have no benefits to not walking around as small tanks. Armies that rely on invuls get bonuses assuming the cover is heavy enough, but against anti-tank weapons that would cut through cover, they still have their native defense they pay points for that a guardsmen wouldn't get.
mightymconeshot wrote: How about making cover have a save and a modifier. It replaces your armor save but still is affected by AP. If your armor is equal, you end up with a slight boost. So for example a wood wall might provide a 6+ or a +1 up to a 5+ save. It doesn't help most, but if you are running around in your skivvies, it gives you a little protection against small arms. However the heavy bolter unloading on you doesn't care and will chew through it easily. A ruin could be 4+ or +1 to your save up to a 3+. A fortified bunker could be 2+ or a +1 to a 1+ ( 1 always fails). Basically it protects everything inside except against dedicated bunker buster weapons like a demolisher cannon. Terminators now have a reason to jump into cover but only into extremely heavy duty pieces. Otherwise they have no benefits to not walking around as small tanks. Armies that rely on invuls get bonuses assuming the cover is heavy enough, but against anti-tank weapons that would cut through cover, they still have their native defense they pay points for that a guardsmen wouldn't get.
I think when we are talking about LoS and terrain we are talking about 2 things that should have 2 different effects and 2 different design goals.
The first is terrain and a units ability to occupy it and gain a bonus for doing so. "Cover" if you will. This is a unit taking up positions inside ruins. Or manning a ADL. The goal of this is to create fortifications and advantages for units to take up positions and holding them. Creating a distinct choice a player makes in choosing to hold a unit in a position vs keeping them in open ground and moving.
The second is obstruction, which is what happens when a unit shoots at a target through something else. The goal and purpose of this is to make positioning matter. Not just for protecting your units but for targeting the units you want to target. I personally think intervening units should be working more or less exactly like intervening terrain. Flanking maneuvers and deep strikes gain more value when this is in effect.
These are separate things.
When people say terrain should give a +sv bonus or whatever they are mostly talking about the first version. Holding a fortified position by occupying terrain.
When people are talking about penalties to hit they are mostly talking about the second. Shooting through something to hit something else.
There is no reason for it to be one or the others. The game should have both. I would even argue that the game NEEDS both. And each should be handled separately.
Argive wrote: How you went from what I said to "armies being invalidated" does not compute.. I see I hit a nerve but I was just stating the obvious and certainly did not mean to antagonise. Was just sort of stating the obvious.. Are we really going to say the Orks edge does not come from CC potency? I'm not saying orks don't have a couple units that shoot good...
See, this is the part that annoys me. It get's repeated over and over again, and it's just flat out wrong.
Out of the 90 datasheets available to orks, only boyz, nobz, MANz, kommandos, storm boyz, the bonebreaka and maybe the squiggoth are dedicated close combat units. Out of the 22 character options only 9 are dedicated combatants.
There are another six datasheets that are great at both shooting and in combat, but all other are 67 datasheets are dedicated to shooting, are fragile support characters or transports.
Considering this can be found out to some extend by just scrolling through the store on GW's homepage, I'm convinced such an uninformed and clearly wrong argument can rightfully he called 'dumb'.
As for "CC potency"... just roll the dice for charging a unit of boyz into an equal amout of points spent on intercessors (a shooting unit) and see how that goes.
If you didn't just latch on the last part you'd have noticed I suggested adjusting rules or pts to reflect any change in this direction. Perhaps have the ORKS have different caps on the modifiers/tweak points and some strategems.
We already have that, and you still are boned when facing arm-wide -1 to hit. Stratagems and specialized unit work when there are a few -X to hit units around, not when everyone has it.
It's also not just orks or tyranids who are affected, it's also tau and IG who suffer more from it than marines do - do you suggest those go into combat, too?
Basically, there is no fair way to balance -1 to hit. Either you cost units as if they were in cover all the time, making BS2+/3+ units too expensive when shooting at stuff not in cover, or you cost them as if they weren't in cover, then things thing with BS4+/5+ suffer from that.
In KT the mechanic only works because there are very few "units" and less range involved and because it's quite easy to stack to only be hit on sixes, even against marines.
By abstrating terrain height you're making the terrain itself less important.
Alternative take: By removing the impact of the physical dimensions of terrain you open up more freedom for people to make cool terrain without having to worry about how it will actually function as terrain in the game.
This, and it is same would be true for models. Why make a cool looking character that fits your army, if it is far bather to make him kneel or crawl on the ground, exept for those rare cases when he actualy has a viable range attack?
carldooley wrote: ...If you guys want to go back to the insanity of invisible death stars we can do that. But to balance that out... how about every shot that hits is a mortal wound?
And you can't conceive of a game that doesn't have either invisible deathstars or ten steps to resolve every attack?
This entire thread is why people don't like terrain.
I can tell you why I don't like terrain:
'You don't have Line of Sight to shoot at my models.'
'Not even Flamers?'
'Correct. But it doesn't stop my army from assaulting yours.'
Knowledge fail
If you want Flyers, you use additional rules.
If you want Deepstrikers, you use additional rules.
All models have additional rules that add to the complexity of the game.
Why shouldn't terrain?
mightymconeshot wrote: How about making cover have a save and a modifier. It replaces your armor save but still is affected by AP. If your armor is equal, you end up with a slight boost. So for example a wood wall might provide a 6+ or a +1 up to a 5+ save. It doesn't help most, but if you are running around in your skivvies, it gives you a little protection against small arms. However the heavy bolter unloading on you doesn't care and will chew through it easily. A ruin could be 4+ or +1 to your save up to a 3+. A fortified bunker could be 2+ or a +1 to a 1+ ( 1 always fails). Basically it protects everything inside except against dedicated bunker buster weapons like a demolisher cannon. Terminators now have a reason to jump into cover but only into extremely heavy duty pieces. Otherwise they have no benefits to not walking around as small tanks. Armies that rely on invuls get bonuses assuming the cover is heavy enough, but against anti-tank weapons that would cut through cover, they still have their native defense they pay points for that a guardsmen wouldn't get.
How many steps are we adding to gameplay here?
1, what type of cover are you in? Than the answer will tell you you either get a X+ save or if you already have that save a +1 to your save. The core book should have 1 small table added of what common items should be a 6+, 5+, 4+, 3+, and 2+ types of cover saves. Anything that isn't in that list should be agreed upon between players.
How about looking at what cover is meant to do a bit differently, we have a lot fo "to hit" modifiers now, which is ok for "obscured" type cover, literally making something harder to hit because you can't really see it makes sense.
That also works for out of sight, but how about making cover where you can quite clearly see a thing, its just you can also see that its partly behind a wall or something result in a toughness bonus?
so say behind a wall is a +1T, behind something like an armoured barricade a +2T and similar.
now that marine say being hit by a laser cannon goes from T4 to say T5 so gets some benefit, Guards and similar get a benefit v anti infantry and lighter anti armour weapons, vehicles if they qualify get a bit of a boost on paper but in practice should be drawing anti tank firepower so its a smaller difference.
you now have interactions on "to hit" being possible with "to save" as now, but also on the "to wound" roll.
avoids most of the issues with "my army is -1 to hit" or "I have made this unit -1 to hit" stuff stacking as while there are a few ways to boost toughness there are not all that many of them (compared to ways to modify the to hit roll at least)
plus it has something of the right feel to it. you stand behind a barricade and your outline is no harder to hit, its just that there is a barricade in front of a good portion of you so you will be harder to hurt.
as opposed to something like a holofield which provides no physical protection if you are hit, but makes you less likely to be hit in the first place.
A balance of modifiers sounds like a good idea. Space Marines and other accurate units might not care much about concealment but if the targets get a bit harder to wound it will feel more impactful. Most Marine weapons usually fall in to just being 1 str higher than the common toughness values you want to target them with so +1t is often same as -1 to wound. And going from 3s to 4s without rerolls is more impactful than going from 2/3 to 3/4 with rerolls.
And a unit that would get -1 to hit, +1T and +1sv is gonna be hard to shift for any army and be more all around balanced than -3 to hit, or +3save that will just hose certain armies for sure.
carldooley wrote: Perhaps have obstructions grant a steadily improving FNP roll, and successful rolls taken against whatever granted the cover.(If applicable)...
Do we really need all attacks in the game to be made up of seven steps? (Hit/hit reroll/wound/wound reroll/save/damage/FNP)
Hey, you forgot the Save reroll, damage reroll, FNP reroll, + some misc roll/reroll!
And the exploding hits roll, exploding hits reroll, splitting wounds or saves into multiple steps based on some critical-hit/critical-wound condition, forgetting one of your stratagems or reroll steps and going back and starting over again...
If you guys want to go back to the insanity of invisible death stars we can do that. But to balance that out... how about every shot that hits is a mortal wound?
Well at least the game would end.
When you have 14 step process for each unit that shoots/gets shot, with the real possibility of missing something & having to start over.... all that's happening is that minutes are ticking off my life.
Well then the game would have to be played at skirmish size, without any huge models, save for those lists that would just be one regular knight. But this is never going to happen. If the game was played like that, people would be buying fewer models. And GW seems to want people to play huge armies with multiple big, and high cost in money, models. They even force AoS people to buy models for spells and obligatory terrain for your army.
)