When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."
What "playing by intent" is is hard to define with specifics, but generally it meant that when you took an action, you declared your intent and reasons, and your opponent could generally be expected to respect that intent. If I had to define it more accurately, I'd say:
me wrote:Intent Driven Play is gameplay of a wargame with the understanding that the models, while static and lifeless, are actively maneuvering and taking actions on the battlefield. This means that declarations of plausible intent when moving, shooting, etc. with a miniature should be generally respected, and worrying over small details should be done only in cases where there is any doubt as to the plausibility of an action. This serves to speed up play, make the game more gentlemanly and sporting, and facilitate communication and interaction.
Consider the following example:
Player A deploys (or moves!) his Leman Russ behind a building. "My intent is to be hidden from Line of Sight from those units." Player B: "Well, I can see your radio aerial and a bit of your fender, but that's alright; let's not fiddle over millimetres. Just know that I can move before I shoot with this Predator Annihilator here and will probably see you." Player A moves or deploys a less important unit. "That's fine; moving degrades your firepower. Thanks for the warning though! Now, these Guardsmen are intended to be more than 1" away from the edge of this woods inside it, but the trees mean that the Heavy Weapon Team base hangs out a bit..." Player B: "That's fine; it's not a static model in 'real life'; we'll go ahead and declare them out of line of sight. Just remember you can't see, either, except six inches out." etc. etc.
In that example, you could see two cases of intent that would dramatically impact the game. In 8th edition, that fender and radio aerial would be mercilessly shot at (it feels like) as well as being shot from (it also feels like). A heavy weapons team hanging out the edge of a wood would be an obvious target (though woods don't do what they used to do anyways, but I hope you see the point).
There's nothing in 8th preventing intent-driven play, exactly. You could still declare your intent as you do things. But in my experience this seems much less respected. Do you think this is a result of rules shift, gamer cultural shift, or some other unidentified factor? As a player of other games, I generally don't see 'playing by intent' there either anymore, even in games that historically have embraced it culturally in my experience(e.g. Flames of War). I suppose I'm inclined to think this is a cultural shift, then.
With 9th Edition steaming towards us at full speed and some evidence of changes that will require interacting with an opponent in a 'play-by-intent' manner (e.g. terrain obscuration), what do you all think?
Oh yeah. Absolutely. It is 100% the norm in my group to declare stuff like "I am trying to hide from your unit, that is why my unit is not shooting you" and then someone will stoop down, look and go "OK, I can still see a bit of you from here, but you could shift slightly to one side and be out of LOS for sure unless I move"
All the time unless its really egregious and in those cases our group is usually good enough to stand by their mistake even if you offer them a do-over.
You treat people fairly and they play fairly. Shocking, I know.
Thats the best way to play IMO, you don't have to feth around trying to hide stuff from LoS.
Playing by intent seems to be integral to Infinity's gameplay and it makes the games much smoother and you dont run the risk of havign any arguments.
Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?
Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.
It is very much a thing, which helps everyone present to both have a better game and a nicer experience in general. I do that pretty much all the time in war games, board games and rpg's as well.
Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?
Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.
Well that's just incorrect because those players don't actually play 8th because it's so terrible, they just come on here to tell us how we're all wrong.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit" Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good." Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on. Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank." Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there." Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
Yeah, it would be nice, but I know the 40K crowd in the US.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?
Obviously you cannot use intend to hide a Leman Russ where it cannot physically be hidden, but if it can, declaring intend (and getting confirmation from your opponent) should be fine and is (in my experience) common practice.
Other common examples:
Player 1: I deepstrike my guys 12.1" away from your Centurions, so they cannot Auspex Scan.
Player 2: Ok, great.
Player 1 puts down his models about 12" from the Centurions. .... Obviously this isn't to abuse the intent and place the models 3" from the Centurions now. If that happened, Player 2 should point that out. But neither can/should Player 2 just "gotcha-Auspex-Scan" if a random model ends up 11.8" away due to imprecise placing, table bumps, etc..
Player 1: I I move my Genestealers over here and tri-point your guardsman, so they cannot fall back.
Player 2: *checks if it is possible the Genestealers can do that* ... Ok, that Guardsman is tripointed.
... Game goes on, dice roll into models, scrawny tournament table is wobbly, etc..,etc.. Genestealer might fall over on his tiny 25mm base.., etc.. No issue, because intent was clarified that the Guardsman is tripointed.
Play by intent is certainly the norm in other wargames I play, such as Warmachine and L'Art de la Guerre. It makes things much easier so long as you accept that your intent will not always honored: sometimes it is not possible to be both in the terrain and out of range of the enemy model. The games are even played this way at the highest level of competition, and not just casually.
In order for this style of play to work best the game should have both pre-measuring and abstracted model placement rules. 40K has the former, but lacks the latter especially in regards to terrain. The line of sight rules in 40K make it difficult to cleanly and easily use the terrain, and a lot of what you get out of terrain depends on the specific rules you are using (40K has quite the jumble of complicated rules regarding terrain) and the attitude of your opponent. It is certainly possible to play 40K in an intent-driven manner, but it is never going to be as clinical as those other games.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?
That just sounds like a way to start an argument. The other player genuinely didn't understand why I was so aghast about what he said.
I've not really done it in the past, but after hearing some rather high end players talk about the idea I've warmed up to it. One of the big advantages is you're walking yourself through the turn with what you're doing amd why so everyone knows what's going on, and it prevents the "no, I can totally see his small toe!" arguements in the game.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
Yeah, it would be nice, but I know the 40K crowd in the US.
This is as silly to me as everyone who says they know what "chinese people are like" or "what women are like" or whatever.
I think when there's...oh...100 million of a particular category of people, you do not know something "about that group of people".
I can tell you what the 40k scene in the greater boston area is like, but I have to separate it by the various stores...
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play"
I don't think anyone's accused 8th of being "faster to play" for a very long time now, but to your question - my group plays by intent a lot of the time.
I get it - if you're in a major GT and your opponent wants to just declare his intent, you might want to make him show you he can do it. Make him position the models correctly, etc. But in a friendly game night? Playing by intent can be pretty helpful in moving the game along and not getting bogged down in things like whether or not that Russ can see the tip of the shoulder pad of that marine model from the angle it's currently parked at, etc etc.
Martel732 wrote: It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.
Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.
Martel732 wrote: It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.
Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.
I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.
Martel732 wrote: It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.
Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.
I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.
I mean, come on down I guess. Gotchas are a pretty universally despised moment where I am. Tripointing is still a thing, but it's usually framed as 'my intent is to prevent this unit from falling back by piling in like this'.
My crew does this, and always has. But again, we never drive five hours out of our way and spend hundreds of dollars on on travel and accommodations to play in organized tournaments with strangers either.
I don't agree with many of the changes tournament players suggest for the sake of the game, and we frequently lock horns, but I have come to understand them and the limitations within which they must play in order to be able to play the game the way they enjoy it.
RAI for home, friends and fun.
RAW for public play with strangers as if the game was a sport.
It makes me happy to see so many folks on this post being like "Doesn't everyone do this?"
It's not always the case, lord knows, but some of us are lucky right now to be in game groups where this sort of thing is just the norm and not some weird abstraction.
That being said: In our group this sort of thing often comes into play with hills. Hills or slopes can be the bane of miniatures, but our local store has some really nice thematic hill terrain that we use a lot. I can't tell you how often a model either slides around a bit or simply can't stay exactly where you want it to be.
We have learned to just sort of talk to our opponent about where our models are "supposed" to be in these situations, and we move on.
Playing by intent is how I’ve always played, and I’ve never run into issues with it in 8th or prior editions. It’s only on this forum that I’ve ever come across anyone not doing this.
Yes, in two cases -
Wobbly models - if the player wants to put a model somewhere but doesn't want to risk damaging it then it's fine to put it nearby, they can always hold it in place if we want to check LoS later on.
'Can you see it' - if someone wanted to place a model out of LoS they could ask their opponent if it could be seen (ignoring aerials, banners, etc as per the rules). It could slow things down so we tried not to go overboard on it.
Martel732 wrote: It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.
Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.
I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.
God , poor you for being stuck with players like that.
We've pretty much always played by intent. I think it's very useful for a number of reasons.
1. It helps cut off gotcha or feels-bad moments at the source. If I declare I'm going to move a unit out of LoS and ask my opponent for confirmation it mean's we're both on the same page and know what's happening but also allows them to say if they don't think that's actually possible. E.g. "I'm moving this tank out of LoS from your Devastators" might be met with a response of "I don't think that's possible from where I'm looking". You can then resolve that before it suddenly becomes a major problem in their next movement phase.
2. It speeds things up if everyone can quickly agree. Declaring everyone is in cover and that it's possible to do that without moving every model an extra 1mm to physically touch cover is much easier all round.
3. It helps you think through your moves, which actually seems to make me a better player when I vocalise a lot of what I'm doing.
4. Finally, it provides a good indicator that you may be playing against TFG if they endlessly argue over stuff like this or agree with your intent then go back on that agreement later.
Slipspace wrote: We've pretty much always played by intent. I think it's very useful for a number of reasons.
1. It helps cut off gotcha or feels-bad moments at the source. If I declare I'm going to move a unit out of LoS and ask my opponent for confirmation it mean's we're both on the same page and know what's happening but also allows them to say if they don't think that's actually possible. E.g. "I'm moving this tank out of LoS from your Devastators" might be met with a response of "I don't think that's possible from where I'm looking". You can then resolve that before it suddenly becomes a major problem in their next movement phase.
2. It speeds things up if everyone can quickly agree. Declaring everyone is in cover and that it's possible to do that without moving every model an extra 1mm to physically touch cover is much easier all round.
3. It helps you think through your moves, which actually seems to make me a better player when I vocalise a lot of what I'm doing.
4. Finally, it provides a good indicator that you may be playing against TFG if they endlessly argue over stuff like this or agree with your intent then go back on that agreement later.
It really helps save time when it comes to small details. Lets say i stuff all my guys in a ruin, instead of placing them 0.9" from the wall, i can just approximate and tell my opponent "My models are placed so your bases won't fit if you try to charge through the wall, you'd need to go around".
Same thing when deepstriking large blobs. i'll place 2-3 models at the 9" mark to show where i want my blob to spread and i'll just tell my opponent that theyrein al ine between these guys, at 9.1". If i fail the charge i'll move them to the proper spot during my opponent's turn. That way i don't need to position my 30 tzaangors exactly where they are twice (deepstrik and charge)
Yes, we often play "by declaration" if we declare no LOS or WMS a unit in 1 place that is cannot properly fit we generally use that as fact.
your later example of tank turret traverse is exactly something that I was going to mention. If we declare that a tank is hiding behind terrain with no LOS to a particular unit, and just the muzzlebreak is poking out, then we keep to the whole no LOS to/from that unit. This includes "backing" into an L-shaped ruin to block LOS from rear and side with Clear LOS on front and other side to fire out at other targets.
While the models may be mobile, or have mobile parts, sometimes they are not; and the rules more assume that they cannot be reconfigured mid-game(we just do so because it is dynamic). to punish a player for gluing a turret in place, or dynamically posing a turret for firing(while a fixed mount can be fired "through" the hull) is more assured than anything else.
Martel732 wrote: It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.
Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.
Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.
I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.
God , poor you for being stuck with players like that.
It's been like this in like 5 different stores/groups. I keep moving, and 40K players stay the same.
Stating intent IMO is a good thing, but only if its done actively at the time of action. I've found lots of people try to take advantage of this sort of thing in casual games retroactively, I.E. they place their Leman Russ behind a building, and then when you go to shoot at it they say "oh, I meant for you to not be able to see that based on the way I positioned it", and you go "well I can clearly see more than half of its side from where I'm at, if you wanted that to be well tucked into that piece of terrain you would have needed to go a bit further" - and then you get into a tense and awkward situation where there is no real resolution where one side or the other won't feel like they've been cheated.
Its how most of us that have been around for 15-20+ years learned how to play the game. The whole play strictly by the rules as written with no deviation whatsoever is a more modern phenomenon that I think started around the time of 4th or 5th edition.
chaos0xomega wrote: Stating intent IMO is a good thing, but only if its done actively at the time of action. I've found lots of people try to take advantage of this sort of thing in casual games retroactively, I.E. they place their Leman Russ behind a building, and then when you go to shoot at it they say "oh, I meant for you to not be able to see that based on the way I positioned it", and you go "well I can clearly see more than half of its side from where I'm at, if you wanted that to be well tucked into that piece of terrain you would have needed to go a bit further" - and then you get into a tense and awkward situation where there is no real resolution where one side or the other won't feel like they've been cheated.
Its how most of us that have been around for 15-20+ years learned how to play the game. The whole play strictly by the rules as written with no deviation whatsoever is a more modern phenomenon that I think started around the time of 4th or 5th edition.
We were doing it in 2nd. It's not modern. It's gamers being gamers.
Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
My group often does this, most often with movement. Our Terrain has a lot of multiple floor buildings, many of which can be entered. Rather than fiddling to get my squad in a small, mostly enclosed, building I just put them on top especially if I know they are just going to move out again next charge/movement phase anyway. Same with deepstriking large blobs as mentioned above, only on failed charges will we measure if the whole squad has the proper distance.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.
I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.
Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.
I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.
Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.
40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
The problem is, you yourself have brought up examples for how easy it is for a system like this to devolve into absolute absurdity.
What is a "standard terrain piece" per the rules? Do I have to buy it from GW? Do I have to assemble it by the instructions? What if the instructions don't give me a standard building to make?
What is a standard model? Am I allowed to add height, thus adding to my ability to draw LOS? If yes, how much height? If the 40k system is based on true Line of Sight, is it legal for me to set up mirrors all around my play table so that I can, as the rules put it "Stoop down to see from the model's perspective" and see a target in the mirror?
How is this silly activity more fun for people than playing with a baseline level of reasonableness about a game played with plastic toys that has to be designed to accommodate scenery that can be anything from literal trash to hundreds of dollars official terrain?
Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?
Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online
Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?
Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.
Well that's just incorrect because those players don't actually play 8th because it's so terrible, they just come on here to tell us how we're all wrong.
Now that's hilarious!
I'm pretty sure intent has a bearing on play, the difference between Murder 1 & 2 (at least in US) is intent.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.
I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.
Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.
40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.
Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.
What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.
I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.
Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.
40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.
Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.
What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.
So by that logic, shooting a bayonet tip is only a gotcha moment once. Then you need to learn to hide your bayonets. Right? I've learned that getting shot through the tip of a bayonet is a thing.
Yeah, playing by intent is how I play. What I'll do is, if I think there might be a point of contention, such as LOS, Wobbly Model, who's in cover, who's actually in melee, etc, I just ask as soon as it comes up. Immediately dealt with, intention immediately made clear, no surprises. If I'm playing with someone for the first time, and I'm not sure if they're familiar with certain rules sources, I'll first ask them if we're okay to use XYZ sources (so, Vigilus, successor Chapter rules, Faith and Fury, etc etc), and if they're okay with it, but unfamiliar, I'll point out certain stratagems or abilities that I'll be likely to use in advance, so it's not a surprise if/when it happens. An example of this is the Tempestus Scion Drop Force, and how I'll make a deal of mentioning that I'm using that.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Martel732 wrote: 40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.
Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.
Yeah, I wouldn't call tripointing a gotcha. It's a perfectly valid and universally accessible method of using game mechanics, like using a tank to soak up Overwatch before another unit charges. In fact, tripointing is one of those things I'd point out in a starter game, and explain how it works, how to get around it, and how to do it yourself.
I would call shooting at a bayonet tip a gotcha moment because it's pretty clear that the bayonet tip is an oversight from the Guardsman player, and they had no intention of having that bayonet sticking out. It'd be something I, as the guardsman's opponent, would probably say "hey, just so you know, before you're done moving, I can see that bayonet tip - are we saying they're both in line of sight?", and I'd be expecting them to say "no, that's just sticking out, doesn't count as a target or shooter", which I'd be fine with.
Play by intent is really the way to go, in fact there were two times that I didn't play by intent.
One was against a friend who went 5-0 at a tournament, and we explicitly agreed on playing as tight as we could. This was acceptable because we both had the same expectation.
The second was I auspexed scanned a group of hazard suits that had deep struck before the drones had. I ended up killing two out of three. It was a lower point tournament setting, and that had hard swung the game in my favor. The win felt cheap, there was no tactical intuition that had led me to win, just that my opponent had forgotten a stratagem that I had access to. After the game was over we discussed it a little bit, and it was a feels bad for both side.
Play by intent generally works as follows -
Active player explains intent - Common example is deepstriking 9.1 inches away
Other player explains potential rules interaction - Auspex Scan
Active player then decides whether the 9.1 inch deepstrike is worth the auspex scan
That simple process has now allowed the active player to make a tactical decision, whether or not that positioning is worth the auspex scan, rather than get blindsided because they forgot one of the hundreds of strategems in the game
I do find you can go too far playing by intent. It's helpful to communicate clearly about what's going on at the table, but you can slow the game down immensely if you use the principle to theorycraft out your perfect turn as you're executing it.
Depends on who I'm playing with - I usually play by intent since that's what I prefer, but since I play with a variety of player types I'll try to adapt to the other person.
Either I know what they're like, or I'll play by intent until the other person doesn't.
If the other player is going for these "gotcha" moments, I have no qualms about doing the same, though.
No, your tank isn't hidden just because you say you're trying to hide. That piece of terrain might not be big enough to conceal it, so intent doesn't matter, whether you actually can [and can from the desired position] does.
That said, if you announce that you're trying to hide your tank, I might take a look from my shooter's point of view and tell you if I agree that you're hidden.
As far as "helping your opponent", here's my take on it:
The rules in the codex are open knowledge. I don't expect you to buy a copy of every codex and splatbook to read rules for other people's armies. Thus, if you ask me if I have a given capability, I will answer in good spirit. However, the onus is on you to ask. I won't volunteer that you're making a mistake until after you've committed to it and I've acted on it, at which point I am happy to explain exactly what you did wrong and discuss what could have been done differently.
Almost all players in my gaming group play that way.
The alternative is when someone asks "is my tank hidden?" and the opponent answers "we'll see in my shooting phase", they keep fiddling with their tank for ages and then get pissed when the opponent tries to shoot them anyways.
There really is no point in wasting time and getting people in a bad mood over this.
Karol wrote: Nope. Intent play is not something liked around here. Even the polish judges for infinity got in trouble got in to trouble, when they went against corvus belli, and decided that intent play is slopy and lazy, and is not going to be accepted in events played in Poland. A model stands where it stands, it has LoS the way it has LoS. I do not like the fact that my termintors can get wiped out, because someone is shoting on a 3mm of a halabard point upwards. But this are the rules, and playing the game and not not some house rule thing is not very popular.
If the infinity judges decided that intent had no place in infinity then they have serious problems, its part of the core mentality of infinity that "Gotcha!" moments should not exist and that the game should be as intent-driven as possible.
I wish GW brought a similar concept of silhouettes from infinity. It would remove all that stupidity about LoS or MfA.
Then again, from the way you speak of your playgroup, you seem to be stuck in a very toxic environment.
40K is a series of gotcha moments to a huge segment of the community. Look at tripoint. The ultimate GOTCHA.
Tripointing is only a gotcha moment the first time it happens to you. Then you learn that it exists and you expect people to try and lock you up.
What i mean by gotcha moment is something akin to : HAHA! i see the very tip of that guy's bayonnet through the 4 ruins and tank in front of it. When playing with intent, you fix these problems and the decisions become actually strategic instead of fishing for exploits.
So by that logic, shooting a bayonet tip is only a gotcha moment once. Then you need to learn to hide your bayonets. Right? I've learned that getting shot through the tip of a bayonet is a thing.
That is when you ask your opponent if he/she can see the model you are trying to get out of LOS. I've had very few negative interactions with players in any edition over the past 30 years playing 40K. It happens on rare occasion, but certainly not to any extent you have described in this thread. If you've gone to five different shops and getting the same bad experiences, maybe you need to reflect inward on how you come across to others as I find it dubious that all other players are all about trying to ruin a shared game experience. Based on the amount of negativity you post on this site, I'd hedge my bets where the core issue lies.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.
Yep we play that way alot unless someone is really annoying.
Sometimes Karma works for you as well.
Yeah you can re-roll that or shoot that now even though you forgot - ohh look it all missed anyway.
We used to have a WFB tournament player at ours and he would never do anything like that - if you got the rules worng - thats your fauly, especailly if it was in his favour. That to me is cheating - not correcting rules errors that you notice.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.
This is an interesting question, and exposes why tank measure-to should be hull and turret frame and exclude decorative elements like aerials and commanders and movable elements like gun barrels.
I have actually done this [in response to my opponent being a bit of an ass about LoS], rotating my turret to face one way so that my tank gun barrel points around the corner and can shoot on my turn, and then rotating it back so it's no longer visible and he has to move to clear his LoS on his turn. This is obviously not being a good sport, and a lot of models are both posable and liable to significantly change profile when posed in different ways. Even changing the pose of the model from turn to turn could make a difference.
EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.
Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:
Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."
The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.
Maybe resist fiddling with your turrets after you moved your tank? You clearly understand the LOS rules.
This is an interesting question, and exposes why tank measure-to should be hull and turret frame and exclude decorative elements like aerials and commanders and movable elements like gun barrels.
I have actually done this [in response to my opponent being a bit of an ass about LoS], rotating my turret to face one way so that my tank gun barrel points around the corner and can shoot on my turn, and then rotating it back so it's no longer visible and he has to move to clear his LoS on his turn. This is obviously not being a good sport, and a lot of models are both posable and liable to significantly change profile when posed in different ways. Even changing the pose of the model from turn to turn could make a difference.
Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.
This is why I've never understood why people insist on playing the game with non-like minded people.
1) If you're a tournament player; fine. You're aware of this risk and you've elected to play in a competitive format....so no douchebaggery should come as a surprise to you.
2) If you're playing pick-up games...play them and put up with the nonsense until you find a handful of people you enjoy playing with, players whom you share the same approach and spirit of the game.
3) If you've got a group of friends you enjoy playing with, almost none of this stuff becomes an issue. Everyone is aware of how and why you're playing and it all goes smoothly.
Playing a poorly written game with strangers is always going to open you up to the risk of an unpleasant experience. 90% of the time it'll be fine, but you can't really blame it on someone else if you knowingly went and played a stranger. Expect little and you'll rarely be disappointed.
Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.
Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.
Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.
Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.
I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).
Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.
I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).
Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.
I have yet to meet a person who says "you can't touch your models when it's not your move phase", and lots of people I've met rotate their tank turrets to face their target in the shooting phase. And I've also played with lots of people who will rotate models that overhang their base and interfere with placement of chargers during the charge phase.
The model profile being able to change turn to turn is silly in the first place, even is you position the tank turret only when it would be permitted to move.
This isn't really on-topic anymore though. As I said, if my opponent declare that they're trying to achieve something, I'll help them achieve it: it's obviously something they had the idea to do and considered of their own volition. That doesn't mean it automatically succeeds, it may not be possible to hide your tank behind that building even though you've declared that you're trying to hide, but I'm willing to bend over and look from my tank's perspective and honestly tell you if I can still see you.
I'm also not playing for my opponent, so the onus is on them to make their own tactical choices during the game. If they want to deep strike within 12" and are concerned about potential interceptor fire, then they can ask me if I have a stratagem to do that, otherwise I'm going to assume they considered the possibility. It's not my job to keep my opponent from making mistakes. I can still volunteer what I'm capable of if I want to volunteer it, but I'm under no obligation to tell you that I can interceptor fire your guys arriving 9.1" away if you don't ask.
Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.
Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.
I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).
Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.
I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).
Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.
I have yet to meet a person who says "you can't touch your models when it's not your move phase", and lots of people I've met rotate their tank turrets to face their target in the shooting phase. And I've also played with lots of people who will rotate models that overhang their base and interfere with placement of chargers during the charge phase...
That isn't the difficulty. The difficulty is coupling this with antenna-to-antenna LOS to point a gun out from behind an obstacle, draw line of sight from that to shoot something, and then pivot it back afterwards to hide again because there's no clear rule on whether changing the geometry of a model is considered "movement" and whether/when you're allowed to do it.
If you can't clearly do something because of oddity of board or balance of models, etc. Yeah of course we've done intent before. Though we play by the rules sometimes there are issues you need some intent due to limitations and safety you want for your items.
At the end of the day, if you're playing tournament minded folks, you gotta follow the rules closely. If its a casual game, use some level of intent if it seems suspect. Honestly 8th edition is pretty bad with gotcha moments and I felt intent was better and clearer back in say 3rd-4th but that was just me.
Edit: Don't get me started on the terrible LoS for vehicles shooting from random and strange areas is one of my biggest I hate it issues from 8th. I just tend to play accepting that tons of stupid crap happens in game and just accept and use it back when I need to.
AnomanderRake wrote: That isn't the difficulty. The difficulty is coupling this with antenna-to-antenna LOS to point a gun out from behind an obstacle, draw line of sight from that to shoot something, and then pivot it back afterwards to hide again because there's no clear rule on whether changing the geometry of a model is considered "movement" and whether/when you're allowed to do it.
From the ruling on drop pod doors, you can deduct that by the rules you are not allowed to modify your model in any way over the course of the game, which makes perfect sense when you think about it. While rotating turrets is immersive and unlikely to grant an advantage, there are tons of ways to exploit this otherwise - there is a 45 minute video on youtube about a necron player explaining all shenanigans you can do with a Canpotek Cryptstalker, from sticking out single legs to shoot from them, using them to screen against enemies by spreading their legs and letting your units pass by withdrawing them, up to free fall-back moves by just retracting one leg to get out of 1". Or tau suits playing peek-a-boo with their guns from behind LoS blocking cover.
I also think it's clear that rotating models mid-turn to gain an advantage isn't ok either. If someone disagrees, start using the good old "pivoting isn't movement" shenanigans from 5th where you could have two vehicles open a shooting corridor for some unit by pivoting and then closing it afterwards.
That said, the whole thread is about playing by intent. Someone taking advantage/giving you an disadvantage because of these is not doing that. If someone tries to pull one of the things described in the previous looks, I'd give them a stern look, would point out how the rules would actually have played out, and that usually settles it. If they are still stubbornly insisting, just let them take the shot. In most cases, it won't matter anyways.
Every other Sunday we get the guys at my house, we kick back and play three or four games. Sometimes we only have 5 or 6 players, sometimes we get a houseful. The same rule always kind of sticks, regardless of who is playing. We try to give each other the benefit of the doubt. If the intent was to move the unit and you forgot that one hellblaster behind that building, sure, put him up there.
if you meant to case a psychic power and you forgot, but you haven't really done anything that it would have affected, sure, go back.
We try to make sure that we get out of the game what we want. And while we all want to win, its more important that we have a good time and enjoy each other's company (and the ribs I make sometimes...man...i can make some ribs...)
i try to remind everyone when they come over, especially the new dudes who get folded into the group:
The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.
Elbows wrote: This is why I've never understood why people insist on playing the game with non-like minded people.
1) If you're a tournament player; fine. You're aware of this risk and you've elected to play in a competitive format....so no douchebaggery should come as a surprise to you.
2) If you're playing pick-up games...play them and put up with the nonsense until you find a handful of people you enjoy playing with, players whom you share the same approach and spirit of the game.
3) If you've got a group of friends you enjoy playing with, almost none of this stuff becomes an issue. Everyone is aware of how and why you're playing and it all goes smoothly.
The thing is, reality doesn't work that way.
Most tournament players have lots of experience with the game and tend to be extremely pleasant to play against, because bad sportsmanship and shenanigans will get you kicked out of events and slows down games.
Pick up games are obviously completely luck-based, but the higher your standards towards a fun game are, the more likely you are to be disappointed by finding an opponent this way. There is also the issue of getting stuck with the one guy who was unable to find an opponent due to his behavior.
When playing with friends, you are quite likely to be friends with them not because of how they play WH40k. You might be friends with them because you know them from school/college/work, because you are neighbors, because you also share other hobbies. In addition, people might bring souses, family members or friends of them to the group, which play the game in a different way.
TFG might be hiding in any of the three groups, and - from experience - it's by far the worst when he is part of group 3.
The best chance at avoiding this is to clearly communicate what you are expecting from a game, and find a consensus with your opponent.
Seabass wrote: The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.
Nails it pretty well.
I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that intent is more about making sure you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to hide a single squad of dudes. Your intent is to put them in cover, out of LoS and if you accidently leave a bayonet sticking out, then obviously that wasn't your intent so it can be ignored.
Basically it smooths the futzing we have to do to get everything "perfect" and lets us get more game in and less micromanaging in. Micromanagement is best left to a simulator, which 40k is definitely not.
Now obviously some places don't do that (see Karol's horror stories about the baby seal clubbing group he's stuck with for example), but considering I've heard it come up in tournament focused podcasts (which I'm having a dang hard time finding at the moment), I'd argue that it's a think we could all get behind as it means more time rolling dice and killing your opponent.
Plus mentioning intent and tripointing, it can be used to clearly clarify what you're doing and why so that neither player is surprised about the "well ahktually" that inevitably pops up when someone doesn't clearly communicate rules.
Still remember the time I got "gotcha'd" by an Eldar player who didn't tell me Melta weapons didn't work on the Avatar of Khaine.
"So strength 8, what will I need to wound?"
"A 7. *trollface grin*"
Yeah, not cool of you Jonathan. Especially when I'm playing Sisters and only had meltas for my special weapons that game.
If its a friendly game be friendly.
If its competitive you shouldn't have to point out why someone doing something bad *is bad* even if its because they forgot a rule. Whether that's shooting an avatar with melta, or deploying in 9" and getting intercept stratagemed to death. Learning these things - via gotchas or whatever - is after all part of the game.
But yeah, if someone says "is this out of LOS" and you lie, that's being a bad person. You should say "yes - but obviously if I move it may not be". If someone says "I intend to deploy outside 12" and then you go "hahaha, actually its 11.9", eat stratagem death" - that's being a bad person.
I am 99% sure you can't move a tank turret such as to get LOS and then move it back after firing so its concealed for your opponents turn. It might be "cool" to do so (and effective) but its clearly not in the rules.
Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.
Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.
I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).
Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.
I rotate my turrets when I shoot with the unit.
I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.
Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.
I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.
Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.
Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?
No, your tank isn't hidden just because you say you're trying to hide. That piece of terrain might not be big enough to conceal it, so intent doesn't matter, whether you actually can [and can from the desired position] does.
That said, if you announce that you're trying to hide your tank, I might take a look from my shooter's point of view and tell you if I agree that you're hidden.
As far as "helping your opponent", here's my take on it:
The rules in the codex are open knowledge. I don't expect you to buy a copy of every codex and splatbook to read rules for other people's armies. Thus, if you ask me if I have a given capability, I will answer in good spirit. However, the onus is on you to ask. I won't volunteer that you're making a mistake until after you've committed to it and I've acted on it, at which point I am happy to explain exactly what you did wrong and discuss what could have been done differently.
Yeah, absolutely. There's room to abuse this situation all the time. I've also had opponents pull stuff like, moving a unit to a position, taking a shooting attack with that unit against one of my units, my turn rolls around and I try to target them, and they say "oh I wanted that unit out of LOS."
Typically it takes about 2 seconds to remind the person that either A, they didn't specify their intent clearly, B, what they intended is just not possible, or C, they did something on their turn that forfeited that intent, like making an attack.
Seabass wrote: The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.
Nails it pretty well.
I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that intent is more about making sure you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to hide a single squad of dudes. Your intent is to put them in cover, out of LoS and if you accidently leave a bayonet sticking out, then obviously that wasn't your intent so it can be ignored.
Basically it smooths the futzing we have to do to get everything "perfect" and lets us get more game in and less micromanaging in. Micromanagement is best left to a simulator, which 40k is definitely not.
Now obviously some places don't do that (see Karol's horror stories about the baby seal clubbing group he's stuck with for example), but considering I've heard it come up in tournament focused podcasts (which I'm having a dang hard time finding at the moment), I'd argue that it's a think we could all get behind as it means more time rolling dice and killing your opponent.
Plus mentioning intent and tripointing, it can be used to clearly clarify what you're doing and why so that neither player is surprised about the "well ahktually" that inevitably pops up when someone doesn't clearly communicate rules.
Still remember the time I got "gotcha'd" by an Eldar player who didn't tell me Melta weapons didn't work on the Avatar of Khaine.
"So strength 8, what will I need to wound?"
"A 7. *trollface grin*"
Yeah, not cool of you Jonathan. Especially when I'm playing Sisters and only had meltas for my special weapons that game.
Good thing the Avatar isn't Repentia proof.
Yeah, I feel like there's some space marine character (salamander man?) who has or had a similar immunity and I have had an opponent be like "Haha, you didn't memorize the stats and abilities of Space Marine Special Boy Number 5,324, jokes on you!"
Seabass wrote:The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
In my opinion, actually winning the game is a secondary experience to having fun, hence why intent is more important than execution? Does this mean things that are blatantly not going to be possible can be, because of intent? No, of course not - but does it mean I'm not going to say I can shoot at those guardsmen because I can see their bayonet? Absolutely.
I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.
Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.
Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?
Do crunching noises count when you kill stuff with a deff rolla?
So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.
I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.
The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.
What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?
I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.
What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?
Unit1126PLL wrote: So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.
I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.
The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.
What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?
I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.
What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?
For stuff like the Keeper of Secrets and back banners and stuff, if its an opponent I don't play regularly, I try to clarify what counts as fair game for drawing LOS before the game starts. As for claiming being out of LOS, in a game I would normally declare which unit I'm moving and say what I'm doing with it: "I'm moving this unit up to hug this wall so that I get a cover save and you're tank can't see me", I would expect my opponent to object if they didn't think this was reasonable: "I don't think that wall gives you a cover save/ is high enough to hide behind" once I've moved the unit check the LOS of sight and ask: "are you happy these guys are not in LOS of that tank?" if yes, select next unit, if no, adjust the positioning of the unit until we're both happy with it blocking LOS. Usually only takes a few seconds, and we're both clear with the situation: the unit either does or doesn't get a cover save and either is or isn't in LOS as discussed. It might be a case of "I know these claws/banner/sword etc are sticking out but for the purposes of the game its out of LOS."
Trying to put a model that is clearly much larger than the intervening terrain and saying "I intend for this to be out of LOS" isn't "playing with intent" that's trying to be gamey at best, and cheating at worst.
In reference to tripoint gotchas, the whole point of stating your intent is to reduce and eliminate gotchas where possible. Tripoint shouldn't be a gotcha, its just a movement choice, like moving to be out of LOS or in cover:
"I'm piling in like this to trap this model and prevent you from falling back"
Expected response form my opponent would be "yup, he's trapped" or "i think i can slip through this gap" if the second response, adjust my positioning so that the target is trapped, or accept that it isn't trapped because I can't move the model where it needs to be for whatever reason.
Equally, moving might be "I'm moving this unit forward so they can get LOS on that monster that's hidning behind the building" etc.
I did this at the beginning of 8th, but almost every single time I gave someone leeway with what I could shoot, they would turn around later in the game and try to shoot the exhaust of a battlewagon, the banner on a nob or a tentacle sticking out of a plague marine's belly and spin up some fluff about how it was totally different from shooting wings.
So I defaulted back to what the rules say and shoot from and to every part of every model. If your wings make it impossible for the model to hide, then so be it. If there is a terrain piece that could theoretically hide your winged monster, don't bother fiddling with it for hours, I will just let you have it. But it needs to be large enough to hide every single piece of your model.
Sadly that would mean the keeper could not be out of LOS there.
Theres a certain point were you need just to accept the silhouette GW gives their miniatures. Thats why one should not have a bloodthirster without wings or if he makes one without them, then have the wings to check LOS for gameplay purposes.
If you don't play that way, you have the problem of kneeling wraithlords and similar modeling for advantage stuff.
We play that a miniature can have the form that you want. It is better if its respect the original silouette in some way, but if not, it is just played that way.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.
I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.
The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.
What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?
I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.
What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?
If it were up to me the rule of "vestigal bits don't count" which Fantasy 8th where only the "main body" counts for LoS. My group kind of plays like that. I don't think we count it as LOS if its an antenna or a toe, I've never really paid attention.
Aash wrote: For stuff like the Keeper of Secrets and back banners and stuff, if its an opponent I don't play regularly, I try to clarify what counts as fair game for drawing LOS before the game starts. As for claiming being out of LOS, in a game I would normally declare which unit I'm moving and say what I'm doing with it: "I'm moving this unit up to hug this wall so that I get a cover save and you're tank cant see me", I would expect my opponent to object if they didn't think this was reasonable: "I don't think that wall gives you a cover save/ is high enough to hide behind" once I've moved the unit check the LOS of sight and ask: "are you happy these guys are not in LOS of that tank?" if yes, select next unit, if no, adjust the positioning of the unit until we're both happy with it blocking LOS. Usually only takes a few seconds, and we're both clear with the situation: the unit either does or doesn't get a cover save and either is or isn't in LOS as discussed. It might be a case of "I know these claws/banner/sword etc are sticking out but for the purposes of the game its out of LOS."
That is you opponent being nice though. I know a fair amount of players who would tell you that they will be checking LOS on their turn and to do the best you can, and they have every right to play that way.
Trying to put a model that is clearly much larger than the intervening terrain and saying "I intend for this to be out of LOS" isn't "playing with intent" that's trying to be gamey at best, and cheating at worst.
I doubt we will see the abandonment of TLOS but I am hopeful that they at least add a rule whereby wings, weapons, banners, and antennae/auxiliary bits of a model are not targetable.
All we know is that there will be a "LOS blocking" rule that you can agree to add to a ruin but we do not know the specifics of how that works. For example, does it prevent a model from being seen THROUGH a terrain piece, or both THROUGH and AROUND, as in the example with the KOS you just gave?
I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
the_scotsman wrote: I doubt we will see the abandonment of TLOS but I am hopeful that they at least add a rule whereby wings, weapons, banners, and antennae/auxiliary bits of a model are not targetable.
I hope they don't. I really don't want all those "does X count as hull?" arguments back, and there is no way to clarify this rule properly.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
Yeah-if your opponent refuses to tell you if their unit currently has LoS to yours, they're being unsportsmanlike.
If you're playing a competitive game, you don't need to warn your opponent about everything you can do-but if they explicitly ask "Can you do this?" you need to answer honestly.
That is you opponent being nice though. I know a fair amount of players who would tell you that they will be checking LOS on their turn and to do the best you can, and they have every right to play that way.
I'm lucky enough that the people I usually play with don't take this approach, and if I do play someone like that, I'll go along with it if that's what they prefer, but wouldn't be seeking them out for another game any time soon.
That being said I don't play at big tournaments, the only competitive games I play are at my FLGS with the same group I usually play with, and those games are approached in the same way as any other we play.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.
Yeah, I don't know if I would be super jazzed about allowing someone with a 100% melee army to pretend their mini is way, way smaller than it actually is when determining whether I can shoot at it at all before it gets into combat with me. I'd probably feel the same way about someone who modeled their KoS crouching down with its arms in or lying down on the ground so they could do the same thing.
I do wish there was some middle ground between "cannot shoot thing at all" and "can shoot thing with complete total effectiveness" we could maybe compromise on in situations like this :/
Unit1126PLL wrote: Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.
Did you tell him that the first Private who tells a General "Sorry, sir, I can't duck behind a barricade unless you explicitly instruct me to" is getting fired?
In war, many many many many many more battles are lost because the troops acted in a way the General didn't anticipate in an effort to survive, rather than because the General screwed up positioning them.
Or, to put it more simply: in the heat of intense short-range combat, a tank company commander is not going to have time to micromanage the facing, speed, and target of every single other tank in his company. He's going to trust the pre-existing crew training and coordination apparatuses within the platoons themselves....
Unit1126PLL wrote: I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
I'm 100% sure that GW does not count the size and standard pose of the kit at the time of pricing them. But when you play with random in tournaments some standarization is just needed, and theres no better one than whats GW has done.
As I said, normally we don't have problems with people having cool poses and stuff for their models. We just use the GW "official" silouette if the actual model deviates too much from it. Normally is easy to make the mental abstraction. If theres arguing , it is always visible, tought, to avoid any problem.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.
I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.
There's a difference between being outflanked/forgetting a unit, and your opponent not telling you that you've had an oversight on one model that you fully believed there was no ambiguity over.
I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.
Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.
Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?
I make the best tank noises . Also, dreadnoughts go "zoot-zoot-zoot" when walking.
When it comes to the LoS question, I think that decorative and posable bits, like arms and aerials and tank commanders, shouldn't be targetable. However, currently they are so right now the Keeper would not be able to hide, unless they turned sideways or you posed them for advantage, in which case they would be able to hide.
One store I play at used "if a shot to that part could kill them, then it's valid for LoS." which is kind of awkward as well. And a vertical column has this issue of being harder to check by going model's eye view.
Unit1126PLL wrote: When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."
What "playing by intent" is is hard to define with specifics, but generally it meant that when you took an action, you declared your intent and reasons, and your opponent could generally be expected to respect that intent. If I had to define it more accurately, I'd say:
me wrote:Intent Driven Play is gameplay of a wargame with the understanding that the models, while static and lifeless, are actively maneuvering and taking actions on the battlefield. This means that declarations of plausible intent when moving, shooting, etc. with a miniature should be generally respected, and worrying over small details should be done only in cases where there is any doubt as to the plausibility of an action. This serves to speed up play, make the game more gentlemanly and sporting, and facilitate communication and interaction.
Consider the following example:
Player A deploys (or moves!) his Leman Russ behind a building. "My intent is to be hidden from Line of Sight from those units."
Player B: "Well, I can see your radio aerial and a bit of your fender, but that's alright; let's not fiddle over millimetres. Just know that I can move before I shoot with this Predator Annihilator here and will probably see you."
Player A moves or deploys a less important unit. "That's fine; moving degrades your firepower. Thanks for the warning though! Now, these Guardsmen are intended to be more than 1" away from the edge of this woods inside it, but the trees mean that the Heavy Weapon Team base hangs out a bit..."
Player B: "That's fine; it's not a static model in 'real life'; we'll go ahead and declare them out of line of sight. Just remember you can't see, either, except six inches out."
etc. etc.
In that example, you could see two cases of intent that would dramatically impact the game. In 8th edition, that fender and radio aerial would be mercilessly shot at (it feels like) as well as being shot from (it also feels like). A heavy weapons team hanging out the edge of a wood would be an obvious target (though woods don't do what they used to do anyways, but I hope you see the point).
There's nothing in 8th preventing intent-driven play, exactly. You could still declare your intent as you do things. But in my experience this seems much less respected. Do you think this is a result of rules shift, gamer cultural shift, or some other unidentified factor? As a player of other games, I generally don't see 'playing by intent' there either anymore, even in games that historically have embraced it culturally in my experience(e.g. Flames of War). I suppose I'm inclined to think this is a cultural shift, then.
With 9th Edition steaming towards us at full speed and some evidence of changes that will require interacting with an opponent in a 'play-by-intent' manner (e.g. terrain obscuration), what do you all think?
I thought this was the norm for most playgroups, but some of the responses here have proven otherwise
This is very common in historical games. I know my bolt action group does this a lot because our terrain, while pretty, is very fiddly in practice and terrain rules are very important. Flames of war was like this too what with fireteams mounted on bases together meaning it could be very tricky to get teams of men into certain places they clearly would fit in real life.
That said, I've even seen this used in tournament play for 40k. It clears up a ton of arguments early on if you say to your opponent, "hey, I'm moving this guy up, the point is to be X inches from your model for a certain ability, that way we know where it's supposed to be if the table gets bumped or something." That way later when you go to measure and all the sudden it's closer because someone accidentally bumped the model both players can say "ah, he must've been bumped" and fix the issue immediately.
The only flaw with this method is it requires both players to have common sense and not be scumbags, which are traits that are sadly quite rare in today's society. I do agree though that in a hobby involving static models on fiddly terrain while talking, moving things around, and even drinking, statement of intent is crucial to an enjoyable wargaming experience.
I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rahdok wrote: I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.
If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rahdok wrote: I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.
If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.
While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer. [Also, like wings are structurally integral to flyers. Aerials and horns are not structurally integral.]
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rahdok wrote: I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.
If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.
While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer.
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rahdok wrote: I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.
If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.
While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer.
Unless it's an A-10
Of course. The A-10 is an amazing machine . Though, to be fair, it's probably due for a replacement sometime in the near future.
That, of course, brings up why I think they should have made MC's like Vehicles instead of Vehicles like MC's. Things don't have 12 HP that they get worse when they lose 6 of them. Basically everything, including large and small biological things, dies by critical hits, not by HP. There's a bunch of stuff inside a plane, tank, monster, or even human and some of it is critical to continuing to be able to perform the mission and when those pieces are destroyed [like an ammo rack, pilot, or brain] the object is destroyed.
Airplanes that fly home with impressive amounts of damage are impressive because they're a testament to both a healthy amount of luck and the skill of their aircrews in flying with substantially less controllability than the aircraft was designed with.
@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.
As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.
Insectum7 wrote: @A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.
As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.
when lasers replace 30mm GAU-8 cartridges, then the A-10 will continue to turn tanks/infantry/whatever into pulp.
Insectum7 wrote: @A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.
As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.
when lasers replace 30mm GAU-8 cartridges, then the A-10 will continue to turn tanks/infantry/whatever into pulp.
Insectum7 wrote:@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.
It uh, doesn't actually do it with the GAU-8. There's a fairly neat document covering where a GAU-8 Avenger cannon can penetrate a T-62 [which is notably very obsolete and not nearly armored to modern tank standards], and the basics of it basically comes down to only the engine deck is seriously threatened by the rotary cannon. However, the A-10 isn't just a gun with a plane attached to it. It also carries 16000 lbs of bombs and missiles which are very effective against vehicles
The A-10 is a very capable ground support aircraft.
However, I think the policy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't really an entirely good policy. It's important to remain technologically ahead of the opposition, especially for long-development time items like advanced attack aircraft. However, I suspect that the A-10 may find itself in trouble or unable to provide effective ground support and behind-the-lines anti-surface missions in symmetric warfare against a near-peer opponent.
Insectum7 wrote:
As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.
Edit: Wow. Katherine fails reading comprehension, I thought this was a different thread.
I guess, restructuring that paragraph: I think wounds just need to go in general, or maybe be the purview of characters exclusively. There are already 2 measures of resilience, there doesn't need to be a third, especially one that doesn't really represent much of anything at all. And a fundamental thing is that where an HP system exists, HP will almost always wind up being the final decider of resilience.
Edit: off topic, erased, and replaced with something relatively repeated by largely on-topic.
Anyway, back to the subject of play by intent:
A KT league I played in one time used the houserule of "if the character could die or be incapacitated if shot there, it's a valid target", which let to discussions of whether someone/something could die from taking a shot to the whatever.
I definitely don't think you should accept a claim that something is concealed just because you say that you intend to conceal it. It might just not fit. The building might just not be wide enough, or looking in from above at an angle, or anything. You can't just say you're going to hide and be hidden if the thing you're hiding behind can't hide you.
That said, as I said, I'm willing to take a look if you say "I want to hide here" and tell you if I can still see you.
You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.
My old Sorcerer Lord had a halberd held horizontally, which we ruled as not LoS. Same with the wings on my Possessed sergeant, reasoning that he's the only model with them, they don't provide flying, and are retractable since they fit in a Rhino. The alternative would be that particular bit raises the LoS profile of every other model in the squad by an inch and a half. Clearly, that's dumb, so we agreed not to count it.
Oh, or my Great Unclean One had his sword held aloft. That adds like 2 or 3 inches to the height of the model. It very rarely came up, owing to it deepstriking into close combat, but I remember agreeing to that.
For my opponents, I remember agreeing that a Carnifex's raised scything talons don't count. However, Flyrant's wings did count because they were functional.
DarkHound wrote: You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.
My old Sorcerer Lord had a halberd held horizontally, which we ruled as not LoS. Same with the wings on my Possessed sergeant, reasoning that he's the only model with them, they don't provide flying, and are retractable since they fit in a Rhino. The alternative would be that particular bit raises the LoS profile of every other model in the squad by an inch and a half. Clearly, that's dumb, so we agreed not to count it.
Oh, or my Great Unclean One had his sword held aloft. That adds like 2 or 3 inches to the height of the model. It very rarely came up, owing to it deepstriking into close combat, but I remember agreeing to that.
For my opponents, I remember agreeing that a Carnifex's raised scything talons don't count. However, Flyrant's wings did count because they were functional.
That sounds generally pretty fair, but fundamentally dependent on players and expectations.
That's true, but I also find the premise of this thread to be silly. I take cooperation and communication to be the default of any social engagement. And honestly, even in a tournament where you must play and come to an impasse, you just roll off 4+. Like, fine, on a 4+ the winged Possessed counts for LoS (until I pull him as the first casualty). I don't mind doing that for each questionable model in both armies. In 5th, the roll-off rule was on the same page as the golden rule "Have fun". Honestly, that's how we resolved LoS issues in the moment too. 'It's hard to say if that bit of leg is in LoS from the model's perspective, so 4+ for it.'
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I think wounds just need to go in general, or maybe be the purview of characters exclusively. There are already 2 measures of resilience, there doesn't need to be a third, especially one that doesn't really represent much of anything at all. And a fundamental thing is that where an HP system exists, HP will almost always wind up being the final decider of resilience.
That sounded radical to me at first, but then I remembered 3rd and 4th edition, where arguably one of the toughest non-vehicle models was a Wraithlord with T8 and a mere 3 Wounds. Every weapon only did one wound, so you could count on it taking at least 3 hits before going down (hit, wound, cover). It was tough because this was prior to the great escalation of 5th, where special and heavy weapons started going through the roof. Characters had a few wounds too, but most of them were T4 or less, so any hit by a S8 or higher weapon just killed them outright if they failed their save (of which there were many fewer invuls).
Vehicles had their separate damage chart, but a Glancing shot would kill a vehicle on a roll of 6. One Lascannon to your Land Raider could kill it by rolling a 5 for Pen, and a 6 result, or a 6 to pen, and a 4+ result on the damage chart.
I think people didn't like it because a single good hit would just ruin your battle plans, and people really remember the time they deployed a Land Raider and it just blew up immediately. But I think it behaves a lot more like you're asking for. Weapons either worked or didn't, and if they did the results were often pretty dramatic.
Conversely, you could look at 2nd Edition where many models had multiple wounds, but the damage dealt by weapons was often horrific. Wounds capped at 10 (well, except for a named Nurgle Daemon Prince that had 18 iirc.) But a Krak Missile did D10 Damage. A Lascannon did 2D6, and a Heavy Bolter D4, in an environment where a Space Marine Captain had 3W. A single Heavy Bolter round had a 50/50 of killing him. Imagine the uproar these days if a single HB round killed a Captain. I played a game of 2nd last year where I managed to fire a Krak Missile at a Hive Tyrant. I rolled a 7 for damage and I think it only started with 5 wounds. One lucky opportunity for a shot and *pop*, that was that.
These days things are more predictable, but you wind up with this grinding-down system for damage that feels more like video game health bars than an exciting simulation.
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
I'm genuinely curious as to why you think this? Plenty of games use base-to-base measurements to determine LoS, combined with terrain or model height designations and I've literally never seen it cause a problem. You just draw a line between bases, then once you've established if that line crosses over another model or piece of terrain you have some simple rules to determine if you can see the target and whether it gets some kind of cover bonus.
Unit1126PLL wrote: When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."
I not only play by the intent but also will point out rule things to help opponent DO what he intends if there's not quite so obvious things to take and if he does something before I get to point out try to sort it out in appropriate order. 2 examples from last game on tuesday.
a) shadowsun fires one fusion weapon vs my rhino and one vs my exorcist. Usually it's irrelevant order he would be rolling so here common way is to roll differently declaring "red is exorcist". Before I got to point he was rolling. Here the order has big effect though. If he fires first at rhino and then exorcist I can use my 1 act of faith per fate with rhino and automatically pass my 6++. Then with exorcist I had triumph nearby that gives act of faith even if already used. The way acts of faith works out if exorcist use first that takes my "1 per phase" despite triumph. It doesn't give one that I can use instead of basic one. Triumph allows another even after base one is used. Thus order matters. Shoot exorcist first, I can only auto pass 1. Shoot rhino first, I pass both. Here I would have saved only rhino and rolled for exorcist(as much as losing exorcist would hurt rhino here was even more essential to cover).
b) I had celestine next to opponent. Opponent declares loud he's moving one(non-troop) model next to objective and kill celestine and thus reclaim objective to fullfil his maelstrom card. I could have stayed silent but...nope not for me. I don't want to neuter plans with "gotcha's!". Lame way so I pointed out celestine will come back alive after shooting phase on 2+(with CP reroll) so he either needs me to roll double 1, need to kill me in melee(near impossible. He had relic weapon that gives 1 S10 Dd6 weapon...but I have acts of faith so single attack is irrelevant since I can auto pass that save anyway) or...move another model to objective. 2 vs 1. So he moved another markerlight spotter near to get the objective regardless of fate of Celestine.
I find playing things reasonably is much more fun. Hell letting opponent do what he forgot is standard for me. Forgot to move unit and we are already shooting? Fine move. Forgot to cast your spell? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't require too much backtracking or heaven forbid redoing attack sequences all is fair.
I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?
Yep. Technically speaking the turret moving was illegal anyway unless he did it in movement phase(and that might affect movement rate...) so if tank did that in shooting phase for thematic reasons correct option would be to move it back to original position after shooting anyway. And if opponent claims turret moving outside movement counts for LOS there's no reason he can't move turret again at any point.
Galas wrote: Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.
No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.
I'm genuinely curious as to why you think this? Plenty of games use base-to-base measurements to determine LoS, combined with terrain or model height designations and I've literally never seen it cause a problem. You just draw a line between bases, then once you've established if that line crosses over another model or piece of terrain you have some simple rules to determine if you can see the target and whether it gets some kind of cover bonus.
Yep. Base is very much concrete thing you can measure from and to. It's very easy to measure. It's even easier than TLOS which can have issues getting angle right due to terrain/model for your eyes and even then you can never see EXACTLY from every part of model to see what every point of model see(yes even that tip of a toe)
DarkHound wrote: You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.
Since you never ran into an issue, tell me this: Is the deff roll part of the hull, or isn't it?
I literally had to discuss which part of my battlewagons were hull with my opponents every. single. game. There were dozens of threads here on YMDC about whether deff rollas, wave serpent shield spikes, search lights or the rams on trukks were hull or not. There were issues with entire squads holding their gear up in the air to block LoS to units behind them, despite the unit being out of LoS.
5th edition's ruling might have been cute for immersion (and even failed at that if people were getting gamey), but was horrible from a game play perspective and should never, ever be implemented that way again. So many hours wasted arguing about that nonsense, so many beardy exploits...
The only rule you can implement without having arguments about it every other games is that every part of a model can be shot, no exceptions. I mean, just read this thread about how many different opinions we haven on shooting wings - every other rule would inevitably lead to those subjective opinions to clash when you actually just want to be playing a game.
tneva82 wrote: Every part can be shot is the worst rule.
Use base and size of model(put it in datasheet) to have cylinder. Terrain blocks LOS up to height X.
No arquments, no stupidity of TLOS.
Cylinder fails hard for models that reach out from their base, like every plane and most winged daemons. Not to mention all the geometry issues with uneven boards and ruins. "Everything can be shot" can be checked with a laser pointer and leaves absolutely no room for arguments.
tneva82 wrote: Every part can be shot is the worst rule.
Use base and size of model(put it in datasheet) to have cylinder. Terrain blocks LOS up to height X.
No arquments, no stupidity of TLOS.
Cylinder fails hard for models that reach out from their base, like every plane and most winged daemons.
How? the whole point of measuring base to base is that you ignore everything else. It doesn't matter if there are wings and tails and guns flailing around, the only thing that matters for LoS is the line between bases. There can be problems with units that don't have bases but that's more GW's issue with some of their vehicle models.
Best I have seen sorting the LOS issue was Heroscape (great game and 40K has a similar Keyword system) which defined the bits you could and could not shoot at and even where you drew LOS from as well
Base - to - Base measurement works somewhat but when you start having cover and diffferent levels it can be tricky as it was in Malifaux
That's how killteam works, but that's not what tneva suggested though.
Having LoS decided by the bases doesn't work as long as there are models that still measure to their hull, like hover tanks and unbased vehicles/walkers.
Mr Morden wrote: Base - to - Base measurement works somewhat but when you start having cover and diffferent levels it can be tricky as it was in Malifaux
Terrain blocks LOS up to X height. If the height is same or more than models stat no LOS as long as base to base line has no path that doesn't go through terrain. If terrain height is less but above half you get obscured bonus.
Simples. And doesn't actively encourage modeling for advantage like 8th ed 40kTLOS does
Galas wrote: Heroscape what a great, fun, simple but tactical game. I played if before playing 40k (But not Fantasy) and man.
That game rocked! And the miniatures did came prepainted!
haha, yep, I never had ANY idea what was supposed to be going on in that game but it was incredibly fun, lol. Particularly in the early sets when it was like
Vikings? Aliens? How bout some secret agents? Is this anything? Some ww2 soldier cyborgs? What are you after here kids?
it was basically the perfect gamification of the classic 'take whatever toys you have and make them do a pretend fight'
The whole idea of: "I intend this tank to be out of your line of sight, let me know where that is," seems silly to me. How would my tank crew know if they are out of your line of sight? They know what they can see, but have no idea what you can see. That just seems gamey and non-immersive to me. Its not like Monty called up Rommel to ask if he could see his tanks before he started firing...
I put it where I think its good, and if its not, that's my bad.
Though if asked by an opponent I'll reply honestly if I can see their unit or not.
I'm not a fan of the "my antennae shoots your banner" malarkey, and even if an opponent pulls this, I'm not going to do the same in return; if I can see something that I consider to be a part that if shot will kill you, I'll shot it, if not, I won't. Being a good sport is on me.
The whole idea of: "I intend this tank to be out of your line of sight, let me know where that is," seems silly to me. How would my tank crew know if they are out of your line of sight? They know what they can see, but have no idea what you can see. That just seems gamey and non-immersive to me. Its not like Monty called up Rommel to ask if he could see his tanks before he started firing...
I put it where I think its good, and if its not, that's my bad.
Though if asked by an opponent I'll reply honestly if I can see their unit or not.
I'm not a fan of the "my antennae shoots your banner" malarkey, and even if an opponent pulls this, I'm not going to do the same in return; if I can see something that I consider to be a part that if shot will kill you, I'll shot it, if not, I won't. Being a good sport is on me.
There is literally nothing at all stopping you from walking over to the opponents side of the board and checking line of sight yourself. By asking the other player you're just saving the hassle of walking over. Had it been that convenient for Rommel or Montgomery I'm sure they would have done the same.
There is literally nothing at all stopping you from walking over to the opponents side of the board and checking line of sight yourself. By asking the other player you're just saving the hassle of walking over. Had it been that convenient for Rommel or Montgomery I'm sure they would have done the same.
I think you completely missed my point. I know I can do that, but it would break my immersion to do so (either ask or go look), so I won't.
To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.
. Also, dreadnoughts go "zoot-zoot-zoot" when walking.
