Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kodos wrote:

ccs wrote:
Don't get pissy. You're the one who asked why someone hoped the A5 book would be immediately available.

hoping for a cheap rulebook at the beginning of an edition is like hoping that we get rules for unit activation instead of phases
and GW will bring you that exact argument why they don't sell you a cheap rulebook, as for a "cheap" start there is the box and the free rules

Whatever. Not relevant to the other persons wish or reasons for the wish.

 kodos wrote:
lets just hope that they have a Mini-Rulebook in the starter and not the big one

Well, if they do? Then the A5 book will be available at the start of the edition now won't it? And then it'll soon be available cheap on EBay.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
no. we weren't

I certainly won't say you're alone in that-hell, I myself prefer the core gameplay of 3-7 more than 8th-but the more complex you make things, the harder it is to get people into the game.

I think that the more the game reflects everyday expectations then the simpler it really is, even though it might appear more complex when printed on a paper in formal terms. the game will play more smoothly in practice because common expectations are confirmed in the flow of the approximated interactions.

Do I see 25% or 30% of the model?

I see 30%-I don't have a d10, how do I figure out what to roll to determine if I actually hit?

How do I determine how much extra damage I do with a headshot against your model?
What if the model doesn't have a helmet-clearly, I should do even more damage then!

What if I don't have professional terrain, and I'm literally using books and soda cans because I'm poor and new to the hobby?

Ummm... any and all of this can be easily resolved given some good will and clear intentions.
I suppose what is missing are some of both in many people, OK - I see your point.

Rough estimates, where some dispute, then throw a dice to resolve.

No pro terrain? The MRB should afford play at different levels of realism, from stripped down card game 8th ed to fine grained RPG -esque squad level games on 8x4 tables that we leave up semi-permanently and that might take as long to finish...

Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

Anyways, I am optimistic that we get closer to such a flexible foundation with the new edition.

JNAProductions wrote:Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

jeff white wrote:Anyways, I am optimistic that we get closer to such a flexible foundation with the new edition.

You missed that.

Because to me, if the model being headshot is a Guard or Marine model, they should be out of action. Guard characters are probably dead, Marine characters might live (if you're running a campaign of battles) but certainly is not in fighting shape to continue this battle.

Does that seem fair?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...

 jeff white wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...

These are based off YOUR suggestions. You say that, if all you can see is the tank tread, you can only hit the tank's tread.

If all you can see is the head, the only hit you can get is a headshot. How much extra damage should it do?

 JNAProductions wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

jeff white wrote:Anyways, I am optimistic that we get closer to such a flexible foundation with the new edition.

You missed that.

Because to me, if the model being headshot is a Guard or Marine model, they should be out of action. Guard characters are probably dead, Marine characters might live (if you're running a campaign of battles) but certainly is not in fighting shape to continue this battle.

Does that seem fair?

Yeah, why not? Wounds might be resolved for every model on the table if people want to take the time to track it... Whynot?
Power armor helmets might afford protection to critical hit damage, and guardsmen... not so much.
These sorts of interactions are not necessary, but they should be possible.

And closer to realisitic expectation, the easier and practically - imho - the simpler to learn and to actually play, because these interactions are relatively easy to imagine, whereas grots stopping tanks are impossible to imagine ... for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. Good will and clear intentions.

How much extra damage does a Bolter do when it gets a headshot? That's a simple question that can easily come up anytime you've got short walls.

Again, what you are calling 'headshot' can be represented in different ways, for instance as I had been describing above. If 50% of the model is visible beyond a short wall, and barring any other interaction such a 'taking cover" or similar, then we may play at a level of detail where shooting is resolved according to the 50% cover rule (e.g. roll to hit 2x or using other modifiers). And, we may allow a general rule for targeting for critical hits that have associated with them some different ways to resolve damage. maybe bolter skills allow for attempts at critical hits with a certain modifier, maybe sniper with another modifier... anyways, all of this can be easily formalized, and players should be able to just plug and play rules at the level of realism that they wish to employ...

These are based off YOUR suggestions. You say that, if all you can see is the tank tread, you can only hit the tank's tread.

If all you can see is the head, the only hit you can get is a headshot. How much extra damage should it do?

Why are you so wound up about this? We might want to play at a level of detail wherein if you can only see a head, then a headshot is demanded and headshots are special sorts of things...
or we may simply see that it is more difficult to hit, and damage is as notmal,
and/or we might have units with special equip or abilities that make it easier to hit hidden targets and that might allow units to try to target heads for extra damage, and all of this could be resolved over time as expectations become stabilized...

one thing that will not help is for people to freak out because they don;t know how to resolve a headshot when such degree of realism is not strictly necessary... only why not make it possible?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, I am excited for the new edition, in part because of the promise of greater realism and an out of the box ability to play at different levels of realism...

In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:

Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.

Just to follow on from the shoot what you can see, depends entirely upon what your shooting at what.

Nice brick wall your hiding behind be a shame if someone shot some 20mm+ at it, end result wall now equals additional shrapnel.

Not being able to hit what you can't see depends on
1 what your sending
2 what is between what you and whatever you would like to cease exsisting
3 if their is any reason that you might have to temper your over application of firepower ie hostages, civilians or friendlies.

Same with tanks and tree's the round's are designed to penetrate tank armour some branches or a bush are not going to stop such a weapon.
It's just going to penetrate the tree and probably still hit the target.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:

Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.

After cutting fire arcs because it was too hard to write rules explaining which direction your ranged weapons could shoot in? I find it exceedingly unlikely they'd actually do this.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
In reality GW should make abstract charts of a model in what can be targeted. For example, Hasbro made a game a long time ago called Heroscape. Each unit had a card that showed what was could be targeted for a range attack. For example:

Pretty easy. Can't shoot the bow and thing of arrows to kill the dude, but the rest is fair game.

After cutting fire arcs because it was too hard to write rules explaining which direction your ranged weapons could shoot in? I find it exceedingly unlikely they'd actually do this.

I vaguely remember reading that this game was mechanically solid but it never got anywhere if that helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you can see there's a super small green dot on that profile. It showed where he could draw LoS from too.

There is also the abstraction that the models on the table don't represent what the model is doing at the time of their shooting, or what their target is doing.

We have these static models representing moving, dodging, cover taking, shooting models. They're not all standing, brandishing weapons, or charging (as their pose might indicate).

The abstraction is that, the head you can see, means that at some point, you had a shot at the target, and took it. The model now being behind cover means its harder to hit (or wound, or has a better save). It is not that I'm shooting at this guy's sword tip and somehow killing him. At some point he offered enough for me to hit and knock him out of action.

If you want headshot criticals, or other non-wounding hits, you're playing the wrong game. Try Inquisitor 54mm, or the 40k RPGs.

The bottom line, is that every game has to handle abstraction to some degree. Is this game's level of abstraction ok, with you? Then buy away. If its not, then don't. Simple.

GW, however, SHOULD be able to write with a certain amount of degree on that matter though, seeing they've been around for several years.

One of the greatest misconceptions about TLOS is that there is only one truth at play, the miniatures themselves.

But the miniatures are abstractly representing another 'real amimated' event, despite being static.

So the argument between TLOS and abstract LOS is between what truth you value: the static miniature's physical location as a game piece you can look at, or a game piece representing a dynamically moving living creature in an animated warzone.

In the first instance TLOS is the best sight system, but in the second, an abstract system ironically becomes most accurate in its depiction of 'real' people on a battlefield.

The extreme here being character dragging a5eound his rock to stand on or the modelled for advantage genestealer crawling along the ground.

Abstract LOS acknowledges the complexity of models moving representing dynamic motion and applies a method that averages all those moments.


For me, abstraction in LOS is far more 'cinematic' and 'true' than looking at static miniatures ever could be.

 Hellebore wrote:
One of the greatest misconceptions about TLOS is that there is only one truth at play, the miniatures themselves.

But the miniatures are abstractly representing another 'real amimated' event, despite being static.

So the argument between TLOS and abstract LOS is between what truth you value: the static miniature's physical location as a game piece you can look at, or a game piece representing a dynamically moving living creature in an animated warzone.

In the first instance TLOS is the best sight system, but in the second, an abstract system ironically becomes most accurate in its depiction of 'real' people on a battlefield.

The extreme here being character dragging a5eound his rock to stand on or the modelled for advantage genestealer crawling along the ground.

Abstract LOS acknowledges the complexity of models moving representing dynamic motion and applies a method that averages all those moments.


For me, abstraction in LOS is far more 'cinematic' and 'true' than looking at static miniatures ever could be.

^Agreed. 4th edition was really good at spelling this stuff out, too. Models gained cover if they were in base contact with things because it was presumed they were actively taking cover against the piece of terrain rather than hero-posing next to it. Forests were described as being not 'as modeled' and having a bunch of underbrush and complicated scenery that made it hard to see/shoot through. The wound allocation rules acknowledged that squads whose heavy weaponer got shot would just pick up the heavy weapon and carry on. There were a bunch of little descriptions that reasoned the abstraction very nicely.

5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.

I put no. As is I'm not sure when it'll be cool to get games in on the regular so until that is the case, no need to run out and grab this new edition. I'll wait and keep up on the info and see what shakes out.

Eventually I'll probably grab it, but not at first. Which will be a first for me since 4th edition.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.

5th-7th had a really nice "do not measure line of sight to or from protruding weapons, banners, or other decorative things" clause that 8e dropped for some reason in favour of "my antenna shoots your antenna!".

My hope with this new edition is that GW has been able to see that past editions and other systems afford different levels of realism that make interactions clear as more detail is desired. Want stripped down card game terrain doesn’t matter mechanics. Sure... try the free basic rules. Want simulation, realism, reactive terrain and proactive command mechanics. Incorporate optional plug and play rules modules for those aspects from the rules compendium.

TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...

My fav TLOS conundrum was when my friend could see my tank, but the part he was in range of was out of LOS, and he was out of range of the part that was in LOS.

We weren't sure whether he could shoot the tank or not.

In 8th Ed rules, he just shoots it, because seeing even a fraction of a nanometre of the mini means you can shoot it. That I hate.

 ValentineGames wrote:
TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...

Now 40k just needs to use TLOS

measuring LOS from weapons instead of "anywere" would be a good start to get back to "true" line of sight instead of calling it TLOS but using some strange artificial LOS rules that make more problems than TLOS would ever do

In order to measure from weapon wysiwyg has to return with extreme strictness. Which means start modeling grenades. It also means if you don't have enough bits in the box then you're sol. Relics, which don't have bits, become unusable. And a host of other issues.

This would totally improve the game ::rolls eyes::

 ValentineGames wrote:
TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...

Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans (or that the players' problem is that they're Americans trying to play rules written by Brits). It feels to me like people writing British wargame rules are assuming some kind of hive-mind level agreement and understanding among the playerbase about what everything's supposed to mean and how it's supposed to work regardless of what it actually says, while people writing American wargame rules spend more time chasing and plugging loopholes.

It's a bit different to that, but your core concept isn't wrong.

It's less about UK vs US, and more about GW vs literally everyone else. They don't play the same game as everyone does. Their scattered approach to writing rules has always demonstrated that. There doesn't seem to be a grasp of how their rules interact with one another, which is why they always appear to write Codices (and sometimes units within Codices) in a vaccum. Any time you've gone "But didn't they realise..." or "How did they not see..." it's because of this phenomena.

 Lance845 wrote:

This would totally improve the game ::rolls eyes::

than people should stop asking for TLOS and/or stop calling it TLOS

people want abstract line of sight that uses some common sense but call it TLOS because GW named it that way to have an excuse for bad rules writing (we cannot change it or make it better because it won't be "true" any more)

I want positioning and manoeuvre to matter. Part of that is terrain, and part of that is accepting that some of the extravagance of modelling (banner poles, the tips of swords, the spines on the edge of the tip of a wing) should be ignored.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans

it is GW writing rules for people who have designed the game
They know what they want from the rule and therefore write it in a way that they understand what it mean and give it a cool name for marketing

the whole thing of "read as written" VS "read as intended" as GW-style of game design thing that does not happen outside that bubble (no matter if a Brit, American, German or Russian writes the rules)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
...5th blew all that away and started the "shoot at sword-tips through two trees" paradigm that's still with us.

5th-7th had a really nice "do not measure line of sight to or from protruding weapons, banners, or other decorative things" clause that 8e dropped for some reason in favour of "my antenna shoots your antenna!".

That is fine when things are clearly defined but it caused massive issues when it came to some armies and models, Tyrnid monsters which have massive weapons or wings etc but actually very tiny and difficukt to distinguish between weapon and body.
Dark eldar and oll their extra spiky bits that are or arn't weapons or part of the hull?
Defiler though that thing has just never really qorked well with the rules even in 8th
If everything us a marine guardsmen etc it tends to cause minimal arguments but with some of the more out there models it caused a lot of arguments if someone wanted it to.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ValentineGames wrote:
TLOS is easy when you apply common sen-... Oh yeah... 40k players...

Sometimes I wonder if GW's problem is that they're Brits trying to write rules for Americans (or that the players' problem is that they're Americans trying to play rules written by Brits). It feels to me like people writing British wargame rules are assuming some kind of hive-mind level agreement and understanding among the playerbase about what everything's supposed to mean and how it's supposed to work regardless of what it actually says, while people writing American wargame rules spend more time chasing and plugging loopholes.

That would not surprise me in all honesty.
Its like when black powder came out from warlord. It was very clear it was a slap minis on table and roll dice like gentlemen with a glass of port and a digestive.
Where problems are solved with a gentlemens handshake... Or duel...
Where the rules were a guideline.

The amount of American players you'd notice on forums and groups flipping out over such a thing was hilarious.

But its not like GW hasn't in the past time and time again said their rules are a guide and not set in stone.
Even now you'll still see it pop up where they'll say change things, experiment, add, take etc.
But due to a very loud brash set of people these encouragements to be more flexible are shot down faster than a day trip past the grassy knoll.