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.

DeathGod wrote:I'm going to go ahead and say what other people have beaten around the bush and come close to saying, but haven't.

Man up. Quit whining. Suck it up. Etc, etc, etc.

There have ALWAYS been those certain individuals who will do ANYthing shady to prove their own imagined superiority over others. And there always will be. The fact that GW didn't cowtow to those people is a GOOD thing. Some people say that GW erred by not making the true LOS rules more airtight than the space shuttle. I say that the person poking holes in the space shuttles hull from the inside should be tossed out the cargo bay.

Has anyone been screaming about how 5th edition doesn't have a convention to prevent people from trying to quickly pick up dice that roll a miss, before the opponent sees the roll, so that he can count it as a hit and roll with it to wound?

What about how the evil GW hasn't made models yet that move themselves exactly the appropriate distance so that certain people can't use their purposefully broken and taped together measuring tape to get that extra half-inch of movement?

The rules work, they are as desigend by the people who designed the game. Stop blaming a games developer for your local FLGS's native cheating power gamer. Blame the damn cheater. When someone models a wraithlord like he's crawling under constantina wire at boot camp (with R. Lee Ermy kicking his too-high-in-the-air ass back into the mud), look him in the eye, tell him why you won't ever play him again, and move on.

w00t!!!!!!!!!

If you can see, you can be shot.

DeathGod wrote:Man up. Quit whining. Suck it up. Etc, etc, etc.

QFT!

You're going to have that problem with every single game more complex than tic-tac-toe.

This isn't a complexity issue, it's a style issue.

Am I not doing a good job of expressing the distinction I'm making?

There's a difference between writing rules and social engineering. I want GW to be rules authors, not social engineers. I don't want them worrying aboot how I feel when I play the game, or if I need to work on my empathy for little plastic men.

Write rules that work, and that I know how to use. Don't worry aboot my inner child.

For me, that's the bottom line. I don't have any confidence in the TLOS rules. I had limited confidence in 4e and what I had is gone.

When I went to GW looking for a reason to have confidence in TLOS, they kept telling me what a fun time my inner child was going to have developing a personal rapport with my Dev squads. That has only irritated me and made me less confident.

I'm just not sure I entirely understand all the edge conditions that can occur with TLOS. I'm not sure that my opponent will agree with me. I'm leery of having to deal with some douchenozzle who has played games with his basing. The whole system seems excessively subjective, and I don't like subjectivity anywhere near competition.

Maybe when this system gets more burn in, and there's a more established understanding and concensus of all the issues and resolutions I'll like it better, but for now it's not something I have any faith in giving me a conflict free game.

The fact that GW didn't cowtow to those people is a GOOD thing.

Yeah, I don't agree.

You're crafting a strawman here. Of course GW can't stop people from cheating on their measurements or rolls. But they can write tight rules. Yes, the person who tries to poke holes in the rules is a problem. And GW can do their part to help us oot with that guy. Sloppy rules CREATE more of those guys. Sloppy enough rules can even create major disagreements between otherwise reasonable people.

The fact is, GW DID cowtow to TFG. They said "forget it, it's too hard to write rules that beat you, can't you just be nice and have fun?" They refused to make a good effort to beat the guy, they just passed the job on to us.

Somehow you think they're doing us a favor with that?

I'm not saying I can't deal with TFG. I just don't spend hours painting models to experience the pleasure of a hostile confrontation with somebody on my Saturday afternoons.

Absolutely, TFG is the real problem here. But GW is the friend you turn to for support on a ruling and he shrugs, says nothing, and then has to go get a Coke.

constantina

George Constaniznina? It's concertina.

Phryxis wrote:This isn't a complexity issue, it's a style issue.

That point was that the more complex the game, the more chance you have of having a rule in there that you don't like.

I don't have any confidence in the TLOS rules.

Shouldn't the fact that they've been working successfully for 20 years provide some sort of reassurance?

I'm just not sure I entirely understand all the edge conditions that can occur with TLOS. I'm not sure that my opponent will agree with me. I'm leery of having to deal with some douchenozzle who has played games with his basing. The whole system seems excessively subjective, and I don't like subjectivity anywhere near competition.

But all of this was true for 4th edition. What's changed?

In fact, it's all much less likely to cause problems in 5th, since they've spelt the LOS rules out much better in this version. Instead of 4th ed's rather nebulous 'draw LOS to the target's body' they have actually explained exactly what that means. This is (in my opinion) the clearest and least likely to cause problems that GW's LOS rules have ever been.

Shouldn't the fact that they've been working successfully for 20 years provide some sort of reassurance?

If they were exactly the same, then sure. As I said, maybe after some burn in, they'll seem better to me, but right now they don't seem as clear as you're suggesting.

The fact is, a general history of using TLOS type rules isn't necessarily a precedent for anything. The devil is in the details here, and one poorly thought out scenario, one forgotten edge condition, and the whole thing unravels, at least until there's a FAQ or errata (which GW does appear to be much more serious aboot, so good on them for that).

I certainly hope you're right that the rules are clearer than ever. They don't seem that way to me right now. The text of the book seems to agree with it's attitude of "hey, this is immersive and fun, we're sure you can be a good sport and get past any problems it creates!" (p16).

Perhaps I should start another thread on TLOS questions, and see if there's more agreement than I predict...

Phryxis wrote: As I said, maybe after some burn in, they'll seem better to me, but right now they don't seem as clear as you're suggesting.

So, then, please, explain why true LOS is suddenly a problem in the new edition?

More specifically, if you managed to play 4th edition, which had the same LOS rules for everything except areat terrain and close combats but didn't have them as clearly spelt out, why is it suddenly a problem that 5th edition uses the same rules and spells them out more clearly?

I don't understand what your issue with TLOS is Phryxis. TLOS is just that, TLOS. If you can see it you can shoot it. Where's the question? Your posts also make it sound a lot like you haven't even played a game of 5th edition yet. How 'bout trying it and seeing what it's like? What exactly are you looking for from GW or others when it comes to the TLOS rules? Reassurance that they work? Yeah, they do. The rules work. I'm reassuring you now.

2nd ed was TLOS. 3rd was TLOS. 4th was TLOS with area terrain sizes thrown in (which I thought actually made it weirder). 5th has gone back to the "roots", so to speak. The only difference that I've seen between 2nd/3rd and 5th's version of TLOS is that the TLOS rules have been pretty fleshed out.

Any disagreement between you and your opponent can pretty easily be worked out. For example, a game I played in last night had a disagreement. From where I stood I felt I had cover from a corner of a building. My opponent disagreed, that over 50% of the model was showing. I looked at it from my side, disagreed again. He asked if I'd come look from his models perspective. I obliged, came around the table and looked. From that perspective it was very easy for me to tell that my opponent was correct and I had no cover. Disagreement solved. There's always the old "Lets d6 it and move on" rules-solver as well. Any major disagreement for TLOS isn't because of the rules, it's because of the players. Quit being asshats, it's a game. Just keep in mind it's not a problem with the rules if your opponent is a douchebag.

Lormax wrote: From where I stood I felt I had cover from a corner of a building. My opponent disagreed, that over 50% of the model was showing. I looked at it from my side, disagreed again. He asked if I'd come look from his models perspective. I obliged, came around the table and looked. From that perspective it was very easy for me to tell that my opponent was correct and I had no cover.

So more than 50% of the model was showing, or the entire model was showing?

Because only one of those would mean that you didn't have cover...

Yeah, they do. The rules work. I'm reassuring you now.

I have no doubt that they "work." Insofar as they can be followed. What I am fairly certain of, is that they'll produce ridiculous results if actually followed.

Apparently it was a mistake, and I should have just kept posting here, but I started another thread to discuss how to actually rule on TLoS and so far it's just a continuation of insaniak repeating himself that TLoS is great and I don't get it.

My concern, as I explained there, is how these new rules, which are NOT the same as the old rules due to the addition of some very specific conditions to determining LoS, fall apart when dealing with models in static poses, i.e. EVERY SINGLE MODEL IN THE GAME. Now, if we play by the rules, an entire squad can fail to shoot because they just can't kneel down and use a low window. Now you can blow an entire squad away because you happen to be able to see the foot of ONE model in the squad.

I don't doubt that the rules "work." I just think they're ridiculous, and I'd be quite surprised if you, insaniak, or any of the other defenders ACTUALLY play by them. I'd be willing to bet that you actually just put your models in, say, a set of ruins, and assume that they can see oot the windows, and be seen through the windows, and then you get on with the game.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you don't play that way. But that's how I've always played it, that's how every game I watch has played it, and it makes sense for a game played with static models.

So, why do I have a problem with the 5e TLoS rules? Because, contrary to insaniaks repeated suggestions, they're NOT the same as 4e. They impose a whole new set of conditions which are artificial, incongruent with statically posed models, and ultimately I don't think many players are actually going to follow them.

I'd argue that rules which are too ridiculous to follow aren't very good rules.

Phryxis wrote: and so far it's just a continuation of insaniak repeating himself that TLoS is great and I don't get it.

You mean, aside from the part where I actually answered your questions...?

My concern, as I explained there, is how these new rules, which are NOT the same as the old rules due to the addition of some very specific conditions to determining LoS, fall apart when dealing with models in static poses,

The rules don't fall apart. You're simply expecting them to cover situations that would serve no purpose other than to complicate the game.

I just think they're ridiculous, and I'd be quite surprised if you, insaniak, or any of the other defenders ACTUALLY play by them. I'd be willing to bet that you actually just put your models in, say, a set of ruins, and assume that they can see oot the windows, and be seen through the windows, and then you get on with the game.

Be surprised then, because it's exactly how I've played non-area terrain in every previous edition of the game back to 2nd, and it's exactly how I'll continue to play.

The game is much, much easier if you use the actual position of the model. Once you start adding in the whole abstract 'yeah, but he could see if he was standing up' or 'yeah, but he'd be in cover if he wasn't standing on a rock' or 'yeah, but he could see if he was actually in front of the window instead of over there...' the whole thing just gets tedious.

The whole point of using models in a game is that the model serves as the point of reference. Replace the model within the rules with an abstract 'this model is this big, regardless of the actual model' and you remove any need to have models in the first place.

Honestly sometimes I think some of the rules get in the way of a great game. If a rule like this one does that it's time to house rule it.

House rules don't help when you're going to a tourney.

You mean, aside from the part where I actually answered your questions...?

Well, yeah, because I was pretty much certain you don't actually play by the 5e rules. You've now said that you do, and I'm fairly dumbfounded.

I mean, your kneeling models just NEVER get to shoot over a low wall, and you're good with that?

"Him? Oh, that's just Karl. He started kneeling back in basic, and he just never stopped. I don't know why we bother to bring him along, he can't see anything. At least we're by the book, tho, right? Yeah, don't get me started on Screaming Sarge. You'd think he'd be oot of breath by now, but they guy's been going on the same scream since 2002."

The whole point of using models in a game is that the model serves as the point of reference.

I couldn't agree more. A point of reference. Not a set in stone pose that never changes... of reference...

Replace the model within the rules with an abstract 'this model is this big, regardless of the actual model' and you remove any need to have models in the first place.

How's that so? You have the models to set the mood, to inspire you to play the game, to add fun and flair to the proceedings. If the rules penalize you for having big, impressive, dramatically posed models, that's far more likely to shove the modelling oot of the game than a system that generalizes the pose of the models as flexible and tactically appropriate.

This is supposed to be aboot immersion. How am I supposed to get immersed in a battle being fought by mannequins?

REGARDLESS, this has all be very helpful. It's clear to me now that the rules really are crap, some people who happen to live on the exact opposite side of the world from me don't care (or possibly enjoy) how crap they are, but I can pretty much go to my FLGS and not play by these crap rules, and nobody will notice.

We ALL win. Even Karl.

whitedragon wrote:House rules don't help when you're going to a tourney.

Fair enough.

Then the tourney needs to FAQ it or GW needs to FAQ it. Either way if a rule like this causes this much confusion it needs to be clarified.

Phryxis wrote:I mean, your kneeling models just NEVER get to shoot over a low wall, and you're good with that?

I own two kneeling models, and they've never been used in a game.

But yeah, assuming they ever make it onto the table, that would be the case. They would also not be seen behind that same wall.


The models represent a squad in motion... but do so with static poses because GW haven't got around to releasing motorised minis yet. The fact that the same model is kneeling all game doesn't mean that the same trooper is kneeling all game.

I couldn't agree more. A point of reference. Not a set in stone pose that never changes... of reference...

To serve as a point of reference, you have to actually use that point of reference.

Claiming that the model's head is half an inch away from where it actually is, or that the model is peering out a window despite being on the other side of the room, is not using the model as a point of reference.

How's that so? You have the models to set the mood, to inspire you to play the game, to add fun and flair to the proceedings.

And if that's enough for you, then that's great. For myself, I've played (and still play) a number of games where the models are just tokens and LOS is completely abstract. And while they're reasonably fun, and some of the minis are pretty, these games are nowhere near as immersive as 40K. You're just moving tokens (even if they are pretty ones) around a board.

But to each his own.

spacemarinejunkie wrote:

whitedragon wrote:House rules don't help when you're going to a tourney.

Fair enough.

Then the tourney needs to FAQ it or GW needs to FAQ it. Either way if a rule like this causes this much confusion it needs to be clarified.

The rule doesn't need changing, ot FAQing, or anything similar. It's perfectly clear. It's 100% understandable. It was written in English. This thread is one person bemoaning that he doesn't like the rule he doesn't like. He can get over it or he can go pick up needlepoint.

Or I guess he can keep on moaning, in which case we'll keep arguing with him and laughing at him when we talk about this thread with our friends while our opponent goes to take a piss break.

But nevertheless, this thread is one guy whining, nothing more, nothing less.

But nevertheless, this thread is one guy whining, nothing more, nothing less.

Right, just me. And everyone at the two FLGS I go to regularly.

I've got a problem with the rules. You seem to want to have a problem with me.

If you want to stop trying to pick fights with people for a few seconds, you'd notice that this thread was started by somebody whose whole gaming group has expressed dissatisfaction with the potential impact of the new rules.

Just for fun, I scanned this thread for people who don't like the TLoS implementation in 5e. I found five additional posters, besides myself. If only you could count as well as you can accuse people of being whiners?

But whatever. You just keep singling me out for insults. You're the winner!

Since when did it become a high crime to be critical of GW's ruleset on Dakka? Ohhh, I know. When you wanted to look like a real life internet toughguy. I guess I better go "man up" right now. In the context of a game of little plastic toys.

Sweeeet, I won!

But yeah, assuming they ever make it onto the table, that would be the case.

Ok, then that makes me wonder: In a given game, how often do you find that some models in a squad can shoot, while others can't due to LoS? I realize this is a hard thing to categorize, there are a lot of places and times to be out of LoS, but I'm just curious what your tolerance level is.

Is this a constant thing? Any time a squad is in a ruin, are at least a few of them not getting to fire? Or is it less frequent?

Do you model terrain with this in mind?

They would also not be seen behind that same wall.

Right, but if anybody else in their squad is, they could still be pulled as a casualty.

How could they be hit by incoming fire if they can't be seen? Why is the actual reference size of the model discarded in this portion of the shooting phase, but adhered to doggedly elsewhere? That's inconsistent mechanics, and inconsistency is a clear indicator of flaws in any system.

The fact that the same model is kneeling all game doesn't mean that the same trooper is kneeling all game.

This seems more than a little inconsistent to me. You want the models to serve as a point of reference, not just in terms of location, or general size, but right down to their pose, facial expression, etc...

But then, in the very same post, you suggest that the actual troopers the models represent, that's totally mutable and up in the air...

Claiming that the model's head is half an inch away from where it actually is, or that the model is peering out a window despite being on the other side of the room, is not using the model as a point of reference.

I don't agree. It's simply a question of how the model is used as a point of reference. Perhaps it's nothing more than a chit to represent a wound on the squad. It's still a point of reference. But from there, it can accurately represent an x/y position, or even an x/y/z position. It can represent the general size of the model. Or, as you suggest, it can represent everything down to the exact pose of the model.

You've chosen a level of reference that you're comfortable with, and that's fine. It's not the only one that works.

After all, what if I go past you, into even more strict reference. What if the model is holding his Bolter verticall against his shoulder and pointing? Well, then he can never hit anything that's not directly above him...

I realize this isn't captured in the rules, I'm simply showing that how the rules choose to use the models as reference isn't set in stone.

But to each his own.

Absolutely. But, contrary to the criticisms of others, I'm not here to just whine aboot this. I am genuinely surprised that you prefer the 5e version of TLoS and I'm interested to know why.

Also, we've all seen the impact yak has managed to have on the rules we all play by keeping involved and thoughtful aboot them. Voicing one's opinion here isn't simple whining anymore, it has the real potential to be seen and considered by GW staff, or at least by people like yak, who are benificent enough to do the GW staff's job for them.

Phryxis wrote: In a given game, how often do you find that some models in a squad can shoot, while others can't due to LoS?

With the amount of terrain that I generally try to cram onto a board? Constantly.

Any time a squad is in a ruin, are at least a few of them not getting to fire?

Pretty much. That's part of the trade-off for being in the cover... your ability to shoot out is reduced.

Do you model terrain with this in mind?

I model terrain primarily to look good, while balancing out that against the need to stand models on it and provide both cover and at least one decent fire point.

How could they be hit by incoming fire if they can't be seen?

This is explained in the rulebook.

The models that can be seen show the enemy that there is a target there.
The models out of sight can still be hit because (A) the unit is potentially moving around at the time and (B) most decent firearms can go straight through the majority of unfortified obstacles.

The SLR that I trained with in the army 15 years ago could punch through a half-inch steel plate. (We used to do a range shoot that involed a steel plate folded in an L shape, standing up in place of the target. You had to try to hit the plate and knock it over. Surprisingly difficult, as if you hit the wrong part of the plate, the round just goes straight through and the plate barely wobbles) So I would think that weapons 40000 years in the future, even allowing for the fluff's technology drift, would be capable of handling the odd wall or two.

You want the models to serve as a point of reference, not just in terms of location, or general size, but right down to their pose, facial expression, etc...

Hyperbole much?

But then, in the very same post, you suggest that the actual troopers the models represent, that's totally mutable and up in the air...

I'm suggesting a method of 'coping' with the fact that one of your models is always kneeling. Nothing more. Frankly, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

What if the model is holding his Bolter verticall against his shoulder and pointing? Well, then he can never hit anything that's not directly above him...

Sure... if you can find a reference in the rules that requires models to fire in the direction in which their weapon is pointing, knock yourself out.

I realize this isn't captured in the rules, I'm simply showing that how the rules choose to use the models as reference isn't set in stone.

Of course it's not. But the reference that GW have decided to use is the one that makes the game play the way they want it to, and the way that they have found has been successful in the past. Yes, that system has evolved over time... but as I said earlier, that change has been, at least in this iteration, a positive thing intended to make the rules more functional.

I think the reason that people seem to feel that TLOS for 5th is some novel concept is that they came into the game during third or fourth, interpreted certain rules ( namely area terrain ) as abstract 2-d concepts, and were encouraged to use abstractions by other players ( and GW at the time ). Saying that getting down over the models to get their view is not the way LOS used to be done is not true...It was "LOS light" that is the new concept that was introduced in 3rd and 4th.

If crouching down to get TLOS is silly, well, I guess I'm a clown. To me, this is just how 40k is done. Part of the appeal of a miniatures game is the 3D aspect of play. You don't even need rules to simulate a 3D enviroment, with TLOS, it exists for real, right there on the table ( as a model ). I must say I like a magic cylinder light concept for certain models, but even this isn't a new concept. Basically magic cylinder light is a formalized version of what sporting players have always done, namely, not saying you have los to a unit when you can see a tiny part of an arm peeking out from under the crotch of that dread or MC.

I like the idea that GW has gone back to actually producing MINIATURE GAME rules. I also, and I realize this could just be my interpretation, believe that many of the 5th rules changes are a nod to old school 40k players. It's nice that they throw us a bone once in a while.

insaniak wrote:So more than 50% of the model was showing, or the entire model was showing?

Because only one of those would mean that you didn't have cover...

After reading your question I grabbed my BRB and read the cover rules. Looks like my opponent was wrong, that any part of the model in question being obscured would've counted it in cover. My model was a carnifex and I think the only real part that would've been out of sight was the tail. Even after reading the cover rules I would've conceded that I had no cover once I looked at it from his models perspective.

My opponent was one that I see often though, so I'll be correcting him for sure Thanks Insaniak.

Lormax wrote:

insaniak wrote:So more than 50% of the model was showing, or the entire model was showing?

Because only one of those would mean that you didn't have cover...

After reading your question I grabbed my BRB and read the cover rules. Looks like my opponent was wrong, that any part of the model in question being obscured would've counted it in cover. My model was a carnifex and I think the only real part that would've been out of sight was the tail. Even after reading the cover rules I would've conceded that I had no cover once I looked at it from his models perspective.

My opponent was one that I see often though, so I'll be correcting him for sure Thanks Insaniak.

Your opponent was correct if it was a Carnifex. Monstrous creatures use the same cover rules as vehicles, ie 50% or more of the body of the model must be in cover. Remember that tails and wings are not considered to be a part of the body for LOS purposes.

Lormax wrote:I don't understand what your issue with TLOS is Phryxis. TLOS is just that, TLOS. If you can see it you can shoot it.

Not true. You can also shoot things that you can't see. For example, the 29 other Orks in that mob that are completely out of LOS that can be shot if one Ork has his leg in LOS. The TLoS rules give us "curving lasers" that can wrap around buildings!

Democratus wrote: For example, the 29 other Orks in that mob that are completely out of LOS that can be shot if one Ork has his leg in LOS. The TLoS rules give us "curving lasers" that can wrap around buildings!

You're shooting at the unit, not at the individual models. Which is the way it should be.

And yet again, the shots don't need to curve. Explained in the book, and by anyone who's ever shot a high-powered firearm at anything stronger than a paper target.

I think Deathgod is pretty much accurate in his assessment. The big divide is that im sure TLOS works great in the GW playtesting area, because everyone there is enjoying the game, and not trying to abuse some rule to get an advantage. The sad true fact is that there are 's everywhere that just want to win, and dont care how many rules they break/bend to do it. Welcome to the New American Dream: Find some grey area and exploit it. It is all well and good to say, "Good game man, we will never play again." But in a tourney/league you cant enforce that preferance. It's sad because ive never seen a powergamer win a tournament, as almost universally their composition/gamesmanship scores are bottom of the barrel. what a waste of time for them and us.

That's part of the trade-off for being in the cover... your ability to shoot out is reduced.

Is this a fluff justification or just a "that's how the game is?"

Clearly, the way you're playing the game (and the way the rules are written), you're going to lose some shooting for being in cover, so I agree "that's how the game is."

But you're also talking IRL justifications in your post... And IRL, virtually all shooting is done from cover, and many weapons depend on a good wall for support if they're to fire effectively (a GPMG for example).

Either way, I can't agree. One is a tautology, the other is simply false.

The models out of sight can still be hit because (A) the unit is potentially moving around at the time and (B) most decent firearms can go straight through the majority of unfortified obstacles.

Fluff justifications, and IRL experience are all well and good... My point was simply to identify inconsistencies in the rules. The fact is, the shooting rules are inconsistent. In order to shoot, you need LoS to a target model. In order to be shot, nobody needs LoS to you.

That's not consistent. Don't care? Ok. It's still inconsistent, and I think that's a valid complaint with these rules.

Also, for what it's worth, if "the unit is potentially moving around at the time" works for you when getting shot at, how come it doesn't work for you when shooting?

The problem with inconsistent rules, is that they force you to make inconsistent justifications in defending them.

as I said earlier, that change has been, at least in this iteration, a positive thing intended to make the rules more functional.

In your opinion it's positive, in my opinion it's not...

I do agree that it's made the rules more functional. There's a much more objective method of assessing LoS now, and as I've said before, I can see why you think this is positive. What I don't understand, is why you accept the negative side effects so gladly.

It seems as if you've identified this system as the most functional way to implement a TLoS system (which it may be) and then you've decided it's good, without even considering that something other than TLoS might be significantly better still.

This system has two significant issues which bear repeating, because their primary offense is that they break immersion and limit fun... And that's totally at odds with the desiger's stated goals.

1) Ridiculous Outcomes: A model can't shoot because it's crouching. The fact that the rules treat the models as rigid, static and immobile reminds us repeatedly that they're rigid, static, and immobile. They also force us to accept that some models just won't shoot, "just cause." How invested in your models can you get when you're actually PROHIBITED from assuming they can ever move?

2) Discouraging Modelling: I realize modelling has always been a way to cheese oot some extra advantage, but the new rules really drive it home... If you go with unusual poses, you may pay a price. If you make big, dynamic models, you may pay a price. It's best to make the models small, tight, and in a generic action stance with head "average" height above ground.

Explained in the book, and by anyone who's ever shot a high-powered firearm at anything stronger than a paper target.

Meh. I've shot a .308 through a car, I know how it goes. I've even seen handgun caliber rounds go clear through car door. I've also seen them bounce right off a windshield. Heavy masonry will stop rifle and machine gun fire without trouble. All cover isn't soft cover. And most any combat veteran will tell you, soft cover isn't cover at all. There are whole weapons systems designed around defeating cover which can't be defeated by normal direct fire weapons.

That said, I find the fluff interesting to talk aboot, but it doesn't change the basic fact that I, and others, have objected to. The rules are inconsistent between who can shoot, and who can be shot. This inconsistency is a bit ridiculous, which leads to deliberate jokes at its expense.

Clearly Democratus doesn't think GW really intended for lasers to bend.

Clearly I don't think you really consider the facial expressions of your models in your LoS calculations.

I think we're both trying to use a little humor to highlight the absurdities of some rules that you don't see to want to see any absurdity in at all.

Phryxis wrote:Is this a fluff justification or just a "that's how the game is?"

Both.

And IRL, virtually all shooting is done from cover, and many weapons depend on a good wall for support if they're to fire effectively (a GPMG for example).

IRL, entire squads aren't forced to shoot at the same target. Sacrificing shooting flexibility for cover is one of the trade-offs that comes from a system that does force the whole squad to target the same thing or nothing.

E The fact is, the shooting rules are inconsistent. In order to shoot, you need LoS to a target model. In order to be shot, nobody needs LoS to you.

There's no inconsistency there because you're targeting the unit, not the model.

Also, for what it's worth, if "the unit is potentially moving around at the time" works for you when getting shot at, how come it doesn't work for you when shooting?

Because using it when shooting requires you to either physically move models, or imagine that the model is somewhere it isn't.

Using it when getting shot doesn't. You use the physical placement of the models to determine LOS to the unit, after which you're just shooting in that general direction and hoping to hit something.


The alternative would be to allow an entire unit to shoot provided that at least one model has LOS to the target... I would be very surprised if that wasn't at least trialled, and discarded as creating too much slant towards shooty armies.

It seems as if you've identified this system as the most functional way to implement a TLoS system (which it may be) and then you've decided it's good, without even considering that something other than TLoS might be significantly better still.

I've already pointed out that I do play games that use other systems for LOS.

This is the one that I prefer, and that in my opinion makes the game a miniatures game instead of a board game with pretty tokens.

I think we're both trying to use a little humor to highlight the absurdities of some rules that you don't see to want to see any absurdity in at all.

Absurdities crop up in pretty much any complex game system.

Your enjoyment of the game will often depend on whether or not you choose to focus on those absurdities, or simply accept that it's a side-effect of trying to simulate a war with plastic toy soldiers and just get on with the game.

I understand what you're saying about it seeming inconsistent that you have to have LOS from each MODEL that is shooting, yet any models in the UNIT can be shot at. However, I think ultimately the rules spell out that it is models that are shooting at units. For me, it works. It combines the appeal ( for me ) of TLOS, yet it keeps the game moving at a reasonable pace, which would not be possible if each shooting model shot at individual targets.