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.

It's a strange way of abstracting the position of men within a squad, and combining that abstraction with a laser precise definition of their position within the terrain.

Only the ones that have TLOS can shoot, but if only one is seen, the entire squad can be wiped out? er...nuts.

It's because they all run forward to protect the sarge with the powerfist!

No system is perfect, but it does eliminate sniping of models, which to me, is a huge improvement.

sherbet wrote:

....First off, it says - basically- that if you can see it, you can shoot at it. Page 16 of the rules states that "...at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen." That is to say that if nine of my guys are behind one rock and nine of your guys are behind another, and only one guy in each unit can see each other, that all ten guys in each squad can engage, albeit with cover saves.

Doesn't this go totally against the idea of using TLOS? Surely, if you are using True Line Of Sight, then those other nine guys in each squad are unable to be fired on because they can't be seen. Isn't the idea of TLOS that you take the position of the miniature as sacrosanct, and that you determine from there what it can and cannot see? What is the point of allowing it to fire on what it can't see, if you're using TLOS? If only one model in a squad has Line Of Sight to a target, then surely only that model gets to fire? If you want the other models to stay out of danger, then they don't get to shoot either?.....

Me and my friends have adapted the rules so that the only model that can "see" the other unit may fire upon the only models it can "see"

but I understand what you mean

well what i really think is that they should be more pecific. i know one time i had an ork with the big hair thing and what really stunk is that my opponent could see his hair but none of his body so then he was technically aloud to shoot at my unit. i mean really if someone shoots only your hair you arent gonna feel a thing.

Since when is hair the body of a model?

My friends and I have already salted this one to taste.

squad A can draw LoS with X models on only Y models of squad B

Therefore squad A can fire X times with the weapons with LoS but can only hit Y number of of models.

Salted TLoS jerky, works for us.

Hi all.
Most other games I play either abstract something to make it very simple.

Eg TLOS ,draw direct line of sight between firer and target to determine if a shot can be taken.
You cannot shoot what you can not see.(Apart from exeptions for inaccurate indirect fire...)

Or explain how the minatures are abstract representations of real units that are not as static as the ridged posed models.
And as such use rules like , the firing units leader must be able to draw TLOS to the centre of the target unit.

But to use a direect measurment (LOS) for simplicity , and then add in abstractions to the area of effect-wound allocation just follows GW 40k rules development.

'Never use a single simple concept when you can use multiple abstractions to confound or confuse. '

Can anyone think of a single game mechanic from 40k that couldnt be replaced with something more simple, intuitive and efficient?

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Can anyone think of a single game mechanic from 40k that couldnt be replaced with something more simple, intuitive and efficient?

Roll a d6?

Igo-Ugo?

HI again
Roll a D6 is a 'random probability genarating mechanism,' NOT a 'game mechanic'.

IGO, UGO is a generic descriptor of a general game turn mechanic where players take 'turns.'
(Rather than variable bound game turns as used in Blood Bowl and Crossfire.)

So after the rules development for 40k got to ,' the rules should let players take turns, and roll dice.'It all went horribly wrong.

TTFN
Lanrak.

How about 'Infantry models may move up to 6" in the movement phase"? That's pretty darn simple and intuitive (even if I prefer 40K2's approach of having a Movement stat)

I think this would be a great time for us as a community to put our money where our mouth is and design a better LOS system with the "right" amount of abstraction.

And no, you can't use the cop-out of "Just go back to 3E!"

Ghaz wrote:You do know that with a few exceptions, you've been using true line of sight since at least 3rd edition.

I don't think we've had true line of sight since 2nd. 3rd was "Birds eye view area terrain blocks your vision" line of sight, as was 4th. 5th requires you to be able to draw a line from one model to another. I don't disagree with the OP on this, or on some of the other points made (regarding armor - which was retooled entirely in 3rd).

As the rules are written "the advanced scanners and whatnots" that Space Marines have are used to explain why Kroot and Tyranids would be able to see you behind a dense pack of tree's or several solid walls if only one model in your unit is visible otherwise. If your one model is all that is visible, it is all that should be able to see or shoot back (unless it has special abilities mind you - which would make this game quite distrubing).

What I find more amusing is the cover-save granted by groups in the way - if anything they should take fire when the intended target makes a cover save that way.

The one thing about armor/cover saves - I think that one part of this game that also doesn't work out well logically is the "you have two armor saves, one normal, one invulnerable, you take one or the other, not both". If you have both, and the weapon hitting you doesn't negate either, you should get both. This wouldn't apply necessarily for terrain based saves mind you.

Lanrak wrote:
'Never use a single simple concept when you can use multiple abstractions to confound or confuse. '

Can anyone think of a single game mechanic from 40k that couldnt be replaced with something more simple, intuitive and efficient?

TTFN
Lanrak.

That first line reminds me of what Jervis said about the Dark Angels codex. *shakes head*

Would "deciding to play" or "picking a codex" count as game mechanics?

with an iron fist wrote: 3rd was "Birds eye view area terrain blocks your vision" line of sight, as was 4th.

For area terrain, yes. For the rest of the game, it was true LOS.

Every version of the game so far has had, as the core of the LOS rules, the requirement to get down and check LOS from the model's eye view.

It's not heresy to think of alternatives.

Once you start on the journey of abstraction for simplicity's sake that some of 40K represents, why stop at LoS?

Fundamentally, the "Bend down for a look" mechanism and the "Guess range" mechanism are vestigial remnants of the kind of games that we played when we were 10 years old.

I'm at least glad the "Guess" mechanic is dead and buried.

Hi all.
As there has been a request for alternatives to the current GW efforts ...

Simple abstraction for gamer utilisation.
Models eye view for 'true line of sight' relative to game table.
If it cannot be 'seen' by the firing model the shot can not be taken.
Apart from innacurate indirect fire.BUT a friendly unit MUST be able to 'see' the intended target of the indirect fire.

New mechanic to take simulationist abstraction of real events .

As the vertical and horisontal scale of the 40k game are gossly disproportionate.(Vertical scale 16mm =1m , horisontal scale 2mm =1m.Approx.)Using direct visual comparison on the games table will give distorted results.

If every unit in the game gets a 'size' value.The bigger -easier to see the unit is the higher the size value.(1 to 5.)

All terrain is given a size value value. How much the feature obscures a unit hiding in/behind it.(0 to 4)

All units get a Spotting Distance. This is the value the unit will autmaticaly spot a size 1 target at .

EG IG squad /SD 8''
If the target is size higher than 1 , add each size difference to the SD.

Eg
Size/Spotting distance.
1=8''
2=9''
3=10''
4=11''
5=12''

Each value is a 'range band' , eg. a size 3 target..
up to 10" away is seen on a roll of 1+,(automatic.)
over 10 to 20 " 2+,
over 20 to 30 " 3+
over 30 to 40" 4+
over 40 to 50" 5+
over 50 to 60 " 6+

A size 3 target is 28" away .Therfore the IG squad need to roll a 3+ to spot and fire at the target unit .
If the size 3 target was hiding behind a size 1 wall, this makes them harder to see.
3-1=2.

Size 2 target , 3x9=27. 4x9= 36. Therfore the IG squad needs to roll 4+ to spot the unit using the wall as cover.

A failed spotting attempt means the unit can not shoot .

This is a simple concept , which follows basic expectations that its harder to see smaller targets / targets further away.And cover makes things harder to see. The example above is just that. Actual values would have to be developed applied apropriatley.

Obviously this would work better with a new rule set , but can you see how the basic idea works?

'Hard cover' could add a value to the units save/ armour value perhaps?

TTFN
Lanrak.

The basic concept is familiar from other sets of rules.

An easy abstraction is to let all units see all other units, and impose To Hit modifiers due to size/range and intervening bits of cover and units. Ignore percentage of obscuration, except in cases where a unit is completely hidden behind a hill, large building or other major terrain feature.

Unfortunately, the amount of modification needed soon exceeds what can be done on a straight D6 roll. Now you need to change the dice, you have to go back to basics and decide first, how often you want units to be able to hit each other. Then calculate percentages and so on.

This could be done so that all weapons/targets could be incorporated into a series of To Hit/Kill tables which give you a basic percentage chance to hit/wound/not save. It would take a lot of mathematics. It might not be acceptable to a lot of players. It has been done that way in lots of other games.

Wow....I'm truely amazed at how much thought and effort people have put into picking holes into the new rules. At the risk of annoying a lot of people here I would just like to say one thing, it is just a game people!!! Chill the beans guys.

Sure I have certain gripes with the new rules, but you have to remember that the whole idea with 40K is that it should be about getting together with mates and having a laugh. GW will never make an edition of the rules that will satisfy everyone all the time and the rules they make are never going to be completely realistic of a real battle. If you are going to pick holes in the fact that TLOS is flawed or that armour saves should be made before wounds, should you not first of all pick holes in the fact that in real battles the antagonists do not actually take it in turns to move and shoot?

I do see where people are coming from, but in order for the rules to account for the constantly fluid nature of combat and every little detail, each turn would take forever and we'd all be complaining that the game takes to long. The current rules do have flaws but allow for a relatively fast, smoother game. Besides the great thing about playing with mates is that if there is a certain niggle in the rules you both do not like, then agree to use a house rule.

Hi Wannabe Writer.
If you take into account GW have had teams of proffesional game developer working on 40k for over 20 years. And GW charge quite a bit for thier rule book....

When they fail to sufficiently define the very basic game play found in the 40k game . Why should the people who have paid money for GW efforts , not discuss the alternatives GW could have used?

I can download lots of rule sets for free from the internet . And these rules let me use whatever minatures I like and adpt the rules to my own liking.FOR FREE.

GW charge you for over complicated counter intuitive 40k rules , but because GW say they cannot write comprehensive intuitive fast paced rules , you belive this is impossible?

Thankfully there are game companies that can write great rule sets.And when current 40k is compared to these rule sets , the 'oversights' of 40k rule set , become more obvious.

Happy Gaming.

Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:

GW charge you for over complicated counter intuitive 40k rules , but because GW say they cannot write comprehensive intuitive fast paced rules , you belive this is impossible?

Thankfully there are game companies that can write great rule sets.And when current 40k is compared to these rule sets , the 'oversights' of 40k rule set , become more obvious.

It may not be impossible, but as I said it would make each turn ore complex and take too long and many people would loose interest in the game. For a game system that is meant for kids as young as 12 yrs, to adults of all ages I feel it works well enough. Younger players may feel certain aspects are too complicated (I have horrible memories of trying to explain the rules to kids at my local gaming club), while older players may feel the game generates flaws due to simplification of the rules (please note this is a generalisation, I am aware that there will be lots of kids who understand the rules better than others).
I feel a lot of angst generated towards GW comes from the fact that a while ago they were a fairly hardcore gaming system, such as 2nd edition, and now they have become a company that has to cater for a wide market, a 'high street brand' if you will. They can not simply cater for hardcore gamers anymore and have to make the major game systems accessable to all ages.

I do feel you made a valid point though, GW are horribly expensive and I really don't see how they can justify their prices. However I have to say that I am hooked to the hobby and I grudgingly open my wallet to them when I can. But I can see why many people get annoyed at finding flaws when they pay so much for the hobby.

I love wargaming and have played 40K from 2nd edition onwards (although I do also play Battle Fleet Gothic, Warmachine and Starship Troopers). Although it is not perfect by any means it remains my favourite and at the end of the day I guess it all comes down to personal taste.

Lanrak wrote:
When they fail to sufficiently define the very basic game play found in the 40k game . Why should the people who have paid money for GW efforts , not discuss the alternatives GW could have used?

I may have been misunderstood as I didn't intend it to be taken that I think people shouldn't discuss alternatives and my post was not meant to reflect all the posts on the thread, just a few of the more harcore responses. It's just that I find it quite suprising how many people get so worked up over something that is meant to be for fun. And as I said if people do have good alternative rules then use them. Me and my mates use house rules all the time as my friend really doesn't like the new vehicle damage table, so he has written up his own and we use that.

I'm sorry if I came across in a way that made it seem I was just having a go at people, i just don't think it's worth getting worked up about. I wouldn't class myself as a real hardcore gamer so I might not be seeing it from their point of view.

One value of discussing flaws in the 40K rules is that it opens readers to the possibility of other periods and systems.

There are plenty of GW staff and customers who are not aware that there is anything beyond GW. Yet there is a huge variety of wargaming out there.

I play Ancients and I'm starting Napoleonic Naval. It doesn't mean I have to stop 40K.

Hi Wannabe Writer.
Thanks for clarifying you position.
I am not a 'hard core gamer' by any stretch of the imagination.

However you do make very good points , the 40k rules are overly complicated , if the game is supposed to be for a younger demoghraphic.
And the actual game play is overly simplified, so it fails to hold the interest of veteran gamers.

To be very cynacle , one could say GW have made the 40k rules like this so newbs have time to collect a substantial (expencive ) army while learning the overly complicated rules , then dump the hobby after short period due to 'vapid' game play.
So the rules support the marketing ethos of GW 'churn and burn .'
(Although some feel obliged to stay with GW due to the massive investment they have made in time and money.)

I am not expecting/want any one to stop playing current 40k .

Its just for 'fun' games I much prefer free to down load games like 'No Limits' or 'Stargrunt II'.(GWs SGs are much better than 40k IMO.)
They have far more focus on game play than marketing ....

TTFN
Lanrak.

Phew, thanks for understanding. Thought I'd made a major error and instantly alianated everyone after only just joining.

Going back t the thread topic I can add a flaw in the TLOS rule that I don't think has been mentioned. My mate almost lost an eye lowering his head to the table to 'get a model's eye view'. You gotta watch those spikes on the cities of death kits!

We all know that 40K will never be a reaslistic simulation of a battle, if your looking for a reaslistic fight, join the army. A game will probarly never be the same as real life.

Lanrak wrote:HI again
Roll a D6 is a 'random probability genarating mechanism,' NOT a 'game mechanic'.

No, no, no, your wrong! I use loaded dice