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.

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

Yeah. And before 5th they also clearly defined what line of sight is and isn't, and how vehicle fire arcs worked. 5th scrubbed that bit of the Codex and left the 'kneel down and check' as the only LOS definition.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

Yeah. And before 5th they also clearly defined what line of sight is and isn't, and how vehicle fire arcs worked. 5th scrubbed that bit of the Codex and left the 'kneel down and check' as the only LOS definition.

Not quite; they sold dinky laser pointers with compasses on them to fit over your model's head and aim.

For about a month, then the eye injuries came in.

The issue is the vocal minority audience, not the silent majority audience. Bitch all you want, the rest of us will enjoy what we can of the content while voting with our wallets.

SJ

 malamis wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

Yeah. And before 5th they also clearly defined what line of sight is and isn't, and how vehicle fire arcs worked. 5th scrubbed that bit of the Codex and left the 'kneel down and check' as the only LOS definition.

Not quite; they sold dinky laser pointers with compasses on them to fit over your model's head and aim.

For about a month, then the eye injuries came in.

How are people in this day and age unaware of the dangers of shining lasers in someone's eye?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue is the vocal minority audience, not the silent majority audience. Bitch all you want, the rest of us will enjoy what we can of the content while voting with our wallets.

SJ

The problem with the silent majority is they're too silent to be measured so we don't really know if they're the majority.

But in practice while 40k doesn't work as written it can be made to work relatively simply, so most of the whiny crowd still play, we just play with various levels of house-FAQs or homemade content.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue is the vocal minority audience, not the silent majority audience. Bitch all you want, the rest of us will enjoy what we can of the content while voting with our wallets.

SJ

Ever stop to think that maybe members of the "vocal minority" are simply members of the "silent majority" who finally came across a version of the game they can't enjoy anymore, instead of simply enjoying complaining for the sake of it?

And why does every gaming community dismiss complaints like that?

Oh, and I voted with my wallet too, and haven't spent a dime on 40k in years.

 Pouncey wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

Yeah. And before 5th they also clearly defined what line of sight is and isn't, and how vehicle fire arcs worked. 5th scrubbed that bit of the Codex and left the 'kneel down and check' as the only LOS definition.

Not quite; they sold dinky laser pointers with compasses on them to fit over your model's head and aim.

For about a month, then the eye injuries came in.

How are people in this day and age unaware of the dangers of shining lasers in someone's eye?

It's harder than you'd think to see where you're pointing the thing when it's on. And when people are doing too many things at once in a non-coordinated fashion someone might be checking LOS with a laser at the same time you're doing it manually from the other end...

(Yes, it hurt. Yes, my eye was fine after it had a chance to cool down. And yes, I have become much more careful about announcing the device's use afterwards.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 malamis wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

4th had hard definitions of LOS, model height, terrain height, spotting distance, et cetera. 5th deleted that chapter, replaced it with a bit saying "Kneel down and check from the model's position!" and ran off without checking to make sure they hadn't actually made a bunch of things stupid or contradictory.

Those rules in 4th edition applied specifically to area terrain and close combat. The rest of the time, 4th edition used true LOS, just like every other edition.

Every single edition from Rogue Trader onwards (including 4th) has included the line about getting down and checking LOS from your model's eye view.

Yeah. And before 5th they also clearly defined what line of sight is and isn't, and how vehicle fire arcs worked. 5th scrubbed that bit of the Codex and left the 'kneel down and check' as the only LOS definition.

Not quite; they sold dinky laser pointers with compasses on them to fit over your model's head and aim.

For about a month, then the eye injuries came in.

How are people in this day and age unaware of the dangers of shining lasers in someone's eye?

It's harder than you'd think to see where you're pointing the thing when it's on. And when people are doing too many things at once in a non-coordinated fashion someone might be checking LOS with a laser at the same time you're doing it manually from the other end...

(Yes, it hurt. Yes, my eye was fine after it had a chance to cool down. And yes, I have become much more careful about announcing the device's use afterwards.)

Fair point.

Also don't forget there are both 12 year olds and persons of disturbed wits who frequent GW for their entertainment (and have as much right to be there as everyone else) so a will to not cause harm to someone with your LOS checker isn't always guaranteed

(Got it too but I had my ULTRA SHORT SIGHTED glasses on which seems to have prevented the worst of it)

Back on topic; From my vantage point about the middle of fourth, I can say "Yes, most of the game rules that affect me and my army have turned more literal" and I am glad they did in every case I can call to mind. Foremost was the change that removed having to roll to hit before also rolling your scatter dice, and the existence of 'partial hits'.

 malamis wrote:
Foremost was the change that removed having to roll to hit before also rolling your scatter dice, ...

That hasn't been a thing since 2nd edition.

6th/7th edition's move back to model-based cover and the whole 'remove models from the front' thing were disappointing changes. 5th edition, for all its flaws, was the game finally moving towards being a squad-based game, with more abstracted cover and casualty removal. 6th and 7th have wound the clock backwards a long way. Once you add in all of the random nonsense (let me choose my own damn psychic powers, dagnabbit!) the end result just isn't working, for me.

 malamis wrote:
Also don't forget there are both 12 year olds and persons of disturbed wits who frequent GW for their entertainment (and have as much right to be there as everyone else) so a will to not cause harm to someone with your LOS checker isn't always guaranteed

Generally people seem to dislike me before they find out I have schizophrenia too.

Can someone please explain to me why they have such an issue with removing wounds from the front? Nobody I know has complained about it.

pm713 wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why they have such an issue with removing wounds from the front? Nobody I know has complained about it.

It's an issue for melee armies who lose charge range out of their front ranks dying.

Conflated the Ordnance blasts with standard blasts; mea culpa. That there was a difference between ordnance blasts and standard blasts was a problem of its own, though to be fair it did make the Leman Russ a fair bit more accurate.

How blasts worked in 4th:

4th Edition BRB pg 30 col 1 para 3&4 wrote:
When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected.

Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a d6 roll of a 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically. The defending player may remove any casualties inflicted from the unit as a whole, not just from models beneath the Blast marker.

This made plasma cannons an utter utter drudge because once you'd resolved your first template, and your opponent had conveniently removed the most clumped section, you had to resolve the next one at the smaller unit and so on.

pm713 wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why they have such an issue with removing wounds from the front? Nobody I know has complained about it.

For me, it's because it's stupid.

It forces players to bury their special weapons and characters in the middle of their units (which is a nuisance with template weapons) rather than being able to put them out front where they are useful.

On those occasions where you do have your characters out in front, it forces you to roll your LoS and saves one...at...a...time, which is just painful.

And combined with Overwatch, it really sucks for close combat-oriented armies.

 malamis wrote:
Conflated the Ordnance blasts with standard blasts; mea culpa. That there was a difference between ordnance blasts and standard blasts was a problem of its own, though to be fair it did make the Leman Russ a fair bit more accurate.

How blasts worked in 4th:

4th Edition BRB pg 30 col 1 para 3&4 wrote:
When you fire a blast weapon roll to hit as normal; if the shot misses it has no effect. If a hit is scored take the Blast marker and place it over the target unit so that one model is under the hole to see how many models are affected.

Models whose bases are partially covered by the marker are hit on a d6 roll of a 4 or more, models whose bases are completely covered are hit automatically. The defending player may remove any casualties inflicted from the unit as a whole, not just from models beneath the Blast marker.

This made plasma cannons an utter utter drudge because once you'd resolved your first template, and your opponent had conveniently removed the most clumped section, you had to resolve the next one at the smaller unit and so on.

Coulda solved it by just tallying up all hits from blast weapons before rolling to wound.

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why they have such an issue with removing wounds from the front? Nobody I know has complained about it.

For me, it's because it's stupid.

It forces players to bury their special weapons and characters in the middle of their units (which is a nuisance with template weapons) rather than being able to put them out front where they are useful.

On those occasions where you do have your characters out in front, it forces you to roll your LoS and saves one...at...a...time, which is just painful.

And combined with Overwatch, it really sucks for close combat-oriented armies.

Putting special people in the middle is hardly agonising work. How often do you NEED a character in front?

What system was there that wasn't stupid?

Because Overwatch is so super strong all the time isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Can someone please explain to me why they have such an issue with removing wounds from the front? Nobody I know has complained about it.

It's an issue for melee armies who lose charge range out of their front ranks dying.

How often does that happen though? I've seen it once.

 Pouncey wrote:

Coulda solved it by just tallying up all hits from blast weapons before rolling to wound.

Which would have been non-standard 40k, because
1. all firing from a squad was simultaneous
2. the defending player got to pick which model took saves, unless the attacker managed to cause wounds equal to the squad count +1
3. again with the blasts, the defender could intentionally lose models in such a way that each subsequent blast was less effective.

Again, this took for- ever, especially against Chaos and units with 3-4 different armour save values (alpha legion).

Removing models from the front is also tedious. Unnecessarily so at the scale of the game. Its generally a nerf to horde armies, which weren't exactly top of the pile a few editions ago and certainly aren't now. It also makes about as much sense in the fluff as letting the player decide who eats it.

So really, there's no good reason from a mechanical and balance perspective because it nerfs already weak armies and bogs down the game with unnecessary tedium that adds zero tactical depth, and doesn't even make a whole lot of sense from a fluff perspective.

Its just stupid. The old system worked fine.

The old system being?

You find it tedious picking up something from the front?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue is the vocal minority audience, not the silent majority audience. Bitch all you want, the rest of us will enjoy what we can of the content while voting with our wallets.

SJ

That "may" be the case with modern gamers, particularly the younger crowd. However, out of my current gaming group (all between the ages of 28-60) all of us "used" to play Warhammer 40K. There are fourteen of us. None of us play anymore and oddly that includes an ex-GW store manager and three ex-GW employees. While any business is always pursuing new blood and new consumers, it's never a good sign when a lot of people are losing interest or leaving the games. The sadder part is that most of us have large 2nd/3rd ed. 40K armies. I just sold off $2500 worth of 40K models from my buddy who used to be a GW manager (a small portion of his stash).

There are plenty of people who love 40K, but I do find them to be of the younger persuasion - namely those without much wargaming experience beyond 40K. That's not a crime, but spending several years playing other (very well written) games will introduce a rapid amount of perspective on how different 40K is now.

PS: Regarding removing models from the front - that is the old system.

pm713 wrote:

Putting special people in the middle is hardly agonising work.

I didn't say it was hard, I said it was a nuisance. Having your template weapons in the middle of the unit makes it much harder to actually use them, as all of your other models are in the way.

How often do you NEED a character in front?

My two main armies are Orks and Space Wolves. So... all the time?

What system was there that wasn't stupid?

The one where the owning player just selected the casualties from anywhere in the unit, thus reflecting that the specific placement of the individual models in the unit wasn't such a big deal, and mostly eliminating the issue of the guy with the meltagun copping a bullet and everyone else in the unit looking mournfully at gun on the ground and saying 'Awww... that's a shame...'


5th edition's casualty removal without the needlessly complicated mixed-unit rules, coupled with a rule forcing wounded multi-wound models to continue taking subsequent wounds would have been pretty much perfect.

Because Overwatch is so super strong all the time isn't it?

It's strong enough when you're using an army that effectively has no armour, particularly when you're facing template weapons.

 Blacksails wrote:

So really, there's no good reason from a mechanical and balance perspective because it nerfs already weak armies and bogs down the game with unnecessary tedium that adds zero tactical depth, and doesn't even make a whole lot of sense from a fluff perspective.

Going to have to contend this in light of what I just posted re: 4ths version. What you got was "Oh i'll just have my chaos lord pass a single 2+ save on 4 wounds and kill the remaining 3 pts (I think?) cultists from all your anti Uber Character shooting, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it". Deaths from the 'front' mean now you can actually target high value models *eventually*, even if it takes 5 different units of shooting to clear the body guards, or you have to move your units in such a way as to maximise the value of casualties in the enemy unit. It also means you can't have a unit spread around 3 quarters of the table and remove whichever models ensure you contest more of it at the game's end, again with no functional recourse.

Honestly I think this was why Assault was so hot in 4th, the alternative was frequently more hassle than it was worth.

pm713 wrote:
The old system being?

You find it tedious picking up something from the front?

The 'tedious' part would be the bit where you have to determine which model is closest, rather than just grabbing a model and moving on.

Sure, it's generally not a big time-sink, but it is more time-consuming than just removing whichever model you choose.

 insaniak wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Putting special people in the middle is hardly agonising work.

I didn't say it was hard, I said it was a nuisance. Having your template weapons in the middle of the unit makes it much harder to actually use them, as all of your other models are in the way.

How often do you NEED a character in front?

My two main armies are Orks and Space Wolves. So... all the time?

What system was there that wasn't stupid?

The one where the owning player just selected the casualties from anywhere in the unit, thus reflecting that the specific placement of the individual models in the unit wasn't such a big deal, and mostly eliminating the issue of the guy with the meltagun copping a bullet and everyone else in the unit looking mournfully at gun on the ground and saying 'Awww... that's a shame...'


5th edition's casualty removal without the needlessly complicated mixed-unit rules, coupled with a rule forcing wounded multi-wound models to continue taking subsequent wounds would have been pretty much perfect.

Because Overwatch is so super strong all the time isn't it?

It's strong enough when you're using an army that effectively has no armour, particularly when you're facing template weapons.

I know. I like exaggerating. It's not much of a nuisance. Put them in the middle at deployment and move forwards. Move them to the front when you reach shooting range if you have a template.

You're going to have to explain to me why Orks and Space Wolves need characters at the front.

So everyone's shots happen to home in on the guy who is coincidentally the least valuable member of a unit. Not stupid at all.

I will admit template weapons can give decent overwatch though.

 malamis wrote:

Going to have to contend this in light of what I just posted re: 4ths version. What you got was "Oh i'll just have my chaos lord pass a single 2+ save on 4 wounds and kill the remaining 3 pts (I think?) cultists from all your anti Uber Character shooting, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it".

That is the point of putting a character in a unit, yes.


Nobody other than a sniper should be able to specifically target the character, IMO.

pm713 wrote:The old system being?

You find it tedious picking up something from the front?

Old system was owning player decided which models to remove.

I find it more tedious having to measure which units are closer, micro manage all my special weapons and characters to be out of the closest range, and having to roll for LoS saves all the time instead of picking which wounds go where.

The old system was much, much faster.

malamis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

So really, there's no good reason from a mechanical and balance perspective because it nerfs already weak armies and bogs down the game with unnecessary tedium that adds zero tactical depth, and doesn't even make a whole lot of sense from a fluff perspective.

Going to have to contend this in light of what I just posted re: 4ths version. What you got was "Oh i'll just have my chaos lord pass a single 2+ save on 4 wounds and kill the remaining 3 pts (I think?) cultists from all your anti Uber Character shooting, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it". Deaths from the 'front' mean now you can actually target high value models *eventually*, even if it takes 5 different units of shooting to clear the body guards, or you have to move your units in such a way as to maximise the value of casualties in the enemy unit. It also means you can't have a unit spread around 3 quarters of the table and remove whichever models ensure you contest more of it at the game's end, again with no functional recourse.

Honestly I think this was why Assault was so hot in 4th, the alternative was frequently more hassle than it was worth.

But on the flip side, you have 'tactics' involving taking some uber tanky character to eat all the shots and then spend 5 mins rolling LoS saves.

pm713 wrote:

You're going to have to explain to me why Orks and Space Wolves need characters at the front.

Because Ork Characters actually have saves

If I remember rightly, Orks got an 'out' of the "pick one of your models to die" method, in that they were the *only* army who could tank shooting on a single character. As i've mixed up blasts & large blasts already don't take my word for this.

pm713 wrote:

I know. I like exaggerating. It's not much of a nuisance. Put them in the middle at deployment and move forwards. Move them to the front when you reach shooting range if you have a template.

Which takes an extra turn, because your templates are all further away from the enemy due to being deployed in the middle of the unit instead of at the front...

You're going to have to explain to me why Orks and Space Wolves need characters at the front.

Because they really want those characters to be the first into close combat.

Casualties from the front, Overwatch, and random charge distance all make that more than a little painful.

So everyone's shots happen to home in on the guy who is coincidentally the least valuable member of a unit. Not stupid at all.

No, everyone's shots happen to hit the unit. Some number of casualties happen. If the guy with the special gun dies, someone else picks up his gun, unless the shooter gets a Torrent of Fire casualty pick.

As opposed to now, where the incoming shots all hit the closest guy... until he dies, at which point they start hitting the next closest guy... until he dies, at which point they start hitting the next closest guy... and so on into absurdity.

When that closest guy is a character it becomes even sillier, with an endless stream of sycophants throwing themselves one by one in front of each shot as it homes in on the character model.

Oh gods.

Anyone get flashbacks of 5e Wound Allocation Shenanigans with Nobz?