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.

Man everyone in here talking about baggage from 7th and I'm over here like "You mean 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.."

I've had to forget old and learn new rules through almost every edition of this game. Line of Sight, having been one of the most constant, is going to be a tough one to let go.

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
Man everyone in here talking about baggage from 7th and I'm over here like "You mean 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th.."

I've had to forget old and learn new rules through almost every edition of this game. Line of Sight, having been one of the most constant, is going to be a tough one to let go.

Well, the rule is still there. It's just much more liberal than it has been in editions past. Most of the rules are that way. It's one thing I love about the new Edition (and AoS).

I'm finally going to rest my point. I still think the rules should be clearer and while what the conclusion has come to makes sense I would have been able to accept it if gw could have wrote the rules to say it like that explicitly rather than beat around the bush saying to measure range from the gun then visiblinty from behind the model. How to play the game should have it's own sections (IE measuring, Los, rolling dice, there should be a couple pages on how to set up a table) but we get small foot notes for all that stuff. I'm one that looks forward to uniform gaming mechanics and eighth edition strayed really far from that.

Sense I heard that eighth edition was for us and it was the edition we asked for I've been agitated because I didn't ask for it and I had no way of being part of the in the know crowd. So when the rules did drop and they took away all the rules replacing them with but a husk I've felt really jipped. They didn't even ask how we would like to have our index/codex organized. I really abhore the new data sheets because there's too much information on it and I have to have everyone of them in front of me to play a game using up precious table estate.

vaurapung wrote:
I still think the rules should be clearer and while what the conclusion has come to makes sense I would have been able to accept it if gw could have wrote the rules to say it like that explicitly rather than beat around the bush saying to measure range from the gun then visiblinty from behind the model.

They don't say that. That's you assuming that's how it works from the previous edition.

You keep looking for rules that aren't there.

I like the rules for 8th except for how full of logical errors and inconsistent structure they are.

Just because its been made easy to pick up and play does not mean it shouldn't be clear, concise, and well put together.

vaurapung wrote:
... since movement does not specify how to move a vehical.

Just as a quick tangent: the rules say "A model can be moved in any direction, to a distance, in inches, equal to or less than the Move characteristic on its datasheet. No part of the model's base (or hull) can move further than this." (Core Rules)
Thus, the rules do specify quite strictly how to move a vehicle. If you actually try to follow this rule to the letter when moving a vehicle (especially a funny-shaped one without a base, say a Defiler for instance), you'll see that making the most of your movement rate AND getting into a position to that allows all of your weapons to trace direct LOS to your desired target – especially with a fair amount of terrain on the table – will sometimes get quite difficult. The movement rules in and of themselves do not work in favour of LOS for vehicle weapons; the abstraction in the shooting phase does. The way cover works in the core rules also eliminates the benefits of peeping round the corner of a building: you get no cover bonus unless you're fully within a terrain feature. That Land Raider isn't inside the house? No cover bonus, baby.

As far as I can tell, the whole "50% obscured" thing only applies to certain models (see the "Steel Behemoth" rule on super-heavy tanks, for example) and even then only when the unit would normally benefit from the rules for cover anyway.

Only infantry get benefits from terrain features for cover, as for all other models it states that if at least fifty percent of the model is hidden from line of sight it's got cover. I think that's on the terrain pages I remember reading that when my buddy was trying to find cover for his tervigon.

vaurapung wrote:
So after reading and reading the rules and index for several hours every single turn was filled with well how does this work exactly and then ten to fifteen minutes of its not in the book. Plus all weapon and special rules changed and then having to flip the index to find the unit then find the weapon then check the unit again for special rules that aren't in the rule book then go back to the rule book and see if any of the rules conflict. Oh and deployment for only war took an hour because we couldn't find the section on how to deploy and start a game. In the end after today's arguments in a two hour 1000 point game the rule book needs to have some better rules. We spent 30 minutes on what is the hull of a triarch stalker when charging it because it has no base and the rule book doesn't specify as far as I know. Then another 30 minutes on wether a ghost ark had cover from my guardians shooting at it. The rules being vague just invites conflicts.

OK...what? The rules for deploying and starting a game are literally on the same page as the Only War scenario. They're under the heading "Deployment". How did it take an hour to find that? I accept that flipping back and forth can be a bit annoying with the layout of the Index books but all the weapon profiles are summarised in the back of the books and it's not exactly difficult to remember the profiles for units, barring the vehicles and monsters which have changed quite a bit. Even then, it takes about 30 seconds to check.

Then again, if you're arguing for 30 minutes over what counts as the hull of a Stalker and whether a Ghost Ark had cover from Guardians (no, it didn't, and this is 7th edition thinking), I don't think the problem is to do with the rules. If an entire hour of your game was spent arguing over those issues I think the problem is you and your opponent.

I've now played 6 games of 8th and I haven't come across any of these issues of rules not being in the book. Sure, sometimes a rule from 7th no longer exists - the way cover works now being a good example - but all the general rules are in the rulebook. If you're trying to find out if units still provide a cover save when being shot through it's not difficult to read the relevant rules sections (Shooting, mainly, maybe the paragraph about units) and conclude you don't get cover any more. If you spend ages reading the rulebook trying to fond a rule that no longer exists that's not the fault of the rulebook, that's your fault for not accepting this is a new edition.

Not cover from gaurdians. The ghost ark was just shy of fifty percent cover from a building the tape measure showed that all the guardians could shoot at over fifty percent visibility but my opponent wanted to argue about it bc we wanted the cover save. So yes me n my opponent may be a big part of the problem. But I have to have clear black and white evidence for every statement I make at our club. If I can not explicitly point to it in the book then I can not say that's how it's suppose to be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

vaurapung wrote:
I still think the rules should be clearer and while what the conclusion has come to makes sense I would have been able to accept it if gw could have wrote the rules to say it like that explicitly rather than beat around the bush saying to measure range from the gun then visiblinty from behind the model.

They don't say that. That's you assuming that's how it works from the previous edition.

You keep looking for rules that aren't there.

That my point, rules that aren't there and here is measure range from the gun


"2. Choose Targets
Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit."

vaurapung wrote:
"2. Choose Targets
Having chosen a shooting unit, you must pick the target unit, or units, for the attacks. In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit."

There is nothing there that says to measure from the gun. In fact, that would contradict the previous rule about measuring all distances from bases or hulls.

Page 179 BGB wrote:Distances in Warhammer 40,000 are measured in inches (" between the closest points of the bases of the models you’re measuring to and from. If a model does not have a base, such is the case with many vehicles, measure to and from the closest point of that model’s hull instead. You can measure distances whenever you wish.

We get it, you're upset, but Reals > Feels in the real world, sorry.

I bolded it and you quoted it. It says range is measured from the weapon. Why measure range from the weapon of the weapon doesn't have Los. Those are the kinds of points I wanted resolved because the book only says to do it but gives no examples or explanations so that when playing we can all play by the same rules.

It's becoming apparent though that eighth edition values just playing a game more than playing a game correctly (by the exact same rulings as everyone else) which is what's important to me, consistency.

vaurapung wrote:
I bolded it and you quoted it. It says range is measured from the weapon. Why measure range from the weapon of the weapon doesn't have Los. Those are the kinds of points I wanted resolved because the book only says to do it but gives no examples or explanations so that when playing we can all play by the same rules.

It's becoming apparent though that eighth edition values just playing a game more than playing a game correctly (by the exact same rulings as everyone else) which is what's important to me, consistency.

The line you bolded doesn't say to measure from the gun....

vaurapung wrote:
I bolded it and you quoted it. It says range is measured from the weapon. Why measure range from the weapon of the weapon doesn't have Los. Those are the kinds of points I wanted resolved because the book only says to do it but gives no examples or explanations so that when playing we can all play by the same rules.

It's becoming apparent though that eighth edition values just playing a game more than playing a game correctly (by the exact same rulings as everyone else) which is what's important to me, consistency.

It does NOT say measure from the weapon, it says it has to be in range of the weapon, and you measure that range by measuring from the Base or Hull.

Sorry man, you're 100% in the wrong here and anyone you play with who lets you get away with it is also wrong.

vaurapung wrote:
I bolded it and you quoted it. It says range is measured from the weapon. Why measure range from the weapon of the weapon doesn't have Los. Those are the kinds of points I wanted resolved because the book only says to do it but gives no examples or explanations so that when playing we can all play by the same rules.

It's becoming apparent though that eighth edition values just playing a game more than playing a game correctly (by the exact same rulings as everyone else) which is what's important to me, consistency.

Seriously, you're making up rules. 'Range' is clearly defined in the rulebook ('Weapons', pg. 125)

Range: How far the weapon can shoot. Weapons with a range of ‘Melee’ can only be used in hand-to-hand combat. All other weapons are referred to as ranged weapons.

That's all that 'Range' is. It doesn't change how you measure between models ('Tools of War', pg. 176) nor how you determine line of sight ('Choose Targets', pg. 179).

I'll have to get the rule book from the shop but I remember the rules starting on page 178 and different rules on 238. This may be a big part of my confusion, that the rules are not Layed out in a clear fashion. Why would range of the weapon not mean "the weapon".

So I read the foot note about measuring a couple times on day one and never thought that it was suppose to be applied to shooting because the choose targets states the weapon and never said explicitly that you may shoot the weapon from any point of the model. I'm not carrying seventh over I'm just applying what I read as I see it written and there is no one but you guys to show me what I'm missing. It's not like games workshop was willing to put out any thing that shows exactly how all the rules are to be applied.

This is one of those things that is going to require an FAQ. Right now, RAW, it appears you can figure LOS from anywhere on the model. However, this does lead to some shenanigans, with huge models peaking around a corner.

The shenanigan comes from the lack of LOS to the vehicle when shooting back, IMO.

However, this is a lot of misery for +1 to a save.

vaurapung wrote:
My first game at five hundred points took three hours. My first game of 6th took two hours at 1500 points. Eighth is complicatedly simple. It's a bunch of guidelines which means that there is no solid black and white for how units interact. Granted, I'm only a couple. Games in but I feel all the rules should be laid out black and white not all over the books and mix n match.

The rules are laid out black and white, the problem is you haven't unlearned seventh yet. I got a 6000point game done in 3 hours, got 2 1500 point games done in less than 4. The game plays faster and better pretty much across the board.

vaurapung wrote:
I'll have to get the rule book from the shop but I remember the rules starting on page 178 and different rules on 238. This may be a big part of my confusion, that the rules are not Layed out in a clear fashion. Why would range of the weapon not mean "the weapon".

So I read the foot note about measuring a couple times on day one and never thought that it was suppose to be applied to shooting because the choose targets states the weapon and never said explicitly that you may shoot the weapon from any point of the model. I'm not carrying seventh over I'm just applying what I read as I see it written and there is no one but you guys to show me what I'm missing. It's not like games workshop was willing to put out any thing that shows exactly how all the rules are to be applied.

Are you measuring and checking LoS from the weapon for non-vehicles? Why not?

Stop trying to play 7th and follow the rules that are there. Measuring and LoS is from the model in all instances (there is nothing in shooting that says to do it differently or to treat vehicles differently).

And yes we always measured attacks from the weapon to the base or model which ever was closer. Wings and guns didn't count for purpose of Los. Except for infantry which we measure the rear most model for range unless it was a whole squad of flamers then from gun tip was necessary to know it didn't hit your own guys. Anyone for d-scythes on a terminator squad (that was my only counter for termites 25 d strength attacks)

My 7250 pt Nids vs eldar in 7th only took about 3-4 hrs too on a 6*8 ft board. I played and finished many 1500-2000 point games at a local club that only took 1-2 hours. So 3 games with breaks took about 7 hours so I don't hear much of a time difference. I read the primer while working last night since I got the wrap skids. The rules are a little clear to me now. Especially now that I'm applying all the foot notes. I would have never applied a foot note on page one to rules on page 3 on my own, it's just not how I would write SOPs. For error proofing any rules like measureing would be restated in every instance needed. They went to the trouble to say how many times that the game is designed to roll only one attack at a time. In shooting, in a foot note and in charging. So why drop the ball on measuring. It's little things like that that make me hold my hands in the air and ask why.

And an improved time on games would be like 45 minutes per game at 1500-2000 pts. My average turn in 7th took less than 10 minutes. Most of which was moving models and I never spaces for maximum coherency because a clump was less likely to be hit by blast due to scatter and only grey knights used flamers every game.

vaurapung wrote:
Only infantry get benefits from terrain features for cover, as for all other models it states that if at least fifty percent of the model is hidden from line of sight it's got cover. I think that's on the terrain pages I remember reading that when my buddy was trying to find cover for his tervigon.

Cover only applies in terrain, but only infantry get cover just for *being* in the terrain. Other models *also* need to be at least 50% obscured. *Also* meaning that they need to both be in cover AND obscured.

So how would that work in forest where we remove the trees to place models..?

 3orangewhips wrote:
This is one of those things that is going to require an FAQ. Right now, RAW, it appears you can figure LOS from anywhere on the model. However, this does lead to some shenanigans, with huge models peaking around a corner.

The shenanigan comes from the lack of LOS to the vehicle when shooting back, IMO.

However, this is a lot of misery for +1 to a save.

But if one model can see another, how can it not itself be seen? Plus, it doesn't get the +1 to save just for being obscured anyway.

There is a special rule in Cities of Death that changes the obscured rule. If you aren't playing Cities of Death, the model has to be in terrain AND obscured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vaurapung wrote:
So how would that work in forest where we remove the trees to place models..?

That's not really a problem with the core rules. You'd have to house rule that, because as far as I know, most people don't do that. If the model doesn't fit, the model doesn't get to sit.

Bye bye tree because I hate always knocking them over trying to get infantry in them.

vaurapung wrote:
And yes we always measured attacks from the weapon to the base or model which ever was closer.

No - if a model has a base then you only measure to the base, not to the model.

Also, you say that you're ignoring guns and wings for LoS - where do the rules say that? The rules say "if any part of the target is visible". All of that stuff about wings, etc. is last edition.

OK, so I get it now that there is no "los" rules now it's just measure from base to base or hull with no obstructions. Somebody had asked if I measured from the guns on non vehicals. I was saying that yes I did and mostly because the gun is always out side of the base and I think everyone measured from the gun for that purpose last edition.

As for cover and 50% obscurity in 8th I didn't realize that having buildings are pointless now. It's like they made the game so you can play on a flat board with some green felt for trees and grey felt for buildings and claim that units in them get cover.

The dynamics of moving units in and out of Los has been a large part of playing Warhammer. Now that only woods and ruins can grant cover if the model is fully within its bounds it kind nullifies the need to have any terrain at all. Just lay down some mats and call it a day.

The Line of Sight mechanic remains a major issue for Warhammer like it always has. It's funny to me how almost every other game even ones where shooting isn't a major part like Kings of War have figured out a robust and consistent system but GW still can't.

Anyways. What I wanted to say was it seems some of the confusion comes from people who are looking at the "Core Rules" and people who are referencing the "Advanced Rules" on "Battlefield Terrain" Pages 248-251.

The Advanced Rules contain things like cover if 50% of the model is obscured. The Core Rules do not have this rule.

To further make it difficult though, if you look at the last paragraph on page 248 It starts with bolded "INFANTRY" but then says "other units" half way through the paragraph. Why on earth would you start that paragraph with all caps bolded "INFANTRY" when most the of the paragraph actually applies to other units???? Come on GW, use some internal consistency in your rules drafting!

Anyways I presume that most people will be using the Advanced Rules in most of their games and classifying all of their terrain as one of the 9 listed Terrain Types in order to not have arguments.

It would be nice if someone typed out an actual "how to play" document for matched play that included the Advanced Rules, that didn't contain any 7th edition baggage but didn't make assumptions either).

sultansean wrote:
To further make it difficult though, if you look at the last paragraph on page 248 It starts with bolded "INFANTRY" but then says "other units" half way through the paragraph. Why on earth would you start that paragraph with all caps bolded "INFANTRY" when most the of the paragraph actually applies to other units???? Come on GW, use some internal consistency in your rules drafting!

Infantry is in all caps bold because it's a keyword, and that is how keywords are consistently presented in the rules.

Yes, but then they should have listed the other units types in the same manner, rather than saying "other units".

sultansean wrote:
Yes, but then they should have listed the other units types in the same manner, rather than saying "other units".

There's no such thing as Unit Types in 8th.

Then how are infantry different than everything else.