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.

If we said this was modeling for advantage we'd basically outlaw conversions, yeah? Those will almost always be different than the box. So I'd say they can point down.

This thread is peak YMDC. Good work, all.

just say you bought enough boxes to model them all with lances pointed down.

This is why the competitive scene can ruin game. The rules work fine if your are a reasonable person trying to have a fun game but not if you're trying gain every advantage to win 4 grand. Competive 40k exists but needs to be very different from normal 40k. They could do an aditional tournament edition rule book full of precise rules about everything and the rest of us could use the normal ones. Better than trying make it work for both types of gamer.

I get funny mental image of player A using tool to measure angle of every piece of models from opponents army pre-game to ensure they are EXACTLY at the same angles as official photos show

Say something about lengthy pre-game sequence!

Andykp wrote:
This is why the competitive scene can ruin game. The rules work fine if your are a reasonable person trying to have a fun game but not if you're trying gain every advantage to win 4 grand. Competive 40k exists but needs to be very different from normal 40k. They could do an aditional tournament edition rule book full of precise rules about everything and the rest of us could use the normal ones. Better than trying make it work for both types of gamer.

An actual tournament rules pack, changed annually, would actually be a pretty good product.

A slightly tighter worded set of rules, with the "fluff" bits removed and a few diagrams, then a specific set of army lists with less variability than usual aimed at being much better balanced at a set point value, you could even go the route of actual fixed army lists designed to be pretty well balanced against each other and with account of the tournament missions taken.

Because thats about the only way you will actually get 40k to be balanced to any degree.

The alternative is a rule "don't be 'that guy'" and a judge who will enforce it

leopard wrote:

Andykp wrote:
This is why the competitive scene can ruin game. The rules work fine if your are a reasonable person trying to have a fun game but not if you're trying gain every advantage to win 4 grand. Competive 40k exists but needs to be very different from normal 40k. They could do an aditional tournament edition rule book full of precise rules about everything and the rest of us could use the normal ones. Better than trying make it work for both types of gamer.

An actual tournament rules pack, changed annually, would actually be a pretty good product.

A slightly tighter worded set of rules, with the "fluff" bits removed and a few diagrams, then a specific set of army lists with less variability than usual aimed at being much better balanced at a set point value, you could even go the route of actual fixed army lists designed to be pretty well balanced against each other and with account of the tournament missions taken.

Because thats about the only way you will actually get 40k to be balanced to any degree.

The alternative is a rule "don't be 'that guy'" and a judge who will enforce it

I think it would actually sell. Same price point as chapter approved or digital with upgrades. It would still be the same game but could separate the two sides nicely and keep all happy.

Sadly from what I see, mostly in the internet so not that accurate a sample, 'that' guy is out there a lot.

This is why GW needs to go back to the old targeting system of 50% or more of the model to get cover. Because in a game where you can assemble any way you want and making a rule that says so long as you can see any part of the model you can shoot it it's gonna cause these problems

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why GW needs to go back to the old targeting system of 50% or more of the model to get cover. Because in a game where you can assemble any way you want and making a rule that says so long as you can see any part of the model you can shoot it it's gonna cause these problems

Ah yes, the old method, where kneeling Fire Warriors were objectively better than standing ones. The old system where a lascannon barrel could shoot but not be shot at. Great idea!

It's miles better then.
"I can see the tip of your Lance, there for I can shoot all of my weapons at it and kill you guy."

No system is perfect, but some have a hell of a lot less flaws.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It's miles better then.
"I can see the tip of your Lance, there for I can shoot all of my weapons at it and kill you guy."

No system is perfect, but some have a hell of a lot less flaws.

I disagree. One is a simple all or nothing system, the other leads to arguments that last longer than the game.

That's not a game problem though that's a player problem

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why GW needs to go back to the old targeting system of 50% or more of the model to get cover. Because in a game where you can assemble any way you want and making a rule that says so long as you can see any part of the model you can shoot it it's gonna cause these problems

50% rule is terrible in my opinion.

Irregularly shaped models behind irregularly shaped terrain mean you need to consult your opponent's opinion and potentially debate whenever you attempt to use cover.

Much prefer the system in 8e for LoS. You always know exactly where you stand.

Heh...plus what about the new armies in codexes that are kit bashed?

The Guard codex (Sorry...AM) added whole new regiments that are unambiguously kit bashed from Skitarri! Is it modeling for advantage to make the regiments from the new book that may or may not have higher hats? Oh god...so confusing...

I would say for many models the benefits and costs approximately equal out when it comes to LOS. It's really only melee-only units that suffer from the "You can see my wing tip so that means your whole army can shoot me!"

As someone who has a couple shooty armies (Eldar, Guard) I tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least in friendly games. If they start saying "I see the tip of an antenna of your LRBT back there! I can shoot it with this one unit!" usually the counter of "From the one tip of this antenna I am going to blast your twice with my battle cannon" tends to solve the issue for future games.

Tournaments...I will slow them to a crawl if someone wants to go that way to make sure my turrets are all properly turned, and then I'll peak just the crystal of my Fire Prism out to shoot the unit I want while the LOS blocking terrain covers it from every other unit....that tends to make people go back to the "don't be a jerk" mentality right quick.

The new LOS system is infinitely better. Very few disagreements, compared to constant bickering over percentages and what counts as actually part of the model. (If you like those arguments run lots of vehicles then you can still have "but is that the hull?" discussions)

And besides, GW aren't going to listen to a random online complaint on a forum and throw 8th's LOS rules out with the bathwater. Write to them if you feel strongly, as here it's just not very relevant to Rules wishlist in a Rules answer forum.

Here’s one reason you can’t necessarily enforce “building per the instructions are required”. I got a box of Tyranid Warriors when the index was out but before the codex came out. I didn’t have the index yet so I was just building per the instructions. I built one of them with the Bone Sword/Lash whip and rending claws. Then I get the index and it’s not a legal build. Granted it got fixed in the codex. But for a time, the instructions had people building illegally.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It seems like this one's a really easy one-sentence FAQ (banners, weapons, and other decorative elements that protrude significantly beyond the model's normal silhouette are not considered part of the model for purposes of line of sight), especially given that everyone I've ever played against plays that way already.

Strict reading of the rules there are no restrictions on how you build your models; using downward lances isn't modeling for advantage any more than using only the shorter base stems would be.

I agree completely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It seems like this one's a really easy one-sentence FAQ (banners, weapons, and other decorative elements that protrude significantly beyond the model's normal silhouette are not considered part of the model for purposes of line of sight), especially given that everyone I've ever played against plays that way already.

Strict reading of the rules there are no restrictions on how you build your models; using downward lances isn't modeling for advantage any more than using only the shorter base stems would be.

Which would totally fly in the face of 8th edition design ethos. They don't want to go back to previous editions of exceptions upon exceptions.

8th edition is simple, if you can draw a line from Model A to Model B, you have line of sight. Period. No exceptions.

eff 8th edition.
Simple garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
It's miles better then.
"I can see the tip of your Lance, there for I can shoot all of my weapons at it and kill you guy."

No system is perfect, but some have a hell of a lot less flaws.

I disagree. One is a simple all or nothing system, the other leads to arguments that last longer than the game.

Only if you play with people who argue about shooting at a lance tip.
And, that should happen exactly once.
Or never, if it is known beforehand that it will be an issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stux wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
This is why GW needs to go back to the old targeting system of 50% or more of the model to get cover. Because in a game where you can assemble any way you want and making a rule that says so long as you can see any part of the model you can shoot it it's gonna cause these problems

50% rule is terrible in my opinion.

Irregularly shaped models behind irregularly shaped terrain mean you need to consult your opponent's opinion and potentially debate whenever you attempt to use cover.

Much prefer the system in 8e for LoS. You always know exactly where you stand.

Inability to deal with ambiguity is not a good sign, so far as mental capacity is concerned.
How did Obiwan say it, something like only a sith deals in all or nothings, something like that.
Or, think of the old saying, that intelligence is being able to hold two contradictory ideas in mind at one time,
and genius is the ability to reconcile them.
I suppose one way to go is to just make sure that this never happens,
right?
GW must either know something about the people they expect to pay 30USD for a monopose plastic character model,
or the GW design team is not intelligent enough to hold contradictory ideas in mind at the same time,
or both.
I suspect a bit of both.

Posts disparaging others' mental capacity were against forum rules last I checked, but you do you...

It's not about 'inability to deal with ambiguity', it's about avoiding discrepancies and subjective decision-making. Most complaints about the rules are that they aren't tight enough, yet this is the one area where they are unambiguous and simple, yet some people hanker for a return to subjective judgement calls and the nonsense arguments that can generate. Myself, I'm amazed they left in the 50% obscured for vehicles, as that just creates a category of models that retains these stupid, game-slowing discussions. That type of thing is suitable for Necromunda's handful of models and it's pseudo-RPG nature, but not for a mass battle game. That's the decision taken by the designers of 8th, and once you 'let go of 7th' it works just fine.

That's how I feel about these spears being shot at.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Posts disparaging others' mental capacity were against forum rules last I checked, but you do you...

It's not about 'inability to deal with ambiguity', it's about avoiding discrepancies and subjective decision-making. Most complaints about the rules are that they aren't tight enough, yet this is the one area where they are unambiguous and simple, yet some people hanker for a return to subjective judgement calls and the nonsense arguments that can generate. Myself, I'm amazed they left in the 50% obscured for vehicles, as that just creates a category of models that retains these stupid, game-slowing discussions. That type of thing is suitable for Necromunda's handful of models and it's pseudo-RPG nature, but not for a mass battle game. That's the decision taken by the designers of 8th, and once you 'let go of 7th' it works just fine.

I was not and am not disparaging the poster's mentality, only those with whom we all have had the misfortune to game with, and now for whom GW has leveled down the rules to push sales.

Being that this is a general point, and not a direct insult in the least, I don;t see why it would be against forum rules.
SOme might not feel good about this analysis, but ... I don;t think that it is a rule that we must only post that which makes others feels good.

And, I stand by my point.
Games like this one should challenge our capacities to deal with difficult situations, and to build and practice what are rare skills, meta-level reasoning and discourse skills that are refined by hashing out ambiguities and dealing with the complexity of an immersive battlefield simulation in which both parties are deeply invested.
It is easy enough to see how such meta-level skills are important for a functioning democracy, for example,
and it is also important to see how the lack of such skills is one reason why we see such seemingly unreconcilable polarization in countries like the USA.
In my opinion, Warhammer provides a valuable training grounds for these sorts of skills, and has always been its most redeeming social quality - it can help people, especially young people, to develop what Socrates called "virtue".
I believe that, and also I see that 8th edition aims to minimize this redeeming quality in the favor of leveling down for larger scale and bigger sales of new plastic crack rather than expending effort to better support their existing range.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Posts disparaging others' mental capacity were against forum rules last I checked, but you do you...

It's not about 'inability to deal with ambiguity', it's about avoiding discrepancies and subjective decision-making. Most complaints about the rules are that they aren't tight enough, yet this is the one area where they are unambiguous and simple, yet some people hanker for a return to subjective judgement calls and the nonsense arguments that can generate. Myself, I'm amazed they left in the 50% obscured for vehicles, as that just creates a category of models that retains these stupid, game-slowing discussions. That type of thing is suitable for Necromunda's handful of models and it's pseudo-RPG nature, but not for a mass battle game. That's the decision taken by the designers of 8th, and once you 'let go of 7th' it works just fine.

But, this is not what 40k was about.
What you seem to want is Epic, in 28mm scale.
Great, it is easy enough to water down more fine grained rules to do this.
What is more difficult is to develop good rules for a more fine-grained game,
and rather than do that, and support the range that they had originally developed, GW has decided to jettison this philosophy for simplicity and sales.
I am glad for you, that you get what you want - shooting at heraldry and spear tips and other abstractions,
but for this level of engagement it seems that a card game is best.
And, I am mystified as to why people are in such a hurry to make games play faster, and to engage with their opponent even less.
Again, a card game, or perhaps better yet a video game, seems suited to this philosophy.
Why make 40k more abstract?
Why not play a different game that is easier and faster?
I understand that this was GW's decision,
but it was a mistake in the family of the last Star Wars movie.
Corporatocracy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
That's not a game problem though that's a player problem

Exactly my point.

Wow, so much straw. I have played Epic. Did for many years, alongside 2nd ed 40K. That was when 40K was a skirmish game. Able to process and enjoyed both.

Current 40K *is* currently about larger armies, so pleeease don't split hairs at my shorthand use of 'mass battle game' when that's what GW have morphed it into.

Simplifying in no way reduces engagement with your opponent. Removing argument potential in some areas allows you both to enjoy the battle. Sure, might be other ways they could have achieved it in this case but you can't say the rule is ambiguous. You may not like it, but it is functional, simple and allows players to get on with the game without every LOS call descending into "I think that's only 40%!" etc.

What 40K *was*about is irrelevant when discussing the current rules. There are other forum sections to discuss its history or discuss Epic or discuss the merits of different game formats. Let's stay on topic!

Lendys wrote:
Heh...plus what about the new armies in codexes that are kit bashed?

The Guard codex (Sorry...AM) added whole new regiments that are unambiguously kit bashed from Skitarri! Is it modeling for advantage to make the regiments from the new book that may or may not have higher hats? Oh god...so confusing...

Well as it is 40k doesn't have WYSIWYG rule or even rule requiring you to have official models. That's players imposing additional rules GW didn't come up with.

Also funny how people keep claiming 7th ed has all these arquments about what's LOS etc. Never been in one. In my life. In any of the tournaments, leagues etc. Nor in 6th, 5th, 4th or 3rd. Actually only edition where LOS has caused any sort of issues whatsoever is...8th.

Other things 8th ed allows. Park russ behind terrain. Then if opponent gets 1st turn you are safe out of LOS. Your turn turn turret around and suddenly tip of turret peeks out(pointing wrong direction at that...) and suddenly everything shoots and you still count as stationary. Handy to avoid -1 to hit and get cadian rerolls. 8th ed!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Wow, so much straw. I have played Epic. Did for many years, alongside 2nd ed 40K. That was when 40K was a skirmish game. Able to process and enjoyed both.

Current 40K *is* currently about larger armies, so pleeease don't split hairs at my shorthand use of 'mass battle game' when that's what GW have morphed it into.

Simplifying in no way reduces engagement with your opponent. Removing argument potential in some areas allows you both to enjoy the battle. Sure, might be other ways they could have achieved it in this case but you can't say the rule is ambiguous. You may not like it, but it is functional, simple 1)and allows players to get on with the game without every LOS call descending into "I think that's only 40%!" etc.

2) What 40K *was*about is irrelevant when discussing the current rules. There are other forum sections to discuss its history or discuss Epic or discuss the merits of different game formats. Let's stay on topic!

1) Not a pr0blem with the rules - problem with the people who can't figure out how to discourse and reason over them. Case in point, you are happy to have rules like this, I am not.

2) The merits of prior game formats being, for one, that people didn't feel at liberty to shoot at a banner pole or a spear tip and expect casualties from said action. So on topic that it seems you are eager to stuff this line of discourse simply because it substantiates my main point, that 8th edition levels down realism for the sake of sales, and shooting units off the table speartip and banner pole is simply one way make games play faster and people more likely to treat their models as in quick need of an upgrade with the new rules-roided plastic crack. They are taking the thinking out of the hobby, in mu opinion, and older editions especially 2nd are evidence of this fact in the comparison.

Me, I have a second edition mindset. I won;t play anyone who does not agree beforehand that targeting speartips is not going to deliver casualties. So, roll to hit, but don;t roll to wound, and we are golden for a game.
An adult version of 8th edition, let's say, for people who can reason over ambiguities and not descend into bickering as you suggest...

No, I'm eager to "stuff that line of discourse" because it's off topic and Rule 2 exists.

I find the fact that people are raging about modelling a model they are making is ridiculous.

Punishing or being stringent on a person defeats the whole purpose of this whole game, this is bloody 40k, not some hyper realistic COD board game where everything is down to the microgram precise.

This is a hobby first and foremost, people made it competitive and in a way ruined part of the experience for everyone else. This is mostly a game people spend time with mates or social friends to have a good time and catch up with one another.

The time that someone says to me that a point on my model makes it completely valid to shoot my model, ill just point out that the same unit can do the very same thing.

People who decide to power game are definitely 'that guy' material, someone who pushes it this far is just a sodding .

I would definitely model them so they aren’t pointing up. I do lots of conversions and this gives the unit more character.

I find 8th los rules are stoping my creativty i find myself getting excited about a conversion only to ask the question is it really worth the effort because now this model cannot hide if it needs to. And there is a new debate in games now going along the lines of
"i can see your model if you look down though the trees though the window there is a tiny hole in the wall where i can see a 1mm gap where i can see the tip of your sword"
"No you cant "
"Let me get my torch did you see that flash of light"

I think the old rule about ignoring banners ect works better and dosnt lead me to question weather its worth making my model unique

ian wrote:
I find 8th los rules are stoping my creativty i find myself getting excited about a conversion only to ask the question is it really worth the effort because now this model cannot hide if it needs to. And there is a new debate in games now going along the lines of
"i can see your model if you look down though the trees though the window there is a tiny hole in the wall where i can see a 1mm gap where i can see the tip of your sword"
"No you cant "
"Let me get my torch did you see that flash of light"

Not to mention how it slows down the game having to basically walk around table looking from every even remotely relevant part to see are you hidden or not. Particularly if unit has more than 1 model. So much for fastening game up. 8th ed is actually slower than 7th ed if scenario isn't one that basically forces more than 1 turn(unlike standard rulebook missions that are one turn and done events)

for some odd reason im very tempted to bring a laser pointer

tneva82 wrote:

Lendys wrote:

Other things 8th ed allows. Park russ behind terrain. Then if opponent gets 1st turn you are safe out of LOS. Your turn turn turret around and suddenly tip of turret peeks out(pointing wrong direction at that...) and suddenly everything shoots and you still count as stationary. Handy to avoid -1 to hit and get cadian rerolls. 8th ed!

You wouldn't find a partner for a second game, if you did this once in my area.
This is what I love about 40k. It's 100% self regulating. In the long term you wil only play with likeminded people.