Switch Theme:

Getting shot off the board turn one --- terrain question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






OK, so it wasnt even a contemptor dreadnought it was just the regular old basic space marine dreadnought from the primaris range.

...which has a damage flat 3 plasma cannon that would be able to ace 3 servitors in a single shot with not particularly bonkers rolling. Just need a '5' or '6' on the shots and youre basically on the 80 yard line to scooping up your opponent's second most expensive unit in one shot with range = board. and that's one of its four ranged weapons.


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 KingGarland wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
I will share thoughts soon, thanks for the considerate feedback everyone. Here were our lists:
HIS:
Primaris Captain
Redemptor Dreadnought
10x Primaris Intercessors

Captain has The Burning Blade Relic. Warlord Traits include Adept of the Codex and Calm Under Fire.

Captain - Heavy Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Power Sword, Relic Shield

Dreadnought - Macro Plasma Incinerator, 2x Storm Bolter, Icarus Rocket Pod, Onslaught Gatling Cannon.

Intercessors - 10x Bolt Rifle, 10x Bolt Pistol, 2x Astartes Grenade Launchers.


My List:
Cawl HQ
Masterwork Bionics

Kataphron Destroyers x 3
- Cognis Flamers
Skitari Rangers x 5
-arquebus
taser goad
skitari rangers x 5
data-tether
arguebus
taser goad

Serberys Raiders
Enhanced Data Tether
CP 2/5


Well there is the first problem. You are bringing a list of mostly second stringers, Cawl is good though not as he used to be, Rangers are top tear though ypu need to take them in large mobs to get the most out of them.
As for him though if I recall a Redemptor is one of the best models in the game right now with enough firepower to desyroy small units of both heavy and light infantry. Also 10 interessors on a smaller board is a bit much.


LOL! Gotta love the perennial replies that state to the effect "your current models suck; buy other/more models." Keep on feeding the GW machine peeps . . .
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






By my tally, the SM list is over by 5pts but that's not really a huge issue. They've taken a list that has excellent shooting capability and been allowed to play on a board with no LOS blocking terrain. It's not a particularly competitive list IMO but it's not newstart friendly and in this instance, they've taken your inexperience with the game and played it to their advantage for some easy wins.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Independent of the specifics of list and terrain I'd also point out that 40k is always really, really swingy at small points levels. It's always going to be possible to end up accidentally losing a rock-paper-scissors matchup that wouldn't be an issue in larger games simply because one unit getting a good round of shooting and wiping one other unit can flip the game around in a way that's not usually possible in bigger games. Someone more familiar with the exact price-performance of units/stratagems than me could probably come up with a detailed ban list that would help, but you might experiment with something like the 25% rule (no single unit can cost more than 25% of the points total for the game, so you're capped at 125pt or smaller units at 500pts) in future 500pt games. (I know this would interfere with Custodes and Knights being able to play at all, but either one is already a weird skew match at 500pts and that isn't really fixable, so go nuts.)

(I'd also suggest banning reserves since the usual counter-play of distance and screening doesn't exist at 500pts, but that's more a personal bugbear of mine and I don't know if it'd actually be necessary.)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 KingGarland wrote:
 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

My 2nd match, I played more cautiously and bounced between terrain. In one instance he saw just the barrel of
a rifle and targeted the whole squad with a lot of shots. Apparently that is legal.

By RAW, yes but that is total crap and since this was not a tournament match, especially against a rookie player, they should have not have done that.

Yes, you should totally do that to a rookie player. It sounds like OP hasn't even read the core rules, which you should always make rookies do. Then if the rookie is hiding his models badly you should warn him during his Movement phase so he learns to ask if he's hiding his models properly in his Movement phase and play by intent instead of learning to get take-backsies during the opponent's shooting phase after they've moved.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gert wrote:
By my tally, the SM list is over by 5pts but that's not really a huge issue. They've taken a list that has excellent shooting capability and been allowed to play on a board with no LOS blocking terrain. It's not a particularly competitive list IMO but it's not newstart friendly and in this instance, they've taken your inexperience with the game and played it to their advantage for some easy wins.


...its a captain, 10 space marines and a dreadnought. It's essentially the most basic conceivable 40k list. The take that this person is getting taken for a ride by some kind of slick power-gamer is just bonkers.

Are there problems with OP's list? Yeah and its called Belligerent Carl. He's a buffing piece and there's just nothing in the list for him to buff so his only move is to just kind of trundle across the board trying to get into melee very slowly. you'd encounter the exact same problem with basically any expensive character model priced for their capability to boost up a list - if the SM player was bringing like Marneus Calgar and then a couple 5-man scout squads and a landspeeder that'd be the only advice we'd be able to give him.

With the list OP has? My best idea is combine the skitarii squad into a squad of 10, hide them behind terrain so they arent targeted, pop them out and drop Galvanic Volley Fire+Wrath of Mars on them with cawl's re-roll to hit and that should deal about 9 damage to the dread and put it within conceivable range of popping with cawl's atomizer or the breacher's arc rifles.

Definitely any strat is going to require you to hide behind obscuring turn 1 with the whole army.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 the_scotsman wrote:
...its a captain, 10 space marines and a dreadnought. It's essentially the most basic conceivable 40k list. The take that this person is getting taken for a ride by some kind of slick power-gamer is just bonkers.

I didn't say that though did I. I said it wasn't competitive but the combination of units + the board was not a beginner-friendly game. The Redemptor is vastly superior to the older Boxnaughts in every way and is one of the best units SM can take. Add on the fact that it gets rerolls from the Captain and the Intercessors who are putting out 20 shots/turn with rerolls to hit and you've got a nasty firebase. With no LOS block that army is deleting at least a unit a turn no trouble.

Are there problems with OP's list? Yeah and its called Belligerent Carl. He's a buffing piece and there's just nothing in the list for him to buff so his only move is to just kind of trundle across the board trying to get into melee very slowly. you'd encounter the exact same problem with basically any expensive character model priced for their capability to boost up a list - if the SM player was bringing like Marneus Calgar and then a couple 5-man scout squads and a landspeeder that'd be the only advice we'd be able to give him.

Agreed, Cawl is much too great a points sink for such a small game and the OP should consider swapping Cawl out for something like the Skitarii Alpha or Magos (I don't know how Admech work I just assume they're cheaper HQ's that will still do Things).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.


If the "avoidable mistake" is "you bought a model you shouldn't have" I'd argue that's a pretty severe downside to the game.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.


If the "avoidable mistake" is "you bought a model you shouldn't have" I'd argue that's a pretty severe downside to the game.


I dont think its completely unreasonable to assume that certain models which have force-multiplying capabilities will not be particularly useful in small points value games as much as they will be in larger games, when they have larger units to force-multiply. That's a category of unit I'm perfectly comfortable saying probably ought to be on the less powerful side in smaller games, thats OK to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.



if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:21:19


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think the issue is partly that the armies are not matched up well.

You've got a lot of extra gear on your guys - which makes them more fragile for your points. I'd bring 8 more Skitarii rather than spend 65 points on wargear.

Will a 500 point list kill 10 rangers and 3 destroyers? Well, before the additional stuff, its only a 40% return on their points (80+120) if everything gets to shoot/buff. Which isn't that incredible in 40k terms.

It doesn't seem like a fair fight to me, because aside from Cawl (and thats not reliable) nothing you have can really scratch the Redemptor - meanwhile it can eat through your whole list. Obviously you may be a bit unlucky if D6 shots from the Macro Plasma is producing 5-6 shots twice in a row. But its hardly that unusual an event. 3-4 shots over 2 turns would leave those destroyers just as dead.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an


Ok, can I shoot someone with the gun barrel sticking out from behind a corner? It's the gun i'm shooting with. Or what about if I shoot a target behind my model? or if I target just a target model's leg?

Boy if anyone knows anything about me from my posts its that I love and delight in socially roasting people as much as anyone, but if only there were some kind of rules structure that put some of this in place...

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"


You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?

   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 18:53:11


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in nl
Brainy Zoanthrope




ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Was going to jump in and say it depends if it was being considered a "competitive" game or not...
 Daedalus81 wrote:
My suggestion would be for the other player to not be an donkey-cave to a new player, but since you can't count on that then my suggestion above would cover that scenario.
 Daedalus81 wrote:
There are gakky people who take every advantage possible regardless of the game. It isn't fully a 40K problem, but I'm not going to go into an LOS debate.
Following the rules as written does not suddenly make the game 'competitive'. Following the rules as written does not suddenly make you an donkey cave. Following the rules does not mean that you're a gakky person "taking advantage".

The rules allow for the tips of claws, antennae and gun barrels to make you a valid target. Those rules are stupid, those rules should be changed, but until they are they are the rules and following them is not an indication of the type of game you are playing nor the type of person you are. This, in your case especially Daed, just seems like another avenue towards "The rules are fine; it's the players that are the problem!".

At the end of the day, the stupid LOS and cover rules 40k has means that this is just as valid a target as this (and it somehow works both ways... ), and the Hive Tyrant in this picture can be shot to ribbons, yet the Hive Tyrant in this picture cannot (because apparently height matters and width does not).

There's no consistency and there's certainly no logic, but that's the way they wrote the rule, and putting judgement values on those playing by the rules is getting really tiresome.


You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an


Fully agreed, it's completely ridiculous, shatters any hint of immersion and I hate it. But, those are the rules as written. You can't even argue RAW vs RAI here, there's no ambiguity. This is how 9th should function as per the designers; any game-breaking errors are faqed pretty quickly nowadays and this hasn't been. And again, I think it's a bad rule that my group thankfully ignores.

But can you fault random opponents for playing the game by the rules, instead of adopting what would essentially be a house rule? Maybe this opponent isn't all that experienced either and just doing what the rules say; that's what 40k is supposed to play like, isn't it? At the very least not allowing you to target antennas and the like is something you should discuss and agree on beforehand, as with any house rule. Which feels absolutely ridiculous given, well, everything I just typed.

Tl;dr: don't hate the player, hate the game
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?

   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?


It's not, and in fact those conversations do happen in 25% coverage games. The distinction here is that in the context of this discussion, that conversation is precipitated by an inelegant rule (targeting antennae or scenic rocks), which make the need to ask your opponent whether he can see literally any part of your model much more necessary.

Other targeting and line of sight mechanics would reduce the need to do that while also increasing immersion.


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Las wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


You and your opponent make the determination.

It's not a novel concept. 40k operated like this for years and many, many great wargames continue to do so. There are very simple rules out there that mitigate the questions and scenarios you've listed here to the point of irrelevancy.


And this is different from me asking my opponent if they can see a model how? Do you think all such arguments about percent coverage are easily resolved?


Its really difficult to get why this is really a point of confusion, but...it's because it's actually quite difficult to 100% hide a unit a lot of the time, and in every wargame including wh40k where this was a thing, yes you were often arguing with donkey-caves about it, but at least the rules didnt uniquivocally declare the donkey-cave to be always correct if he ever decided he wanted to pull some bs and target a unit he shouldnt logically be able to


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
if youre going to design a hobby where to get to a 500-point level, a player has to purchase generally about 200$ worth of stuff bare minimum between rules and minis and glue and paints and rulers and such (assuming youre starting with a combat patrol box and just the codex, no core rule book, and also playing with junk terrain instead of buying any terrain) then you should probably avoid designing your game in such a way that it is ridiculously easy to lose that game instantly by making a tiny mistake that doesnt make much logical sense.

it is something you can learn from, sure, but it also just seems to be tailor-designed to generate gakky new player experiences. There's a reason your 400$ new Xbox doesn't come pre-loaded with the new Demon Souls remake branded as "Start Here If Youre New To Video Games!"


You could definitely switch to "kill only what you can see", but what happens if someone comes and complains that their heavy weapon was lost because the hand was sticking out? What if it was a character instead? At what point is it appropriate to be able to view a model? 25%? Who determines that what they can see is just 25%?


Easy:

Don't allow it to supersede Look Out Sir so you can't "Vision snipe" characters, but if a player wants to use a friendly unit to claim Look Out Sir for a character the firing unit must then take casualties even if they wouldnt otherwise be visible.

....Sidebar...how does this actually work right now RAW? Can I block you from targeting my character with a non-visible friendly unit that is closer and within 3" of my character? or is vision-sniping characters currently a thing? And if it's not...why bring it up as an objection, the rule would stay as current and characters wouldnt be targetable?

and allow the controlling player, if they wish to, to remove out of sight models when the unit is being targeted. If your opponent pulls some sneaky trick and makes it so they can only see your special weapon - OK, you now have the option to either remove just that special weapon and shut down the remainder of his shooting attack, or you can remove ablative wounds as normal effectively negating his little rhino-sniping maneuver.

That puts 100% of the power in the hands of the defender to make the choice of which models to remove a tactical decision when it does matter, and when just one single model is sticking out of cover, it allows just that one single model to die and the rest of the unit to be protected.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 19:50:56


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.


If his destroyers open fire on the intercessors, that's pretty much game right there. The 44x30 is too big to be held with a dreadnaught and a char.
If he loses the destroyers that's game too. The rest of his firepower isn't really capable of much.
It's a game of who gets the other one first.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Spoletta wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
That admech list can perfectly match the SM list, but the problem is that they created a scenario where the first one who makes a mistake loses. It's a very punishing list combination.

Obviously the OP being at his first games, is making that crucial mistake first.


im curious how in your eyes?

To me, it doesnt seem like in its current configuration you can do that, since all cawl's buffs cant be applied to the servitors, and none of the other units really have the teeth to force-multiply and harm the dread or the marines appreciably. youve also got only one super-defensive marine HQ, and a lot of points relatively speaking in the admech list have been put into character removal (the two arquebi and the unit of doggos). Strategically, to me, it looks like an uphill fight for the admech here. The alt-list using the same models I proposed might have a stab at it, but youd have to play very carefully to make sure your 10 skitarii got all the buffs, used all the right strats, and got the first punch.


If his destroyers open fire on the intercessors, that's pretty much game right there. The 44x30 is too big to be held with a dreadnaught and a char.
If he loses the destroyers that's game too. The rest of his firepower isn't really capable of much.
It's a game of who gets the other one first.


Even out in the open the destroyers would only kill 4 intercessors, assuming theyre the plasma ones. Doesnt seem that devastating of a hard counter idk. if the dreadnought wasnt there itd be a fairly rough match up for the intercessors but I feel like in the current config id just take the chunk out of my ints and then the dreadnought would carve up the destroyers no prob.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.


Or, as this is a tabletop game, force them to move out, take a shot. Stop. That's the end of it, go back to weapon arcs maybe (albeit in a looser format) to make the facing matter a little. The cost of getting the shot off should be positioning, there shouldn't be a magical move back section.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Dudeface wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
How do you represent the dynamic state mechanized warfare occupies? Tanks drive forward from cover to fire then retreat quite often.

Abstract line of sight rules that enable a tank to shoot all its guns while staying out of sight of most of the enemy without getting into the open and driving back into perfect cover.


This is the wrong answer.

You force the tank to move out, take a shot, and move back.

Then you give the opponent the ability to interrupt (whether with some kind of overwatch mechanic or something else) so they can shoot the tank when it pops out.

Like anti-tank gunners are trained to do.


Or, as this is a tabletop game, force them to move out, take a shot. Stop. That's the end of it, go back to weapon arcs maybe (albeit in a looser format) to make the facing matter a little. The cost of getting the shot off should be positioning, there shouldn't be a magical move back section.


Sure, though stopping has certain pathologies (now the whole army can maneuver around my current position and shoot me, rather than what happened to be positioned specifically to overwatch me).

Allowing specifically tasked units to shoot the tank as a reaction is the good middle ground between "everyone maneuvers and reacts to me" and "no one whatsoever can react to me"
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.
Why do I even bother replying to you if you're going to come back at me with this kind of stuff?

*sigh*

ccs wrote:
You shoot someone with your direct-fire tanks antennae? You're an
You think an antennae is a valid enough target to blow up a tank you otherwise have no LoS on? You're an
No. You're just following GW's rules. Again, don't make judgements of the people playing the game because they're playing the game as written. Blaming the players is not the answer here.

Or, as shorty put it so succinctly: Don't hate the player, hate the game.



This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 22:15:03


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I see. Avoidable mistakes can't be learned from or coached through. If the system doesn't conform to rules that eliminate the possibility of making mistakes then it's garbage and no one could ever have fun playing it.
Why do I even bother replying to you if you're going to come back at me with this kind of stuff?

*sigh*


Well, one of us is trying to help people use the rules we have and one is here to complain about them.

Sorry. I'm probably being too much of a dick right now so I'll try to post less for a while and go work on projects.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: