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.

I cannot paste the link at the moment, but the Fantasy ETC has decided that tlos is b!@#$%& (I would agree). The ETC has proposed two alternative systems.

ETC?

European Team Championships!

Details have already been on WH.org

Ben Curry wrote:

Ben Curry wrote:In this thread you will find the 2 systems that AR.Com have come up with. Discussion continued from the AR Thread - http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=78141&p=959940#p959940

We have discussed the merits of both systems and want to put it to the community for discussion.

System A

- Units never block line of sight to other units. Line of Sight is drawn from base to base.
- When shooting at a unit that is at least 50% obscured by another unit or Line of Sight blocking terrain the shooters receive a hard cover modifier.
- Swarms never grant cover. Large Targets can never benefit from cover granted by other models.
- Hills, buildings and obelisks block line of sight to all units, other terrain grants soft cover to units in or behind it
- Units on a hill or upstairs in a building receive no penalty for shooting over units on a lower level.
- If a warmachine has the indirect fire rules they will be used if their target is in hard cover.

System B

Model size chart:
0: Swarms - models of this size never block line of sight or give cover.
1: Infantry, War Beasts, War Machines
2: Cavalry, Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry/Beasts, Chariots, Unique without the Large Target rule
3: Monsters, all Large Targets

Models "see" in their front 1/4 zone. Line of Sight is blocked by models that are equal to or larger than both the model whose line of sight we are checking and its target.

Hills are size two for each level (so a 3-step hill is size 6). Models standing on hills add the hill size to their own size. Buildings and large rocks always block line of sight completely.

Skirmishers never block LoS, and are seen/give cover in accordance with their size on the chart. Skirmishers formed up for combat block Line of Sight normally.

Cover is provided, according to the normal rules, by units that are one size smaller than both the shooter and the target (one size smaller, same size or larger in the case of skirmishers giving cover).

I won't repeat all the AR.Com's views on each system unless it becomes apparent that they are required.

Go away and play these systems and let us know what you think to them. As with the rest of the rules pack this is still a draft and if there are aspects of the systems that could be improved then they are totally flexible.

We look forwards to hearing your thoughts.

AR.Com

European Tournament Committee?

(I'm just guessing here...)

Aw I thought this was for 40k.

They shouldn't call it a Warhammer tournament anymore then.

I'm not sure the reason for this?

System A, at least, repeats a lot of rules that are already in the BRB. Namely:

-Models receive hard cover (to hit modifiers) if behind other models
-Large targets never benefit from cover

The others just seem like common sense. Hills and buildings usually do block LOS to all units behind them, and other terrain features do grant soft cover (to hit modifiers).

What's the point?

The biggest change is the abstraction of using bases to judge LOS in System A and System B abstracts that entire units block LOS completely to other units, provided they're of equal or larger sizing.

As the rules are in the BRB, there's no abstraction - if you can see it physically, you're considered to be in LOS. Hence the arguments that were raised at the beginning of 8th Edition of modeling to advantage.

To me, both are too complicated. I don't mind true LOS, and I am always playing assault armies... it just makes things simpler, imho!

Now if they're just looking to clarify what true LOS is that's OK by me. I just don't think a change is needed from wasn't necessarily (imho) a bad thing brought in by the new ruleset.

Also, with armies getting to the enemy faster now, gunlines can use all the help they can get

I know absolutely NOTHING about Fantasy, but personally I would be very wary of altering a core mechanic of a new rule set because there are likely counter-balances built into the rules to compensate for them.

For example, 5th edition 40K opened up LOS to EVERYTHING with getting rid of the area terrain LOS blocking rule, but to compensate it became a whole lot easier for everything to get a 4+ cover save (5+ was the defacto standard in 4th edition and it was harder to get as well).

So if you if you run a 40K tournament and you suddenly make all area terrain block LOS completely again then all of a sudden you shift the balance of the game way over towards assault armies, as now not only can they still get those 4+ cover saves, but now they are able to hide from shooting as well.


If modeling for advantage is the issue, then the tournament should address THAT issue by putting rules in place to address THAT issue instead of changing a core rule of the new edition...although again, I know nothing of Fantasy. And at the end of the day, having a tournament use its own house rules is fine as long as everyone knows ahead of time what to expect!

RiTides wrote:-Large targets never benefit from cover

Large targets only don't benefit from the cover provided by obstacles, and that's all that rule does any more

So it seems that System A is essentially 8th edition but with a taste of the level of abstraction of 7th edition? I personally enjoyed thinking of warhammer from a top-down view, where the base is all that matters and the model on top is for fun / reference, and like these guys lamented its passing. But then the way I play 8th isn't much different from that level of abstraction - I still stick to the most appropriate base size possible, and in game I simply assume that except in extreme situations (stegadon / stank in front of something) everybody can see everybody through everybody else. No arguing, no limitations on modeling, just a 40k-esque free for all of sight lines.

Basically, I agree with System A, and recognize the tweaks done to bring back more LoS-blocking terrain and put a little hurt on artillery, which bizarrely care nothing for the cover system as it stands. But it seems like a lot of huge font to mess with so little.

- Salvage

Boss Salvage wrote:...and in game I simply assume that except in extreme situations (stegadon / stank in front of something) everybody can see everybody through everybody else. No arguing, no limitations on modeling, just a 40k-esque free for all of sight lines.

That's what I do, too... is that not what the BRB basically says now?

I guess I'm just not seeing what "A" is actually changing . Also, I thought troops and the like counted as obstacles... so the clarifcation to large targets never getting "to hit" modifiers from cover from any kind of obstacle (troop, hill, etc?) doesn't change anything?

I'm of two minds about this. First, I'd agree with yakface that it's audacious to mess with core mechanics--especially since 8th edition is only a few months old. On the other hand, I respect the chutzpah involved here. They've basically agreed that TLOS is bull@#% and decided to revise it. We know that GW is better at making models than making rules. Why tolerate a rule if it's b.s.?

RiTides wrote:Also, I thought troops and the like counted as obstacles... so the clarifcation to large targets never getting "to hit" modifiers from cover from any kind of obstacle (troop, hill, etc?) doesn't change anything?

Not quite. Obstacles are a very specific class of object, and are one means of gaining cover. Units can also provide cover, but are never obstacles.

One of the examples in the book shows a Large target gaining a cover save from some cavalry & the corner of a building.

TLOS is crap it works for 40k, but in ranked up units; you shouldn’t be able to draw line of sight thou units. But that’s the game now so I deal with it. This isn't even the bad stuff from the rule book. Thou I'm more scared about the rumors coming out of the ETC council about the changes they want to make. No extra power dice will be allowed. If you role 4 dice you take 4 dice you can’t get more except by channeling. Let the game be for at least a year. Blanket banning items and abilities is so........

It doesn't really work for 40k either but them's the core rules. I can understand tweaking missions or what terrain is used to try and help but simply rewriting major rules that the developers JUST changed? Seems premature at best.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Apparently I'm already doing "A" since I've never taken a cover modifier for a treeman yet in 8th as I thought they didn't get any! Will have to look through that rule carefully now.

Although Salvage's point is applicable here, too- they're usually getting shot at by artillery of the "guess" variety, so it wouldn't matter!

Still, I think there are a lot of negatives to artillery already- the misfires, scatters, etc. I know some armies can re-roll these, but since assault armies got a bit of (possible) extra range in 8th, I'm not sure how much that needs changing.

Also somehow missed yakface's post above... and I agree with that. ETC tends to be used for a LOT of tournaments (at least overseas, and some in the states), and in 7th it only restricted what you could take... and did not change any core game mechanics. I wouldn't be a fan of doing that...

In 7th I loved ETC one of my favorite systems really fun to play lots of restrictions. But nowhere did it say you can’t take this item or this one. I'm fine with them capping the amount of dice you can have to 12. That’s cool with me but to take away everything that gives you extra dice to bring you up to 12 is silly.

I liked it in 7th, except that it made it hard for me to field my army due to the restrictions. Anything that is that broad is going to hurt some armies that it's not intended to, even while it limits other powerful combos.

Will reserve judgement until I see what they come out with, though!

Meh, more evidence that ETC doesn't play the actual game.

I'd be a little more concerned about some of the other suggested changes in their draft rulespack. Namely, the combination of steadfast being lost to disruption, and disruption occurring with only one complete rank.

The latter change is intended to make cavalry "worth it" in an ETC environment. I think it will probably swing things a little to heavily back the other way- a unit of 5 or 6 cavalry in the flank, if they're particularly tough will shred right through units almost as easily as they did in 7th. Perhaps easier, given the bonus for charging, and no bonus for outnumber.

It can't really be honestly denied that 8th edition has some serious balance issues. For a competetive tournament, restrictions are a good idea. Much better than a blanket 'comp' score.

While I dont agree with how the ETC bans stuff they dont like.. at least they try to balance 8th edition which as above has some serious issues with competitive gameplay

Its not like Americans would do any different if our tournaments were actually coordinated with a single set of rules instead of every tournament drafting rules based on the whim of the TOs. Id love the states to have a unified tournament system. Would make everything more competitive

Why can't ETC just play the actual game? Some of these changes just seem like they don't like going from 7th to 8th. Maybe if they don't like 8th, they should just stick to 7th.

ETC already doesn't play the game-- for example, they banned special characters in 40k. Once you start altering the balance of the game to play by made-up rules, you might as well go all the way. I actually like this decision because it makes it less likely for people to mistake ETC-hammer for the way the game is normally played.

However, I don't think I know of anyone who doesn't change the rules.

Well... they could change nothing in the rules and the game is still changed simply by virtue of being a team event. If one player is playing specifically for a draw, is that still Warhammer as you know it? Maybe that's what you're getting at Fetterkey.

Most tournaments have restrictions of some kind. I see no reason to get bent out of shape over the fact that it is being modified. By most accounts, it is a spectacularly enjoyable event.

Oh, I have no problem with it at all. I'm sure that the event is fun, and from what I've heard it's quite the place. But when someone says it's the most competitive 40k event, they're wrong, because the ETC doesn't play 40k.

8th doesn’t have balance problems. Good items over powered items but almost every book can take them (sorry dwarf players). If you want to limit the gay just say no named characters. Done 8th is a even field, no Teclis no Karos no Masque were did Thorek go.

scooter wrote:8th doesn’t have balance problems. Good items over powered items but almost every book can take them (sorry dwarf players). If you want to limit the gay just say no named characters. Done 8th is a even field, no Teclis no Karos no Masque were did Thorek go.

8th is unbalanced for the same reason that 7th was unbalanced: the army books. Except now not only are the books not even remotely written to the same standard, but none of them are actually written with the mechanics of 8th in mind - and I don't particularly believe skaven or beastmen actually were, especially the latter. The best example of why this is a problem are empire mortars and bret trebuchets, which cost nothing compared to how jacked up they suddenly became. The books weren't balanced before 8th, now they've been torqued further out of alignment by all the boosts which have not been reflected in any points or slot reevaluations.

Tomb Kings is going to be a very interesting release, if it's indeed next. Seeing how they repoint skeletons, now that fear is nothing and crumble is far inferior to steadfast mortal troops, and scullapults will be enlightening, and then of course TK will be the first book to actually be built to push a new rules system. I'm expecting a huge pile of myself

- Salvage