Switch Theme:

40k 9th edition rumour and speculation  [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
Dakka Veteran




I wouldn't really blame TLOS in 8th but how currently ineffective cover rules are, both in its mechanics (Unit based cover, no cover for intervening units and obscuration from ruins is useless without putting a freaking feet into it) and effect (+1 Save for real? The fact that some armies may claim it and as well never use it like Daemons is a failure of game design).
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

If your cover is meaningless in games get a better terrain collection. GW plastic terrain is largely useless.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




 catbarf wrote:

But if I go to the club and play against a random opponent, I've always assumed we measure from any point of the hull because, hey, that's what the rules say, that's how the game's been balanced in 8th, and since the ground scale simply can't be 1:1 (otherwise the game starts to get utterly absurd), a tank's position must be more abstract than literally the space occupied by the model. And now it seems that makes me TFG.

I really don't think we should have to go through this long checklist of deciding how we want to modify basic game mechanics before we play a casual pickup game. I certainly haven't had to do that in other wargames.


You don't have to when playing 40k either. This sort of thing only seems to happen on forums discussing the game in theory, not when playing.
When playing you use the LOS rules as is and its fine (much better than the old debates over what can and can't be seen, and if your predator is 0.5 degrees too askew to get both lascannons on target)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 19:35:39


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




I remember when people celebrated the removal of templates on the basis that it causes less arguments due to ambiguity. Now read the last few pages.
   
Made in fi
Dakka Veteran






Wayniac wrote:
Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.


See, this is a part of this dichotomy that grinds some peoples' gears. Why assume that people, who acknowledge there's a problem and fix it for themselves, are somehow pretending there isn't one when they've clearly located one? Again, what makes it impossible for these people to see there is a problem, inform GW through their channels that this problem annoys them, while fixing it for their own games while GW may or may not get to fixing it in the official rules corpus? Am I an alien, as I've done the seemingly impossible thing?






Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page
Now with titans! Legio Favilla walks! 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

KurtAngle2 wrote:
I wouldn't really blame TLOS in 8th but how currently ineffective cover rules are, both in its mechanics (Unit based cover, no cover for intervening units and obscuration from ruins is useless without putting a freaking feet into it) and effect (+1 Save for real? The fact that some armies may claim it and as well never use it like Daemons is a failure of game design).


Demons couldn't really use cover saves in earlier editions either. Army wide invuls have that trade off.
The 8th ed cover rules indeed aren't great though. The all or nothing rule and lack of area terrain makes hiding from gunlines difficult, unless you made sure to bring a lot of BLOS terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 19:56:17


What I have
~4100
~1660
: LM

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 JohnnyHell wrote:
If your cover is meaningless in games get a better terrain collection. GW plastic terrain is largely useless.

GW terrain is alright, but definitely supplement it with more variety.

Darsath wrote:
I remember when people celebrated the removal of templates on the basis that it causes less arguments due to ambiguity. Now read the last few pages.

Different people. And/or just pro's and cons. I like the streamlining in general, but some things were lost. Flamers are poop now, which is sad. It's also hard to replace the ecstasy of landing a big blast right on a bunch of soon-to-be-burger models.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




I know a few of the people arguing on here were making that argument.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Sherrypie wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.


See, this is a part of this dichotomy that grinds some peoples' gears. Why assume that people, who acknowledge there's a problem and fix it for themselves, are somehow pretending there isn't one when they've clearly located one? Again, what makes it impossible for these people to see there is a problem, inform GW through their channels that this problem annoys them, while fixing it for their own games while GW may or may not get to fixing it in the official rules corpus? Am I an alien, as I've done the seemingly impossible thing?





because until/unless it gets officially fixed, it's a problem. Regardless if you fix it yourself, it's a problem because you cannot expect everyone to also use your fix.

The problem isn't fixing the rule, it's acting like everything is find because you fixed the rule for yourself

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Wayniac wrote:
because until/unless it gets officially fixed, it's a problem. Regardless if you fix it yourself, it's a problem because you cannot expect everyone to also use your fix.

The problem isn't fixing the rule, it's acting like everything is find because you fixed the rule for yourself


People are free to do as they wish. If they want to make red herrings about how bad the rules are using exaggerated examples and pretend there is no way to play the game competently despite occasional downsides - they are free to do so.

If they want to concoct a house rule that creates 'The Perfect Rule with absolutely no issues'™ they are free to do that as well.

And if they want to think that it is impossible to be unstressed about a rule and still be critical of it - totally fine.

   
Made in us
Courageous Questing Knight





Philadelphia

I would be down to remove TLOS and change it back to how forests/buildings worked in 4th edition

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Area terrain did make things simpler, as well as things allowing you to see in but not through.

   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Even beyond banner/antenna shooting, there’s an issue with TLOS in 40K.

How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.

If you've modelled your units in a way that reduces TLOS and is not according to how GW model their units you have modelled for advantage. It is not unfair if your Shadowsun is on an inch piece of terrain as the GW model. It is not unfair to use prone Pathfinders or squatting Fire Warriors if they are official GW models. Modelling Suppressors off of their flight stand is modelling for advantage, however.

In real life, I've seen very few examples of modelling for advantage. Almost everyone I play with does the opposite in that when they convert something it inevitably becomes larger and easier to shoot than the original model (because rule of cool).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 22:06:09


 
   
Made in at
Regular Dakkanaut




My invictor warsuits are standing on pieces of terrain so are slightly taller but at the same time I removed the stupid antennas so it is overall slightly shorter and easier to hide. I didnt model for advantage but for looks. Some could argue my convertion is unfair but I also have a fully covered cockpit and have wrist Mounted heavy bolters instead of pistol gripped stupidity.

There are lots of people who dislike the looks of antennas, wings or banners that could get or get accused of modelling for advantage due to the Los rules. Old models that are smaller or built before the current rules might be either way to tall to be usable with normal terrain or invisible due to their much smaller size.

I always regret gluing back the top portion on the banners on my ancients every time they fall off. Without it they can hide much easier and dont need a unit infront to prevent shots due to that stupid flag reaching the second floor that isnt blocking los while 98% of the model is on the ground floor.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Why? It's like that for almost every other game.


There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.


If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.

Why shouldn't Saiyan Hair be treated as eligible for Flamers?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.
Umm...
How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?
Cuz'a that!

   
Made in lu
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




The Void

Wasn't this fine in 5th?

We had TLOS, but within reason: Banners and other accessories didn't count, and generally, if a model was modeled significantly differently from the norm, we didn't count it (ie, kneeling or extra height from bases). On top of that, most people counted 75%+ covered as fully concealed.

I remember there being a bunch of arguments over TLOS for the first year or so of 5th, and then it all dried up.

Also the abundance of cover in 5th went a long way to stop the dominance of shooting that we have in 8th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 22:33:16


Always 1 on the crazed roll. 
   
Made in gb
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.
Umm...
How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?
Cuz'a that!

Ahem...
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.


E - it's worth noting that the reason TLOS has been used for 8th was to avoid the continual arguments that happened in previous editions where people claimed that less (or more) than 75% or 50% of the model was obscured.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 22:37:21


 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

I think the argument may just may be going over E’s head. 8E might have decided to use TLOS to stop the arguments, but to me it does the opposite, as even some of GW’s modeling poses are baffling to me (If I buy Shadowsun, for example, I’m not putting her on the included plinth). For my own games I use the older rules of area terrain and an adapted version of Warmahordes volume for miniatures. If I used the 8E Rules, I would, for example, shelf my rail-rifle pathfinders because I only have the 3E metal ones that are lying prone and drawing LOS to or from them strikes me as unfair. And which GSC brood lord should I use? If I use my 2E metal model that is smaller and walking forward on the ground vs. the current one standing atop a drain pipe, am I modeling for advantage?

It never ends well 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Who is E?

   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

In my case, An Actual Englishman. Don’t know who he may be referring to in his post, if anyone.

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 Stormonu wrote:
I think the argument may just may be going over E’s head. 8E might have decided to use TLOS to stop the arguments, but to me it does the opposite, as even some of GW’s modeling poses are baffling to me (If I buy Shadowsun, for example, I’m not putting her on the included plinth). For my own games I use the older rules of area terrain and an adapted version of Warmahordes volume for miniatures. If I used the 8E Rules, I would, for example, shelf my rail-rifle pathfinders because I only have the 3E metal ones that are lying prone and drawing LOS to or from them strikes me as unfair. And which GSC brood lord should I use? If I use my 2E metal model that is smaller and walking forward on the ground vs. the current one standing atop a drain pipe, am I modeling for advantage?

I've answered all of these questions above. If you have changed GW models so that they are more difficult to draw LOS to, you are modelling for advantage. Regardless of whether you believe it looks better or not. Technically you're also supposed to use the most modern sculpt of a unit (so no prone Pathfinders) but I suppose you'd talk to your opponent before the game about it and figure things out with them.

I find it hard to believe that TLOS has somehow created more arguments but even if it has, the key is that these "arguments" (read - discussions as part of the social contract of playing the game) happen before the game begins rather than during, as was the case before. This is what GW want to avoid, a stopping or slowing of the game mid way through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
In my case, An Actual Englishman. Don’t know who he may be referring to in his post, if anyone.


"E" = "Edit" then the additional text. I gathered you were addressing me. Your argument has not gone over my head, I simply disagree. Though it would be easier if you quoted my posts if you're referring to me specifically or at least use "AAE".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 23:07:02


 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.
Umm...
How are you supposed to handle models on plinths, infantry flying stands, kneeling or even laying down? Is it unfair that your Shadowsun model is easier to be shot just because GW modeled that character on an inch tall piece of terrain? What if someone modeled their Suppressors without their flight stand as if they were bracing their guns on the ground. How about my 3E Tau pathfinders with rail rifles that are lying prone? Or even my Fire Warriors that are in a squatting pose?
Cuz'a that!


Someone having an issue with how the LOS rules work is not the same as the LOS rules themselves having issues. They’re about as simple, clear and concise as possible. “I’d you can see it, you can shoot it, and be shot”. Accounts for any permutation of models out there without special rulings, so in fact covers all of the things quoted just fine.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in jp
Bush? No, Eldar Ranger





Mihara, Japan

So, as someone who has been largely ignoring this conversation for the last few days/weeks/months... Is 9th ED confirmed or now? And are Templates making a come back? (I want the T)

The only thing better than a good nights sleep, is two good nights sleep. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone can claim that TLOS has any issue.

It's quite simple. Can you see the model? Yes? Then you can shoot it.

If you've modelled your units in a way that reduces TLOS and is not according to how GW model their units you have modelled for advantage.


In my very first game of 8th, it became apparent that TLOS means my kneeling Death Korps heavy weapon teams can't see over chest-high sandbag walls intended as cover.

The rules are simple, straightforward, concise- and utterly bs.

Oh, and since TLOS means you can draw line of sight from anywhere, why is making a smaller target profile modeling for advantage, but making a larger target profile isn't? I can stick a rod on the top of a Baneblade to ensure that it peers over the entire table, and that's not modeling for advantage, but my buddy's got prone Space Marine Scout snipers so he's a dirty cheater?

Clearly the solution is to only assemble Games Workshop™ Citadel Miniatures™ exactly as instructed in the box. Any conversion could be modeling for advantage. Can't have that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 00:07:52


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut



NE Ohio, USA

 catbarf wrote:
ccs wrote:
It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.


Am I being TFG if I want my Malcador Defender to be able to shoot more than one gun at a time?


Depends, do you shoot out of the wrong sides of your tank to do so? Do you shoot things with your antena? Do the words "By the rules...." ever come out of your mouth to justify such silliness?
If so....



   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
Depends, do you shoot out of the wrong sides of your tank to do so? Do you shoot things with your antena? Do the words "By the rules...." ever come out of your mouth to justify such silliness?
If so....


Do you use grenades, pistols, or close combat weapons on any model that doesn't actually have them modeled? Do you turn wheeled vehicles on the spot, rather than moving in a turning circle defined by the axle traverse? Ever use stratagems that let you move twice or shoot twice in the time everyone else only gets to move once or shoot once? Do the words 'by the rules...' ever come out of your mouth to justify such silliness?

I think it's pretty TFG to act like anyone who doesn't subscribe to your personal set of house rules, rather than wanting to play the game as written and as it was balanced, is worthy of contempt. This is why I don't like when games have to lean on house rules to function properly- everyone has their own idea of what the 'right' set of changes is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 01:57:37


 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Personally, I find it very hypocritical that the game ignores facing, but cares about posing.

It never ends well 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




TLOS is deceptively named anyway. It's only true to miniatures on a board, not true to the events being modelled.

It's true to the poses those models are paused in, but not their behaviour.

The irony is that an abstracted LOS is actually more true to the events being protrayed because it can represent model behaviour and tactics in a way that static posed models can not.

TLOS is actually abstract to the story, while ALOS is abstract to the models.

TLOS is also selectively abstract about a model. It's moving and shooting ignores its shape, but seeing it to shoot it does not
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: