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.

You could just as easy say every model gets a base. Standardize the size of the bases. If you can draw a straight unobstructed line from one models base to another models base they can see and shoot it.

Area (or light) terrain impedes los (-1 to hit).

Lakes and rivers and crators inbetween models count as open ground.

Ruins, buildings, and otherwise heavy terrain block los.

If the model you are trying to shoot is in terrain then you need to be able to trace los to the terrain, not the model. The model gets a cover sv bonus for being in terrain. When they trace los out of the terrain you consider the terrain the unit/models and assume its taking up positions within the terrain to fire out.

Titans and other models tok large to have bases count their feet (or whatever touches the table) as their base.

Got a hove/flying base? Time to glue it to a regular base.

Easy peasy. No confusion. No antenas or banners or other bs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Riiight. Keep on shouting into the void, mate, meanwhile those of us who aren't seemingly consumed by our selfasserted hubris of righteousness can carry on getting a lot of gaming out of those materials you so despise. How horrible, whole minutes of our lives might be wasted on improving the experience every now and then by such endeavours.

Seriously, take a breather once in a while, Slayer, you just sound more and more miserable the longer you keep on treading that argument. The dichotomy you're building there is just not any universal truth, despite your continued grumbling about it. A person can be perfectly happy to support GW as a whole, like most players probably do since it's nice to have your beloved games be supported by a non-dead company, while not agreeing with all they do.

This is always the fallback argument go to. These ARE realistic criticisms. You have yet to actually argue that the core rules being fine is okay.

Why would anyone need to argue that something that is fine is acceptable? It's literally the definition of the word.

You have yet to explain why it's okay to give daddy GW money for their crummy work. Once again, playing as you do is not compatible with saying you actually wish the rules were better and you wish your complaints were heard.

You're doggedly insisting people play to the exact letter of the rules you deem too poor to buy (not that anyone mentioned money at any point). So either you like them more than you let on, or you're addicted to schadenfreude somehow.

TLOS was the superior system back in 5th compared to the rules of 4th that had a hard cap in hight (a Land Raider is with height 3 on a hill with height 3 is still height 3 and get cover from anything with else with height 3)

but in combination with the Terrain Rules of 5th.

The problem is that GW always changes just one part of the rules without adjusting the other parts and with different terrain and cover rules TLOS became worse

So if abstract LOS, TLOS or a mixed version works better or not depends on the terrain and cover rules.
You cannot change one without the other.

Antenas shooting Banners is not a big problem if there is a -3 to hit and a 2+ Cover save because the main body of the shooting model cannot see the main model of the target.

and making it impossible to shoot out of a building because the windows were made for old scale 40k, and new scale models cannot "see" through them, while they are targetable by other units is also a thing that can be solved by area terrain rules and/or a simple addition of "everything that your models can see, can also see your models"

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

It's generally more beneficial to reduce TLOS than to increase it because if your baneblade has a rod to see the entire board the entire board can also shoot it. But you're not wrong, modelling for advantage can work both ways.

I'm sorry your Death Korps couldn't see over the sandbags. Perhaps they should've been placed differently.

Is the fact that GW don't want conversions or third party models sneaking into the game a revelation to you? Huh. I thought we all knew that by now.

We just play the old rule, main body of the miniature counts, no banners, no weapons, usually no wings. There's rarely an argument about it and if there is, throw a die or ask a 3rd person.
For me those things really are nothing to get angry about and unlike Jidmah I'm used to it in most games. Skat, Mau Mau, Romme, Wizard, Uno to name a few - first step is always to discuss which house rules are in place as every familiy has its own rule set.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
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.

I had a list written on inside of the ork codex' cover of things I needed to clarify before the game.
Most prominent one was the deff rolla, which would not only change what part of the model could be shot, but also where you could place burna templates, disembark, how wide the front and side arc were and whether you could shoot the battlewagon from the front at all - because if my opponent insisted it wasn't part of the hull but a weapon, the battlewagon was invincible to infantry standing in front of it, because the deff rolla was all they could see.
Another ones would be the spiked ram on the trukk (which parts are the spiked ram in the first place?), wreckin' balls, boarding planks, grabbin' klaw, a raised powerklaw on a nob (is it a weapon which you can't shoot or an arm that you can shoot?), kopta blades, the periscope on the battle wagon and later the wings on bommers/dakkajets (the list in the BRB told us we could not shoot wings).
And that's just my army.

I agree with cover in 5th being much better than in any of the following editions though.

I just can’t believe people are still posturing about LOS in 8th three years after its release and the world not having exploded in that time. All the fears about antennae on Baneblades haven’t come to pass. The world hasn’t ended because people field conversions or characters on smol rocks.

A thread three years after this ruleset was released full of bickering and screaming TFG and sweaty at one another is farcical.

The LOS rules are a simple practicality to cover all models, as I’ve already noted. They don’t ‘care about posing’, they’re designed to work with it. If you and your opponent want to say “hey this crouching guy... if I treat him as being able to fire over that sandbag wall to shoot is that OK? Obviously you can shoot him back.” then you can. In friendly games you can made little rules edits all over the place if it’s more fun for you, without even having to whine online. But for the most part a simple unambiguous system works better for those ‘less friendly’ games or random pickup games. Out of all the things to criticise 8th for this seems one of the tightest-written, least arguable-over bits of rules! I’m amazed it’s still such a hot topic for some. Three. Years. On.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The LOS rules are a simple practicality to cover all models, as I’ve already noted. They don’t ‘care about posing’, they’re designed to work with it. If you and your opponent want to say “hey this crouching guy... if I treat him as being able to fire over that sandbag wall to shoot is that OK? Obviously you can shoot him back.” then you can. In friendly games you can made little rules edits all over the place if it’s more fun for you, without even having to whine online.

All day this. It's almost as if some of the people here don't actually play the game because I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k without some discussion around an aspect of the rules. I ask my opponents the charge distance they think I need. I ask them if I can see something or not. I ask them if we're playing ITC, Maelstrom or EW missions (or another specific ruleset). I ask them what mission we're playing.

Honestly I can't remember a time since 8th has dropped where I've had an argument about the rules. People are so polite these days (in my experience) that they'll always err on the side of caution. If my opponent and I can't figure out a particular rule(s) interaction, we either flip a coin or roll dice and move on with our lives. And here's something that will probably blow people's minds - both myself and my opponents purposefully take weaker lists so we have a more enjoyable game.

I'm genuinely baffled why some of you play as you seem to find no enjoyment from the game whatsoever. If I didn't enjoy playing, I would stop, personally.

It’s fairly enjoyable to discuss rules, and even easy to dislike a rule or understand its issues why playing and enjoying games.

This seems to come up often to 40k, really no other game gets so many excuses apply to its shoddy rules I think.
It’s also funny to see TFG as a label for players just using the rules as written as some form of discussion here.

It’s all game design, interesting for discussion itself. But if players universally or often ignore or change the rules, then it should be of worth for the devs to look at changes.

Tightly written is not equal to well written, enjoyable or immersive. It can still be critized for many different reasons.

I wouldnt mind well written, tightly written, immersive and enjoy able rules all at the same time. Gw can usually do one of the things right for each rule but some of us expect a little more for a billion dollar company with over 30y of experience.

Klickor wrote:
Tightly written is not equal to well written, enjoyable or immersive. It can still be critized for many different reasons.

I wouldnt mind well written, tightly written, immersive and enjoy able rules all at the same time. Gw can usually do one of the things right for each rule but some of us expect a little more for a billion dollar company with over 30y of experience.

Your standards are heresy and for your crimes against the GW overlords you shall be executed via acid bath.
Any last wishes?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The LOS rules are a simple practicality to cover all models, as I’ve already noted. They don’t ‘care about posing’, they’re designed to work with it. If you and your opponent want to say “hey this crouching guy... if I treat him as being able to fire over that sandbag wall to shoot is that OK? Obviously you can shoot him back.” then you can. In friendly games you can made little rules edits all over the place if it’s more fun for you, without even having to whine online.

All day this. It's almost as if some of the people here don't actually play the game because I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k without some discussion around an aspect of the rules. I ask my opponents the charge distance they think I need. I ask them if I can see something or not. I ask them if we're playing ITC, Maelstrom or EW missions (or another specific ruleset). I ask them what mission we're playing.

Honestly I can't remember a time since 8th has dropped where I've had an argument about the rules. People are so polite these days (in my experience) that they'll always err on the side of caution. If my opponent and I can't figure out a particular rule(s) interaction, we either flip a coin or roll dice and move on with our lives. And here's something that will probably blow people's minds - both myself and my opponents purposefully take weaker lists so we have a more enjoyable game.

I'm genuinely baffled why some of you play as you seem to find no enjoyment from the game whatsoever. If I didn't enjoy playing, I would stop, personally.

I'm far from a power gamer, so let me chime in real quick. Is discussion during a game good ? Yes it is. That said, the game is quicker, easier and cleaner when the rules work in such a way that they are easy to understand, implement and memorize. A tighter rules system where the game mechanic discussions arise out of want to do something new and not because we just have to talk about it to continue is just better over all as an experience. The fact that GW tend to not make rules as crisp as some would like leads to bad feelings and I can say as a player I like knowing exactly what I'm looking at with rules and not need to beg for my kneeling guy to see over that sand bag just because he happens to be kneeling for instance.

You do realize people can disagree with GW rules and not be some beardy WAAC player right ? Even casual for life players can find a game easier to enjoy and quicker to engage in when it's a cleaner system already. Having to argue about the nuance of the rules because something was left unclear or confusing just isn't very enjoyable a use of time and I hate to be surprised with " Oops, I can't do this because, reasons of poorly written rules. "

Though don't let me stop the hyperbole of everyone not liking crap rules being a salty hater who plays nothing but rage in the cage games as WAAC as we can, if we play at all. Obviously only someone who doesn't even know what a D6 is could possibly question the elegance of GW.

the middle of any argument is dead nowadays. Your either a GW shill, who probably is being paid by them to say that GW stuff is great, or a nobel gaming realist, who knows that GW is the incarantion of the beast from the Bible, and a clear sign that the end times are uppon us.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The LOS rules are a simple practicality to cover all models, as I’ve already noted. They don’t ‘care about posing’, they’re designed to work with it. If you and your opponent want to say “hey this crouching guy... if I treat him as being able to fire over that sandbag wall to shoot is that OK? Obviously you can shoot him back.” then you can. In friendly games you can made little rules edits all over the place if it’s more fun for you, without even having to whine online.

All day this. It's almost as if some of the people here don't actually play the game because I don't think I've ever played a game of 40k without some discussion around an aspect of the rules. I ask my opponents the charge distance they think I need. I ask them if I can see something or not. I ask them if we're playing ITC, Maelstrom or EW missions (or another specific ruleset). I ask them what mission we're playing.

Honestly I can't remember a time since 8th has dropped where I've had an argument about the rules. People are so polite these days (in my experience) that they'll always err on the side of caution. If my opponent and I can't figure out a particular rule(s) interaction, we either flip a coin or roll dice and move on with our lives. And here's something that will probably blow people's minds - both myself and my opponents purposefully take weaker lists so we have a more enjoyable game.

I'm genuinely baffled why some of you play as you seem to find no enjoyment from the game whatsoever. If I didn't enjoy playing, I would stop, personally.

I'm far from a power gamer, so let me chime in real quick. Is discussion during a game good ? Yes it is. That said, the game is quicker, easier and cleaner when the rules work in such a way that they are easy to understand, implement and memorize. A tighter rules system where the game mechanic discussions arise out of want to do something new and not because we just have to talk about it to continue is just better over all as an experience. The fact that GW tend to not make rules as crisp as some would like leads to bad feelings and I can say as a player I like knowing exactly what I'm looking at with rules and not need to beg for my kneeling guy to see over that sand bag just because he happens to be kneeling for instance.

You do realize people can disagree with GW rules and not be some beardy WAAC player right ? Even casual for life players can find a game easier to enjoy and quicker to engage in when it's a cleaner system already. Having to argue about the nuance of the rules because something was left unclear or confusing just isn't very enjoyable a use of time and I hate to be surprised with " Oops, I can't do this because, reasons of poorly written rules. "

Though don't let me stop the hyperbole of everyone not liking crap rules being a salty hater who plays nothing but rage in the cage games as WAAC as we can, if we play at all. Obviously only someone who doesn't even know what a D6 is could possibly question the elegance of GW.

You're confusing "badly written rules" with "rules I don't like" I'm afraid. TLOS is clear, concise and simple. I don't think it could be simpler. There is nothing confusing or unclear with it at all. By the rules, your dude kneeling behind a sandbag cannot shoot something he cannot see, this isn't difficult to understand, it is logical and it is intuitive. If we were playing and you wanted to house rule that he could see, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but understand that the rules are not to blame here, merely the fact that you disagree with them in this particular instance. If anything is throwing in ambiguity and tedium into the game - it is you as a player, not the rules.

I think you're being somewhat hyperbolic and disingenuous above. My argument isn't that players who disagree with GW rules are 'beardy WAAC players'. I couldn't care less if you disagree with the rules or not, as mentioned above I house rule things with opponents all the time. My argument is that it would be difficult (if not imposisble) for GW to implement a clearer and more concise rule insofar as drawing LOS is concerned. Can you see the model? Job done. This isn't ambiguous. It isn't difficult to understand. It takes no time to resolve. You might think it's unfair for your dude who's kneeling behind a sandbag. That's completely irrelevant.

I also think the examples here of the magical sandbags that seem to perfectly block LOS for crouching models are vastly exaggerated. It's not a problem I've experienced ever, I don't think.

Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Or, just don't shoot with that guy

I had an opponent throw a fit because I told him that his crouched rangers couldn't see a character of mine - after I didn't shoot them because the were crouching behind a wall.

I just let him have the shot, both rangers missed, he looked like an idiot for making a fuss about it.

Yeah, the only ‘problem’ that comes up with such scenarios seems to be when one player wants to be able to hide AND shoot, but not be shot. That’s a no.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

 Jidmah wrote:
Or, just don't shoot with that guy

I had an opponent throw a fit because I told him that his crouched rangers couldn't see a character of mine - after I didn't shoot them because the were crouching behind a wall.

I just let him have the shot, both rangers missed, he looked like an idiot for making a fuss about it.

okey but his is a clear example of someone being punished for the fact that GW doesn't supply enough standing ranger models. It is the same way if someone decided to model all his crawling, he could even model it for them to look like snakes, but with normal terrain they would be impossible to see save for point blank range . People shouldn't be punished for the fact that GW sells models in wierd positions. doing back flips, or standing on walls that make the model 50% higher. .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

So whiping out a unit of termintors, because one of them has a halabard point upwards is okey and makes sense? I mean I would kind of a get it if this ment that only the halabard guy can be killed, or that my whole unit can now shot through the periscope halabard. But no, my entire unit can be whiped out, but only one dude can fire back.

Karol wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

So whiping out a unit of termintors, because one of them has a halabard point upwards is okey and makes sense?

Yes. The idea is that they are killed while moving to the bit of cover they now stand in. It certainly makes as much sense as futuristic armies using Swords and Shields as weapons.

I mean I would kind of a get it if this ment that only the halabard guy can be killed, or that my whole unit can now shot through the periscope halabard. But no, my entire unit can be whiped out, but only one dude can fire back.

One dude can fire back? No man, it works both ways. If the enemy has a halberd or something sticking out and providing LOS, they can all fire back. It is entirely balanced and simple. E - or they can move on their turn and presumably open fire on the enemy now entirely out of cover.

No one is being punished. Don’t be hyperbolic. You get nice models in a variety of poses and LOS rules that account for that.

If a game actually gets lost because one kneeling model couldn’t shoot and that was somehow pivotal... then it’s an issue. As things are, it’s not, outside of hyperbolic online hypotheticals.

Karol wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

So whiping out a unit of termintors, because one of them has a halabard point upwards is okey and makes sense? I mean I would kind of a get it if this ment that only the halabard guy can be killed, or that my whole unit can now shot through the periscope halabard. But no, my entire unit can be whiped out, but only one dude can fire back.

This is one of my biggest problems with this. If someone see the tip of my sergeants chainsword my whole unit hiding behind terrain out of los can now be killed. Usually older sergeant models that suffer from this or melee units that cant even shoot back well. For ranged units its usually not much of a downside since if someone can see them they can also see the opponent. Units with larger melee weapons and decorations(wings, banners, trophies etc) on the other hand suffer greatly from this. My Sanguinary Guard units becomes much worse if I would glue the wings to their backpacks or have a cool pose for their melee weapons(I have them magnetized so can just point them down as long as this rule is as it is). You can kill and target 9 models you cant see just because you saw the 10th guys decorations. You actually get to "see" more with current LOS rules than true TLOS. Wallhacks are usually banned in FPS but not 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Karol wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

So whiping out a unit of termintors, because one of them has a halabard point upwards is okey and makes sense?

Yes. The idea is that they are killed while moving to the bit of cover they now stand in. It certainly makes as much sense as futuristic armies using Swords and Shields as weapons.

I mean I would kind of a get it if this ment that only the halabard guy can be killed, or that my whole unit can now shot through the periscope halabard. But no, my entire unit can be whiped out, but only one dude can fire back.

One dude can fire back? No man, it works both ways. If your Halberd dude can see an enemy unit the entire unit can fire regardless of their LOS. It is entirely balanced and simple.

Um no? You need every terminator in the unit to see the target for them to fire. But you only need to see the halberd to kill all terminators.

Karol wrote:
okey but his is a clear example of someone being punished for the fact that GW doesn't supply enough standing ranger models. It is the same way if someone decided to model all his crawling, he could even model it for them to look like snakes, but with normal terrain they would be impossible to see save for point blank range . People shouldn't be punished for the fact that GW sells models in wierd positions. doing back flips, or standing on walls that make the model 50% higher. .

The rangers box comes with one prone ranger: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Eldar-Rangers. He had three prone rangers. Go figure.
In addition, he could have removed the prone rangers as casualties instead of the standing rangers and be left with two standing rangers. The models are as they are, just like the rules are as they are, no one is punished by that. Any tall model is easier to shoot and can shoot better, any small model is better to hide but has more trouble seeing things.

So whiping out a unit of termintors, because one of them has a halabard point upwards is okey and makes sense? I mean I would kind of a get it if this ment that only the halabard guy can be killed, or that my whole unit can now shot through the periscope halabard. But no, my entire unit can be whiped out, but only one dude can fire back.

That's fine and makes sense, because that's how the rules were written. It's vastly superior to defining every bit of models like this as shootable or non-shootable.

Removing the whole unit because you can target one is to avoid issues regarding casualty removal. You can remove whoever you like, but the whole unit is eligible for death. Much better than your opponent being able to snipe out your heavy weapon, just kill a Sergeant etc. It’s an artic at of an abstraction. As it’s the same for both sides it’s fair.

How many years is this for one set? Is this the new norm? Less than a Presidential term per ruleset?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Removing the whole unit because you can target one is to avoid issues regarding casualty removal. You can remove whoever you like, but the whole unit is eligible for death. Much better than your opponent being able to snipe out your heavy weapon, just kill a Sergeant etc. It’s an artic at of an abstraction. As it’s the same for both sides it’s fair.

You could just make it so if you see one model you can kill 1 model and the defending player decides who dies. IF he keeps the visible dude you can continue firing into that squad again and again if you want but still only kill 1 dude each time you declare against the unit until that model is dead. Would make current los rules much more tolerable. Quite often I just dont even try hiding my melee units since if they move their tank/knight or whatever 10" right or left they will most likely see a chainsword, a bolter or a backpack and kill the whole squad anyway despite 99% of the unit not being visible.

Amazing some of you can defend GW's inconsistent modeling too.

JohnnyHell wrote:Also, just position that guy so he can see round the sandbag and his mates can fire over it. Simples.

Jidmah wrote:Or, just don't shoot with that guy

An Actual Englishman wrote:Right? If I'm not mistaken the argument here boils down to; 'I don't like TLOS so I'm going to position my models in a way that ignores it then moan about it when I can't do what I want to do.' Am I reading this right?

Death Korps heavy weapon teams are all crouching/prone, as are Elysian teams. Cadians are too, but their models are significantly bigger so it's less of a problem. We're talking the entire squad being unable to see over small obstacles, not one-off poses.

So 'just go somewhere else because your guys are stuck at low level and can't elevate their guns, despite the finely modeled elevation mechanism on the sculpts which IRL are used for exactly this situation' is dumb.

And 'just don't shoot with your entire squad of support weapons from cover, go out in the open' is also dumb.

I don't use that word just to mean 'I don't like it'- I think it is profoundly dumb to write a game in which you assume each soldier represented by each model is forever locked into the action pose in which they've been modeled, with no ability to interact with the battlefield. As a rule it is simple, logical, easy to check and apply- and makes little real-world sense sense, is easy to exploit, leads to bad feelings when you lose a whole squad because a single waving arm was visible, and ruins any sense of immersion I might get out of the game. The idea of models as frozen poses isn't even applied consistently, since Captain Tetanus with his sword held above his head can go in a transport without issue- presumably because it's assumed he can put his fething arm down.

The excuse that 'shooting an exposed arm is to represent the squad getting shot as they moved to cover' is bs, too. You brought the Sergeant with his chainsword up, so now your unit can be killed 'while moving to cover', three turns after you actually did so. Bring the Sergeant with his chainsword down and now they can't be shot 'while moving to cover' ever. That's a sloppy post-hoc rationalization for a dumb mechanic.

I still PLAY the game. I don't think anybody here has said the rules are literally unplayable. But houseruling LOS to use base-to-base (with clear definitions of what blocks LOS and what can be seen over) is one of the first things my group did, because if you play with human-sized figures and more realistic terrain than the never-blocks-LOS stuff GW sells, this kind of situation comes up a lot.

 Just Tony wrote:
How many years is this for one set? Is this the new norm? Less than a Presidential term per ruleset?

What do you mean? There's zero evidence the ruleset is being changed or there's a 9th edition on the way, it's just made up by people on this forum who then run with it, like most of the bizarre complaints and conspiracy theories that run amok here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Amazing some of you can defend GW's inconsistent modeling too.

There's a decent sized gap between defense and pragmatism.