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.

Everything gets a size stat.

2-Grots and Ratlings
3-Humans, Eldar
4-Marines in Power Armour, Necron Basic Troops
5-Terminators, Gravis Armour, Centurion Armour
6-Bobby G, Daemon Princes
7-Dreadnoughts, Greater Daemons, Rhinos, Chimeras
8-Land Raiders, Monoliths
10-Knights, Wraithknights

Obviously not an exhaustive list. Size has the following effects:

If your size is twice an enemy model's size or greater, you may move through them as if they were not there, though must still end your movement at least 1" away from them. In addition, if you are locked in combat with only enemy models who are half your size or less, you may fall back without any penalties.

Lastly, you can only prevent a character from being shot at if their size is only one larger than yours or less. (For instance, a Marine in power armour (size 4) can shield a Terminator Captain (size 5) or a Commissar (size 3), but not Bobby G (size 6). Bobby G., though, can shield both the Captain and Commissar.)

Other Changes:

Characters are only immune to shooting if within 3" of a model that can block for them, and are not the nearest model. So, if you have a Captain 12" in front of you, and a squad of Tactical Marines 6" BEHIND you, you can still shoot the Captain. But, if the Captain was in the middle of the Tactical squad, you could not shoot him.'

Most vehicles should gain the following rule:

Noncombatant-Enemies locked in combat with a unit that has this rule may fall back without penalties.

This represents that a Wave Serpent cannot keep a squad of Marines locked in combat, or a Rhino cannot keep a squad of Dire Avengers locked. Vehicles themselves can oftentimes fall back without penalties simply due to being large.

Seems like a good idea, though I'd much prefer to just have "VEHICLES and MONSTERS may ignore non-VEHICLE, non-MONSTER units when falling back (although they must still end up more than 1" from enemy models.)"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Seems like a good idea, though I'd much prefer to just have "VEHICLES and MONSTERS may ignore non-VEHICLE, non-MONSTER units when falling back (although they must still end up more than 1" from enemy models.)"

So a Daemon Prince can walk away from Assault Centurions with no penalty? Or a Starweaver from the same people? Nah, I think size, while a little more complicated, is better.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Seems like a good idea, though I'd much prefer to just have "VEHICLES and MONSTERS may ignore non-VEHICLE, non-MONSTER units when falling back (although they must still end up more than 1" from enemy models.)"

So a Daemon Prince can walk away from Assault Centurions with no penalty? Or a Starweaver from the same people? Nah, I think size, while a little more complicated, is better.

I suppose, but that would introduce GRANULARITY and TACTICAL DECISIONS into the game and GW don't want that.

At the very least I don't think the character thing is going to stick. GW seems adamant to making them immune totally in shooting and leave digging them out via CC as the only way of sniping them.

I think you're on the right track. Too many size mods does mean you have yet another stat to keep track of.


I think a simple "Size" modifier would be Unmodified Strength + Unmodified Toughness, as it precludes the need for a separate stat, and models most interactions fairly (IMO the only exception would be to give Harlequins S3 and S Mods). No need for explicit sizemods that way. When in doubt, KISS.

Again, more abstraction does not make for a good system.
Better to offload the work to the models and the battlefield.
Simply check LoS when necessary, with basic rules such as that a unit cannot shoot at a more distant unit without a special ability or keyword like "sniper".
If we keep adding abstraction upon abstraction, then why bother with the WYSIWYG beautifully realistically painted models in the first place?

 jeff white wrote:
Again, more abstraction does not make for a good system.
Better to offload the work to the models and the battlefield.
Simply check LoS when necessary, with basic rules such as that a unit cannot shoot at a more distant unit without a special ability or keyword like "sniper".
If we keep adding abstraction upon abstraction, then why bother with the WYSIWYG beautifully realistically painted models in the first place?

WYSIWYG is already an impossibility. Kits don't come with all their options or too few to build the models correctly. Relics have never and will never have bits.

Look at what options were available for a 7th ed Necron Lord and Overlord. The lord has a single model with a single weapon option. The overlord has potentially 3 different models, 2 with 1 weapon and one with one other while 1 has to be build with a res orb and 2 can have the orb as an option. Impossible to build either model with a tachyon arrow. Impossible to build either with mindschakle scarabs. Impossible to model a phylactery. Voidblade, hyperphase sword, impossible to give a warscythe to any model that isn't standing on a rock unless you start cutting up models from other kits.

Abstraction is the game. Always has been. Will be until they build models with every possible option in their kits (Read: Never).

I think the idea of allowing vehicles and monsters to ignore infantry when falling back is good. It lets those models step out of combat but still restricts them from firing their weapons. It keeps fly as a real advantage while giving vehicles and monsters a advantage of their own and prevents a rhino from being bogged down because some grots surround it.

That being said, what I thought this was going to do was allow things with larger size the ability to melee units on higher levels of terrain instead of requiring base to base contact. We need something that does that. It's real silly that a imperial knight that is 6 inches tall cannot punch some guys because they are on the second floor of some ruins. Same for a trygon standing in their face.

 Lance845 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
Again, more abstraction does not make for a good system.
Better to offload the work to the models and the battlefield.
Simply check LoS when necessary, with basic rules such as that a unit cannot shoot at a more distant unit without a special ability or keyword like "sniper".
If we keep adding abstraction upon abstraction, then why bother with the WYSIWYG beautifully realistically painted models in the first place?

WYSIWYG is already an impossibility. Kits don't come with all their options or too few to build the models correctly. Relics have never and will never have bits.

Look at what options were available for a 7th ed Necron Lord and Overlord. The lord has a single model with a single weapon option. The overlord has potentially 3 different models, 2 with 1 weapon and one with one other while 1 has to be build with a res orb and 2 can have the orb as an option. Impossible to build either model with a tachyon arrow. Impossible to build either with mindschakle scarabs. Impossible to model a phylactery. Voidblade, hyperphase sword, impossible to give a warscythe to any model that isn't standing on a rock unless you start cutting up models from other kits.

Abstraction is the game. Always has been. Will be until they build models with every possible option in their kits (Read: Never).

I think the idea of allowing vehicles and monsters to ignore infantry when falling back is good. It lets those models step out of combat but still restricts them from firing their weapons. It keeps fly as a real advantage while giving vehicles and monsters a advantage of their own and prevents a rhino from being bogged down because some grots surround it.

That being said, what I thought this was going to do was allow things with larger size the ability to melee units on higher levels of terrain instead of requiring base to base contact. We need something that does that. It's real silly that a imperial knight that is 6 inches tall cannot punch some guys because they are on the second floor of some ruins. Same for a trygon standing in their face.

Part of the hobby is building your own.
Not wait for GW to spoon feed options.

And you seem to champion abstraction while pulling for more realism in how vehicles work?
OK...
Wtfe...

 jeff white wrote:

Part of the hobby is building your own.
Not wait for GW to spoon feed options.

And you seem to champion abstraction while pulling for more realism in how vehicles work?
OK...
Wtfe...

WYSIWYG is not a part of the hobby. Its part of the GAME and the GAME says you buy a kit, put it together, and play. Conversions, unique modeling, painting. That is not the game. THAT is the hobby. You opponent doesn't need to see your special snow flake models to follow the rules. And people playing the game are not expected to use materials outside of the box to play.

I'm not championing anything. I am putting a pin the ridiculous idea that WYSIWYG is some kind of pillar of the game that needs to be adhered to while the company that makes the game doesn't provide you the tools to do it with and has not actually had a rule requiring, or even politely suggesting, WYSIWYG in over 2 editions.

You had some other points in your post. Ones I don't necessarily disagree with. Some replication of realism does help the game when built well into the games structure. But pure realism also drags the experience through the mud and makes the whole thing a slog. Realism and abstraction are not mutually exclusive concepts in game design. They are broad categories of tools in the tool box that can be used and should only be used if it makes the game itself better.

 Lance845 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Part of the hobby is building your own.
Not wait for GW to spoon feed options.

And you seem to champion abstraction while pulling for more realism in how vehicles work?
OK...
Wtfe...

WYSIWYG is not a part of the hobby. Its part of the GAME and the GAME says you buy a kit, put it together, and play. Conversions, unique modeling, painting. That is not the game. THAT is the hobby. You opponent doesn't need to see your special snow flake models to follow the rules. And people playing the game are not expected to use materials outside of the box to play.

I'm not championing anything. I am putting a pin the ridiculous idea that WYSIWYG is some kind of pillar of the game that needs to be adhered to while the company that makes the game doesn't provide you the tools to do it with and has not actually had a rule requiring, or even politely suggesting, WYSIWYG in over 2 editions.

You had some other points in your post. Ones I don't necessarily disagree with. Some replication of realism does help the game when built well into the games structure. But pure realism also drags the experience through the mud and makes the whole thing a slog. Realism and abstraction are not mutually exclusive concepts in game design. They are broad categories of tools in the tool box that can be used and should only be used if it makes the game itself better.

Why not just play with cards or chits then?

 jeff white wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

Part of the hobby is building your own.
Not wait for GW to spoon feed options.

And you seem to champion abstraction while pulling for more realism in how vehicles work?
OK...
Wtfe...

WYSIWYG is not a part of the hobby. Its part of the GAME and the GAME says you buy a kit, put it together, and play. Conversions, unique modeling, painting. That is not the game. THAT is the hobby. You opponent doesn't need to see your special snow flake models to follow the rules. And people playing the game are not expected to use materials outside of the box to play.

I'm not championing anything. I am putting a pin the ridiculous idea that WYSIWYG is some kind of pillar of the game that needs to be adhered to while the company that makes the game doesn't provide you the tools to do it with and has not actually had a rule requiring, or even politely suggesting, WYSIWYG in over 2 editions.

You had some other points in your post. Ones I don't necessarily disagree with. Some replication of realism does help the game when built well into the games structure. But pure realism also drags the experience through the mud and makes the whole thing a slog. Realism and abstraction are not mutually exclusive concepts in game design. They are broad categories of tools in the tool box that can be used and should only be used if it makes the game itself better.

Why not just play with cards or chits then?

Why roll dice to represent shooting a gun? Get a gun, place it where the model is aim and shoot. Anything left standing is still alive. Realism!

There is a massive middle ground between liking the look and style of a mini and requiring it to be 100% wysiwyg. Wanting to have a 3 dimensional cool looking miniature to play games with is not the same as needing it to have every single option represented on it perfectly. And not wanting to have every single option represented on it perfectly is not the same as wanting to play with a single color disk of cardboard.

I think it's either incredibly short sighted or incredibly juvenile to make the immediate jump from denouncing the lunacy of true WYSIWYG to the assumption that you might as well play with bits of paper.

basing size off wounds is easier, but how many wounds does a crisis suit have? Im just guessing it wont be perfect... but close enough.... a terminator should be able to walk right through some imperial guard.

 Lance845 wrote:


I think it's either incredibly short sighted or incredibly juvenile to make the immediate jump from denouncing the lunacy of true WYSIWYG to the assumption that you might as well play with bits of paper.

Uh-huh.
Right.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Everything gets a size stat.

2-Grots and Ratlings
3-Humans, Eldar
4-Marines in Power Armour, Necron Basic Troops
5-Terminators, Gravis Armour, Centurion Armour
6-Bobby G, Daemon Princes
7-Dreadnoughts, Greater Daemons, Rhinos, Chimeras
8-Land Raiders, Monoliths
10-Knights, Wraithknights

Obviously not an exhaustive list. Size has the following effects:

If your size is twice an enemy model's size or greater, you may move through them as if they were not there, though must still end your movement at least 1" away from them. In addition, if you are locked in combat with only enemy models who are half your size or less, you may fall back without any penalties.

Lastly, you can only prevent a character from being shot at if their size is only one larger than yours or less. (For instance, a Marine in power armour (size 4) can shield a Terminator Captain (size 5) or a Commissar (size 3), but not Bobby G (size 6). Bobby G., though, can shield both the Captain and Commissar.)

Other Changes:

Characters are only immune to shooting if within 3" of a model that can block for them, and are not the nearest model. So, if you have a Captain 12" in front of you, and a squad of Tactical Marines 6" BEHIND you, you can still shoot the Captain. But, if the Captain was in the middle of the Tactical squad, you could not shoot him.'

Most vehicles should gain the following rule:

Noncombatant-Enemies locked in combat with a unit that has this rule may fall back without penalties.

This represents that a Wave Serpent cannot keep a squad of Marines locked in combat, or a Rhino cannot keep a squad of Dire Avengers locked. Vehicles themselves can oftentimes fall back without penalties simply due to being large.

I'm not sure about allowing withdrawing with no penalty, it makes smaller models very limited in use, I'd need to test it out.

I like the targeting fix because then having 10 wounds isn't a straight penalty. I would also like the abstraction applied to terrain.

As for size I'd likely go with

1 - Grots, Ratlings
2- Most human sized model
3 - Standard marines, ork boyz
4. - Terminators, Primaris marines, Ork Nobz
5 - Centurions, agressors, Gravis armor
6 - Guiliman, Daemon Prince, Hive tyrant, Dreads, small Greater daemons
7 - Redemptor Dread, Rhino
8. Land Raider, , Magnus, Bloodthirsters
9. Morkanaut, Monlith, Knight
10. Stompas, Baneblade, Tesseract vault




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Again, more abstraction does not make for a good system.
Better to offload the work to the models and the battlefield.
Simply check LoS when necessary, with basic rules such as that a unit cannot shoot at a more distant unit without a special ability or keyword like "sniper".
If we keep adding abstraction upon abstraction, then why bother with the WYSIWYG beautifully realistically painted models in the first place?

I disagree, off loading it to models on the battle field is very open to abuse, or needs rules that dictate how models must be assembled. The answer to why bother with WYSIWYG beautifully realistically painted models is that they are pretty and we like using them. TLOS is a terrible system that seems good in concept but in practice it leads to arguments and limits creativity.