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.

When rolling random number of shots to a target that is out of LoS, roll two dice and take the lower.

For Earthshakers, reverse it-roll 2d6 take the highest when targeting someone IN LoS, roll just 1d6 when out.

Note: This is NOT a universal rule. This is simply a rule that should be added to most LoS ignoring weapons.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all LoS ignoring weapons are random shots as well, so this is easy to apply to them.

 JNAProductions wrote:
When rolling random number of shots to a target that is out of LoS, roll two dice and take the lower.

For Earthshakers, reverse it-roll 2d6 take the highest when targeting someone IN LoS, roll just 1d6 when out.

Note: This is NOT a universal rule. This is simply a rule that should be added to most LoS ignoring weapons.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all LoS ignoring weapons are random shots as well, so this is easy to apply to them.

I believe hiveguard impaler cannons are 2 shot.... Or maybe they are d3. I dont remember atm.

Why would you nerf no-LOS weapons? They are already less useful than the ignore cover ones in a game were claiming LOS block is almost impossible for anything bigger than a single marine.

Your suggestion though could be an interesting change for the ITC format, where claiming LOS block is easier.

Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

Spoletta wrote:
Why would you nerf no-LOS weapons? They are already less useful than the ignore cover ones in a game were claiming LOS block is almost impossible for anything bigger than a single marine.

Your suggestion though could be an interesting change for the ITC format, where claiming LOS block is easier.

The usefulness of non-LOS weapons is based purely upon terrain. It is very easy to have a battlefield where lots of units can be out of LOS. The game format is irrelevant. It is also equally pointless to reduce the effectiveness of these weapons that "pay" for the ability to shoot without LOS.

The question becomes what is the proper point value of these weapons considering the effectiveness can be anywhere from nearly (aka Planet Bowling Ball, where all LOS blocking comes for other models) to massive due to extreme amounts of LOS-blocking terrain pieces.

Had a thought the other day fir these kind of weapons to have a "Fire on grid reference..." rule where they can only indirect fire upon a target that a friendly character has LoS to.
Doesnt make sense to have high accuracy when completely guessing where something is.
Makes character placement important to get the most out of those weapons and gives the target player another way of cutting down their effectiveness.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

This, very simple, or perhaps even better

"no line of sight means a natural 6 is needed to hit, and no such weapon may be fired by any model with counts as having moved this turn"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

I'd be happy with that in games.

leopard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

This, very simple, or perhaps even better

"no line of sight means a natural 6 is needed to hit, and no such weapon may be fired by any model with counts as having moved this turn"

That's going way too far to be honest. We want those weapons to fulfill that niche and still be not terrible at it, after all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

leopard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

This, very simple, or perhaps even better

"no line of sight means a natural 6 is needed to hit, and no such weapon may be fired by any model with counts as having moved this turn"

That's going way too far to be honest. We want those weapons to fulfill that niche and still be not terrible at it, after all.

I could live with it either way to be honest, especially if you allow the "only a six to hit" to be mitigated by another unit remaining still and forgoing its own fire to act as a "spotter"

leopard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

leopard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Just make it a simple -1 to hit if you're not in LoS.

Bam. Much easier to implement.

This, very simple, or perhaps even better

"no line of sight means a natural 6 is needed to hit, and no such weapon may be fired by any model with counts as having moved this turn"

That's going way too far to be honest. We want those weapons to fulfill that niche and still be not terrible at it, after all.

I could live with it either way to be honest, especially if you allow the "only a six to hit" to be mitigated by another unit remaining still and forgoing its own fire to act as a "spotter"

I love there to be a whole interaction with Spotters etc

would be a nice "thing" for characters to do other than buffing other units too, would be a lot more critical with a proper terrain system

Agreed that a flat -1 to hit is a lot less messy. Spotters could be interesting. Instead of tying it to characters, however, I'd probably give certain units a "spotter" keyword. Lone Wolves and wyrd boyz don't strike me as the types to be constantly transmitting coordinates to their artillery pals.

Approaching this from a fluff perspective, there are resources off-table that the artillery can call on. Satellite view springs to mind, laser guidance systems from Kilometers away, a radio in anyone's hand that can say, "Hey Jim! There's some hella-big monsters behind that grey building. Could you put a shell just behind it? Thanks!"

It's math. So much weight for the shell, so much angle of the cannon, so much powder behind the shell to give it a certain velocity... make a parabola and ka-boom!

Now, if we're talking about in-game rationale, Ignoring LOS is comparable to high movement stat. You can choose your target from a safe distance. It's not some game breaking ability. It's the equivalent of high movement with Jump-Shoot-Jump . Except, less useful because you don't actually have high movement.

So what's a high movement stat worth? Ignores LOS is less valuable than that.

But... for balance's sake... a flat -1 to hit would probably be ok for shooting at something out of LOS. Just remember to adjust points downwards for such models appropriately.

A lot depends on why the weapon ignores LoS. Earthshakers, mortars, and other lobbing weapons would make sense if they were both without spotter and without sight. However, there are some that are smart weapons, such as the Hive Guard Impaler Cannon and the Tau Smart Missile System, which use self-guiding weapons to gain that hit.

Wyldhunt wrote:Agreed that a flat -1 to hit is a lot less messy. Spotters could be interesting. Instead of tying it to characters, however, I'd probably give certain units a "spotter" keyword. Lone Wolves and wyrd boyz don't strike me as the types to be constantly transmitting coordinates to their artillery pals.

On the other hand, units like Tau Pathfinders (if they had any indirect weapons that didn't rely on smart munitions) and Marine Scouts would be obvious candidates for having this system.

greatbigtree wrote:Approaching this from a fluff perspective, there are resources off-table that the artillery can call on. Satellite view springs to mind, laser guidance systems from Kilometers away, a radio in anyone's hand that can say, "Hey Jim! There's some hella-big monsters behind that grey building. Could you put a shell just behind it? Thanks!"

It's math. So much weight for the shell, so much angle of the cannon, so much powder behind the shell to give it a certain velocity... make a parabola and ka-boom!

Even the best forward observers can get a little bit off, whether because of an accident or variances between firer and observer (like wind). All the math in the world cannot account for everything without omniscience. That's usually why they start with a tracking shot before firing for effect.

Still, all and all, it's not a bad idea.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Approaching this from a fluff perspective, there are resources off-table that the artillery can call on. Satellite view springs to mind, laser guidance systems from Kilometers away, a radio in anyone's hand that can say, "Hey Jim! There's some hella-big monsters behind that grey building. Could you put a shell just behind it? Thanks!"

It's math. So much weight for the shell, so much angle of the cannon, so much powder behind the shell to give it a certain velocity... make a parabola and ka-boom!

Now, if we're talking about in-game rationale, Ignoring LOS is comparable to high movement stat. You can choose your target from a safe distance. It's not some game breaking ability. It's the equivalent of high movement with Jump-Shoot-Jump . Except, less useful because you don't actually have high movement.

So what's a high movement stat worth? Ignores LOS is less valuable than that.

But... for balance's sake... a flat -1 to hit would probably be ok for shooting at something out of LOS. Just remember to adjust points downwards for such models appropriately.

Well you can't charge with impunity whilst also staying out of LOS/combat and/or behind your own screen from across the entire table which is how artillery tends to work im my experience.

Ignore LOS is faux-bility. Faux-Mobility, for those that don't know.

Imagine it's 7th edition for a moment, and Scatter Bikes are Jump-Shoot-Jumping at you with their Scatter Lasers.

Now imagine, you have an artillery piece that sits still, and lobs shells at you.

On the receiving end, you're being attacked by something you can't draw LOS to.

With the Scatter Bikes, if you get close to them, they would zip away and continue shooting at you from a new location.

With the Artillery, if you get close to them, you blow it up because it can't get away.


That's Faux-bility. You get to choose your targets like a high mobility unit, but you don't have the defensive benefits of high mobility. It's like Deep Strike on Scions. You get faux-bility. You can plant yourself where you initially want, very quickly, but then you're stuck there. Unlike high-movement units, that can deploy to where you want and then redeploy as the battle dictates.

Last edition, Guard had no meaningful mobility, but several options for Faux-bility.

Anyhow, that's the way I look at it as a long-time Guardsman. We generally lack Mobility, so our Faux-bility options prevent people from making it across the (densely packed) table without our being able to preemptively attack. Artillery prevents opponents from JSJ'ing at us without retaliation. Artillery makes it so we can pullp that 40 point unit you left out of LOS, camping an objective without needing to send our entire army through a meat grinder to get to them.

It's a valuable tool in the Guard's arsenal.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Agreed that a flat -1 to hit is a lot less messy. Spotters could be interesting. Instead of tying it to characters, however, I'd probably give certain units a "spotter" keyword. Lone Wolves and wyrd boyz don't strike me as the types to be constantly transmitting coordinates to their artillery pals.

That works nicely for me, plus the artillery wouldn't accept fire missions from anyone, that would be chaos, so perhaps Chaos should be able to do it.. and possibly Orks, because.. well Orks (and orks hardly hit anything anyway, though what ork wants to shoot something when he won't see the explosion?)

Or just bring back min range to weapons that ignore LoS, so you know, they go back to representing them being artillery like weapons thata cant fire at stuff right in front of them.

I think a Spotter keyword actually wouldn't be terribly messy to implement.

Probably limit it to the faction for the artillery piece of course so Marine Scouts aren't helping Basilisks.

Are we gonna implement a -1 to hit penalty for units that used the equivalent of JSJ as well, in that case?

-1 to hit is fine. IG have more mobility than blood Angel's atm. It's okay to nerf their table clearing cheap as chips guns. Really, the entire ig codex is priced as if they were bs 5+.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Are we gonna implement a -1 to hit penalty for units that used the equivalent of JSJ as well, in that case?

I know this should be in a different thread, but I honestly want to propose units with Fly that fall back suffer a -1 to hit with their range weapons. That's a nerf to fly without making it too useless.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ignore LOS is faux-bility. Faux-Mobility, for those that don't know.

Imagine it's 7th edition for a moment, and Scatter Bikes are Jump-Shoot-Jumping at you with their Scatter Lasers.

Now imagine, you have an artillery piece that sits still, and lobs shells at you.

On the receiving end, you're being attacked by something you can't draw LOS to.

With the Scatter Bikes, if you get close to them, they would zip away and continue shooting at you from a new location.

With the Artillery, if you get close to them, you blow it up because it can't get away.


That's Faux-bility. You get to choose your targets like a high mobility unit, but you don't have the defensive benefits of high mobility. It's like Deep Strike on Scions. You get faux-bility. You can plant yourself where you initially want, very quickly, but then you're stuck there. Unlike high-movement units, that can deploy to where you want and then redeploy as the battle dictates.

Last edition, Guard had no meaningful mobility, but several options for Faux-bility.

Anyhow, that's the way I look at it as a long-time Guardsman. We generally lack Mobility, so our Faux-bility options prevent people from making it across the (densely packed) table without our being able to preemptively attack. Artillery prevents opponents from JSJ'ing at us without retaliation. Artillery makes it so we can pullp that 40 point unit you left out of LOS, camping an objective without needing to send our entire army through a meat grinder to get to them.

It's a valuable tool in the Guard's arsenal.

Guard are extremely mobile if they choose to be - except they often dont bother - they have special rules, orders and strats that can make infantry and tanks strweak across the board. Pretending they don't have that is a bit odd.

Artillery planted beind cover that can shoot everywhere on the entire board and with a screen doesn't move - hopefully this might change if people play the new missons in CA2018 that don't rely on able clearence.

Using those abilities kyboshes being able to shoot. Moving close to something without being able to shoot it is unwise.

So, yes, you can Move Move Move a unit of infantry a solid 18" in one turn. One unit of Guardsmen. Or maybe two. Or three. But then you're in the middle of the board, having taken no offence to prevent yourself from being swept away.

Guard have moving OR shooting, but not both. (In the practical, non-literal sense) If you want to have firepower, you're moving 5 or 6 inches a turn. Exception of Hellhounds, but that's it, really.

What would be the practical benefit of slinging 30 Guardsmen at a central objective on the first turn, without using them to shoot? Why charge long ranged tanks headlong into destruction, without using their firepower? It doesn't make sense.

AM is a multi-faceted army that benefits from using a wide selection of units. Some to sit'n'shoot. Others to make a grinding advance. Others still (Looking at you, Scions) to get to hard-to-reach objectives or priority targets. None of that involves "Rapid" movement anywhere. Hence, Faux-bility is important to them.

I'm not saying Guard's in a bad place by any means. I've been playing long enough to know the weaknesses and how to avoid them, and this edition has been very good to us.

Adding a -1 to hit modifier if something is out of sight is equivalent to another unit that has to move to gain LOS then fires a heavy weapon. But again, the defensive benefits of Indirect fire are not as useful as high mobility.

30 guardsmen are basically free, get in the way, push out deep strike bubbles, and are a general nuisance that is difficult to remove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ignore LOS is faux-bility. Faux-Mobility, for those that don't know.

Imagine it's 7th edition for a moment, and Scatter Bikes are Jump-Shoot-Jumping at you with their Scatter Lasers.

Now imagine, you have an artillery piece that sits still, and lobs shells at you.

On the receiving end, you're being attacked by something you can't draw LOS to.

With the Scatter Bikes, if you get close to them, they would zip away and continue shooting at you from a new location.

With the Artillery, if you get close to them, you blow it up because it can't get away.


That's Faux-bility. You get to choose your targets like a high mobility unit, but you don't have the defensive benefits of high mobility. It's like Deep Strike on Scions. You get faux-bility. You can plant yourself where you initially want, very quickly, but then you're stuck there. Unlike high-movement units, that can deploy to where you want and then redeploy as the battle dictates.

Last edition, Guard had no meaningful mobility, but several options for Faux-bility.

Anyhow, that's the way I look at it as a long-time Guardsman. We generally lack Mobility, so our Faux-bility options prevent people from making it across the (densely packed) table without our being able to preemptively attack. Artillery prevents opponents from JSJ'ing at us without retaliation. Artillery makes it so we can pullp that 40 point unit you left out of LOS, camping an objective without needing to send our entire army through a meat grinder to get to them.

It's a valuable tool in the Guard's arsenal.

Guard are extremely mobile if they choose to be - except they often dont bother - they have special rules, orders and strats that can make infantry and tanks strweak across the board. Pretending they don't have that is a bit odd.

Artillery planted beind cover that can shoot everywhere on the entire board and with a screen doesn't move - hopefully this might change if people play the new missons in CA2018 that don't rely on able clearence.

It doesnt help. They do the same crap in itc. Tabling is just a means to prevent further enemy scoring. No army should be able to table like the ig.