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.

 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.

Reposting an old idea, since it's become relevant again.

Would also like to add that Size 8 or larger models cannot be hidden at all.

Original Thread here.

I like size categories just because it allows me to drown TLOS in a bathtub like it deserves, but I feel like a full characteristic is far too granular, especially in 8e.

I think it'd be much simpler to run:

Models with SWARM keyword (Rippers, Nurglings, Scarabs, etc)

Models with none of the other keywords (Tactical Marines, Sentinels, Crisis Suits, etc)

Models with the LARGE keyword (anything that currently has 10+ Wounds)

Models with the TITANIC keyword (anything that currently has this keyword)

Then apply the same keywords to cover, but replace SWARM with OPEN (for lakes, etc). Only models your size or larger can block line of sight.

I like the idea of size. However, I'm not a fan of the first rule you're suggesting.

If you want to reintroduce Tank Shock, I've no objections, but it stretches my disbelief that a Land Raider can just phase through infantry because they're smaller than it.


Also, I think 3" is too small a radius for character protection. I think 6" would be more reasonable.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I like the idea of size. However, I'm not a fan of the first rule you're suggesting.

If you want to reintroduce Tank Shock, I've no objections, but it stretches my disbelief that a Land Raider can just phase through infantry because they're smaller than it.


Also, I think 3" is too small a radius for character protection. I think 6" would be more reasonable.

It's not so much "phasing through" as it is "pushing them aside". And only for MEQs and smaller. TEQs are too big for it to do that to.

But, what would you suggest changing about the big models pushing around smaller models mechanic?

I’m working on something like this. Each class of unit has special abilities, as do their weapons.

I don't hate most of it but at this point screening is pretty much the only meaningful consideration for movement and positioning left.

Terrain rules are in a bad spot and with LOS barely mattering anymore unless your playing with a ton of solid terrain, I'd want a few other changes before allowing big units just push through infantry automatically.

Smoke launchers should truly have a more important function in the game.

warpedpig wrote:
Smoke launchers should truly have a more important function in the game.

That is completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

Yes it is

RevlidRas wrote:
I like size categories just because it allows me to drown TLOS in a bathtub like it deserves, but I feel like a full characteristic is far too granular, especially in 8e.

I think it'd be much simpler to run:

Models with SWARM keyword (Rippers, Nurglings, Scarabs, etc)

Models with none of the other keywords (Tactical Marines, Sentinels, Crisis Suits, etc)

Models with the LARGE keyword (anything that currently has 10+ Wounds)

Models with the TITANIC keyword (anything that currently has this keyword)

Then apply the same keywords to cover, but replace SWARM with OPEN (for lakes, etc). Only models your size or larger can block line of sight.

Part of the reason I think the level of granularity in your original proposal is unnecessary is that it's less intuitive – it's "swarm or tiny model", "normal model", "bulkier normal model", "really bulky normal model", "big model", "bigger big model", "even bigger big model", and "titan". At some point, someone's going to have to ask whether my Kroot are Size 3 or Size 4, and that's a bad sign when it's meant to represent something as basic as how big a model is.

I prefer just "swarm", "normal model", "big model", and "titan". The only potential issue there is models like Crisis Suits, Tyranid Warriors, or Sentinels, which straddle the line between "big model" and "normal model" in most people's eyes, but I'm less bothered by that than I could be, so long as the gameplay works.

The second reason is that the granularity produces weird, counterintuitive results. Yes, a Space Marine Scout is bigger than a normal human, but under these rules that relatively difference in height means that a Dreadnought or Daemon Prince who can wander away from Kabalites or Skitarii because they're weedy little infantry dudes... can't do the same to a Space Marine Scout. That feels really weird. "You can move through regular-sized infantry" is a much more straightforward way to play it.

The last reason that is that even your rules work in increments of "twice or larger" and "half or smaller". Which means you could halve the number of increments to no effect. The only loss would be the more specific "screening" rules, but it's pretty rare for an army to include characters that are much larger than the regular troops and also aren't monsters (who couldn't be screened anyway, under normal rules). The only examples I can think of are Crisis Commanders.

So I don't really see the benefit to a 10-point system except that it looks more precise on paper. A four-point system (SWARM, no keyword, LARGE, TITANIC) seems to do everything you want, and I could even accept a five-point system (SWARM, no keyword, LARGE, GIANT, TITANIC) to separate out big models that haven't hit 10+ wounds.

EDIT: If you really want the granularity, it seems like you could separate them by type? Add the SMALL and LARGE keyword, and then you have SMALL INFANTRY (grots), INFANTRY (marines), LARGE INFANTRY (centurions), SMALL MONSTERS/VEHICLES (sentinels), MONSTERS/VEHICLES (rhinos), LARGE MONSTERS/VEHICLES (monoliths), and then TITANIC goes back to being its own thing.

RevlidRas wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:
I like size categories just because it allows me to drown TLOS in a bathtub like it deserves, but I feel like a full characteristic is far too granular, especially in 8e.

I think it'd be much simpler to run:

Models with SWARM keyword (Rippers, Nurglings, Scarabs, etc)

Models with none of the other keywords (Tactical Marines, Sentinels, Crisis Suits, etc)

Models with the LARGE keyword (anything that currently has 10+ Wounds)

Models with the TITANIC keyword (anything that currently has this keyword)

Then apply the same keywords to cover, but replace SWARM with OPEN (for lakes, etc). Only models your size or larger can block line of sight.

Part of the reason I think the level of granularity in your original proposal is unnecessary is that it's less intuitive – it's "swarm or tiny model", "normal model", "bulkier normal model", "really bulky normal model", "big model", "bigger big model", "even bigger big model", and "titan". At some point, someone's going to have to ask whether my Kroot are Size 3 or Size 4, and that's a bad sign when it's meant to represent something as basic as how big a model is.

I prefer just "swarm", "normal model", "big model", and "titan". The only potential issue there is models like Crisis Suits, Tyranid Warriors, or Sentinels, which straddle the line between "big model" and "normal model" in most people's eyes, but I'm less bothered by that than I could be, so long as the gameplay works.

The second reason is that the granularity produces weird, counterintuitive results. Yes, a Space Marine Scout is bigger than a normal human, but under these rules that relatively difference in height means that a Dreadnought or Daemon Prince who can wander away from Kabalites or Skitarii because they're weedy little infantry dudes... can't do the same to a Space Marine Scout. That feels really weird. "You can move through regular-sized infantry" is a much more straightforward way to play it.

The last reason that is that even your rules work in increments of "twice or larger" and "half or smaller". Which means you could halve the number of increments to no effect. The only loss would be the more specific "screening" rules, but it's pretty rare for an army to include characters that are much larger than the regular troops and also aren't monsters (who couldn't be screened anyway, under normal rules). The only examples I can think of are Crisis Commanders.

So I don't really see the benefit to a 10-point system except that it looks more precise on paper. A four-point system (SWARM, no keyword, LARGE, TITANIC) seems to do everything you want, and I could even accept a five-point system (SWARM, no keyword, LARGE, GIANT, TITANIC) to separate out big models that haven't hit 10+ wounds.

EDIT: If you really want the granularity, it seems like you could separate them by type? Add the SMALL and LARGE keyword, and then you have SMALL INFANTRY (grots), INFANTRY (marines), LARGE INFANTRY (centurions), SMALL MONSTERS/VEHICLES (sentinels), MONSTERS/VEHICLES (rhinos), LARGE MONSTERS/VEHICLES (monoliths), and then TITANIC goes back to being its own thing.

Bolded your edit because I like that suggestion best.

Let me update the OP with your suggestion.

Edit: Thinking on it, it fails to differentiate between Marines and Guardsmen in terms of size, and that's something I kinda wanted to do. So I will not be updating the OP, actually.

But thanks for the suggestion!

Make it simple.
T3 light infantry
T4 heavy infantry
T5/6 light vehicle
T7/8 heavy vehicle
T9/10 titanic

Then each class gets certain rules for cover saves. For being targeted by classes of weapons and saves against those weapons. Easy as pie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Weapon classes
Anti personnel - lasguns.
Special weapon - plasma and melta
Medium weapons - heavy bolters. Scatter lasers
Heavy weapons - missile launchers. Las cannons

Example heavy infantry have +1 to save against anti personnel weapons.

Heavy vehicles ignore antipersonnel and medium weapons.

Etc. make it however you want. But the key is simplification with the ability to make minor tweaks to the basic underlying simple system. Classify stuff very simply


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bolter
Range 24”
Rapid fire
S4
-1 save against light and heavy infantry

Another example. Makes things simple

 JNAProductions wrote:
Thinking on it, it fails to differentiate between Marines and Guardsmen in terms of size, and that's something I kinda wanted to do. So I will not be updating the OP, actually.

But thanks for the suggestion!

What is it that you want to differentiate about them, out of curiosity? Marines are certainly bigger than normal humans, but so are Aeldari (who are often described as towering over humans), Orks (who are genuinely massive), Necrons (when they're not hunched over like their models, at least), Genestealers and Genestealer Hybrids, Daemons, and Kroot. T'au and Humans are broadly similar in size, as are Gaunts, but it seems like a really narrow distinction to make.

As far as I can tell, on the rules you've given the main difference is that Daemon Princes and Dreadnoughts can't back off from Marines and Necrons, but can back off from T'au and Humans? And that seems like a really specialized difference, not to mention a tricky one to mentally picture.

Eldar are also quite skinny.

And I guess the reason is that, while I can see a Marine or an Ork being a credible threat to a Dread or Prince, I can't really see an ordinary human, Tau, or Eldar being the same.

Now, obviously, give the human a Powerfist, the Eldar a... Um... Eldarfist, and the Tau an Onager Gauntlet, and the story changes. But just stock, I don't see it.

But Olineas Pile!

Bharring wrote:
But Olineas Pile!

Was easily obliterated by Horus.

He was a badass, he was a hero, he was awesome. But he was NOT capable of meaningfully hurting Horus, or stopping him, really.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Eldar are also quite skinny.

And I guess the reason is that, while I can see a Marine or an Ork being a credible threat to a Dread or Prince, I can't really see an ordinary human, Tau, or Eldar being the same.

Now, obviously, give the human a Powerfist, the Eldar a... Um... Eldarfist, and the Tau an Onager Gauntlet, and the story changes. But just stock, I don't see it.

Yeah, but at that point it's about personal threat, not Size? And if you want to represent that, you're better off introducing Combat Overwatch for enemies who fall back. I can't see a Rhino having a much harder time ploughing through Orks than Fire Warriors, and a Marine Scout isn't going to make a Daemon Prince slow down more than a Crusader.

I'm not entirely down with the Daemon Prince sauntering over a bunch of Guardians or Infantry, either, but it doesn't make less sense than him doing it to Marines.

I'm sorry to harp on, but it just seems like a really niche application for such a big expansion of the rules.

One problem is that an Eldar Exarch isn't notably bigger than an Imperial Guardsman, but a Demon Prince is probably going to consider one a much bigger threat.

It’s not the size. It’s the weapons. Duh.

I think that this can be fairly well resolved by bringing back some sort of test to disengage, rather than the current useless system where you can just walk away. Then have it that units which are double-or-more the size of the unit they are disengaging from pass automatically - a vehicle will just drive away.

I agree that moving through a unit does badly affect immersion. I'd be happy to allow any unit to "tank shock" another unit which is less than half of their size - EG a size 4 cannot tank shock through a size 2, but can a size 1 - a space marine can punt a nurgling! a unit of centurions could wade through gretchin.

I suppose it could also be a strength comparison - whether you have a chance of actually stopping a unit from getting through. Vehicles would need their strength revising, perhaps with a bracketed value which represents their strength for tank shocks. Or, have a "Tank" rule which states this vehicle is strength "X" for tank shocks.

Then the 2 units involved roll D6+S to establish if they can move through.

EG: Space Marines try to move through nurglings. both units roll a D6 and add strength. if the marines roll higher than the nurglings, they succeed in moving through.

A tank tries to move through the same nurglings, and ocunts as S10 for tank shocks. The nurglings cannot roll high enough to contest this, so they just move out of the way.

A few random thoughts:

* I'm not opposed to adding in a size stat, but I prefer the idea of tying it to keywords. Swarms < infantry/beasts < bikes/cavalary < vehicle/monster < titanic. Admittedly, centurions are bigger than tactical marines, however, and things like jet pack units or drones can vary wildly in size despite their key words.

You could maybe slap the "bulky" and "very bulky" keywords onto things that had those rules last edition, but at that point you're basically talking about a size stat. I just don't want the size stat to be so granular that people have to pause to look it up or ask their opponent about it all the time. It should be intuitive. A scale of 1-5 should probably cover it.

* Regarding disengaging, I dislike the idea of testing for disengages, and that's coming from a guy who loves his wyches and their No Escape rule. Rolling off every time someone wants to disengage adds more rolling/rules to the game, and it doesn't solve gameplay problems so much as it just makesthe problems occur less often. If falling back is a problematic mechanic and you try to fix it by only letting a unit fall back 1/3rd of the time on average, then you're still going to have a problem 1/3rd of the time.

* One suggest that I've seen on this forum is that vehicles be allowed to fall back through non-vehicle/monster/titanic enemy models (moving over but not landing on top of other models), and that they be allowed to fire weapons of strength X or lower at a -1 to hit penalty after doing so. Basically reintroducing both tank shock and defensive weapons without requiring a ton of complicated rules to do so.

The land raider can get out of combat because it's a big honking tank that forces enemies to get out of its way. No fiddling about with repositioning models or making leadership tests or any of that. It's big. It can move through the crowd. Low strength weapons on vehicles feel like they have more of a purpose rather than just being a random add-on that's poorly paired with the lascannon or whatever on your turret. Charging vehicles remains a decent way to shut down the enemy's big guns and to debuff their small guns, but the tanks aren't stuck in an endless loop of getting charged and backing up with no response beyond overwatch either.

I'd be in favour of a 5 point scale. i think granularity can be overdone, but for me 5 sizes seems to strike the right balance between being practical/easy enough to use and providing a nice level of differentiation. of course there will be edge cases that could be argues should be one size larger/smaller, but that will always be the case. (size category names of course could be changes)

Tiny: Ripper swarms, nurglings etc
Normal: Infantry (Guardsmen, Marines and most other Infantry models, including terminators, gravis armour etc)
Bulky: Tau Crisis suits, Tyranid Warriors, Centurions, bikes
Large: Pretty much anything with the Vehicle keyword and Monstrous Creatures
Titanic: Anything that currently has the titanic keyword

Edge cases that immediately spring to mind would be landspeeders, attack bikes, Vypers etc. (bike size or vehicle size?); Grots and ratlings: tiny or normal?

And I'd like to have size for terrain features.

With size rules, all sorts of mechnics could be explored: impact on morale, LOS, target priority, targeting characters, cover, difficult terrain etc