Switch Theme:

TLOS vs Killing Models out of LOS  [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 gb
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




Crownworld Qarnac

Over the past week I've been reading some conversations on the "pros & cons" of TLOS in 8th. The general feeling I get, from this forum at least, is that this creates an issue with regards to Antenna vs Antenna shooting, DKOK Heavy weapons team not being able to see above sandbags cause they're on the floor, Social consensus before the game and GW's inability to write rules etc. While I do agree with some of the sentiments and I do lament some of the GW modelling decisions with TLOS in effect, the crux of the issue to me always seemed to be that you can obliterate an entire 20+ unit of Ork Boyz behind LOS blocking terrain simply because my Tesla Immortals saw the 1 dudes topknot from a window.

Isn't that the bigger issue here?

If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? Granted vehicles and monster are still in many aspects shafted but for infantry and particularly hordes, if all you could see was 2 or 3 Boyz with your Leman Russ Punisher then TLOS means nothing to me as all your Heavy 20 is gonna amount to is...3 dead Boyz...

I dunno, it just seems like the deeper issue is being forgotten amongst the debate of TLOS and functioning Terrain rules. (Or maybe it was already addressed before and I'm just late).

Whew maybe I have gone off the rails.....


AngryAngel80 wrote:
So this poll reminds me of GW rule design, makes little sense, obviously was placed without any meaningful play testing and we're left waiting for a FAQ because right now the RAW crowd is using the open ended meaning to ruin everyones fun because we know how they intended W but we can't prove it with how it's written.
 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I think it's both really. TLOS is garbage for a variety of reasons, the fact that you only have to see a tiny part of one model to destroy a squad that's 90% hidden being only one of them.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




I'll never understood why they switched to TLOS. It complicates things slightly but a "size" stat differentiating between infantry, large infantry and so on as well as some clear terrain rules would be an improvement

We play a mix of TLOS, as like it or not the game is designed around it, and what I have suggested.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 14:33:11


 
   
Made in se
Regular Dakkanaut




That is the worst part with the current los and terrain rules. Either you have HUGE los blockers or it feels like a barren field for your melee units larger than 1-5 models when it comes to hiding from shooting. Things like fliers and knights make it even worse. Those models can all move quite the distance and shoot without penalties and are really tall so to hide something from them is almost impossible unless huge Ls are on the board. Usually the terrain is fine for infantry vs infantry or if the vehicles are no taller than an old dreadnought or rhino etc but as soon as you face Knights or fliers you will realise some of the terrain that make the table look crowded could as well have been removed since it doesnt really prevent any shooting.

One of the reasons I only used 15 Death Company in a single unit once. It was impossible to hide so many of them and even if 6 of them survived out of los I still lost 2+d6 models to morale.... so they all died...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 14:36:06


 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

There is some misunderstanding around what True Line of Sight can and should do.

The difference between TLOS and abstract LOS is, that with the first, models on the table can block the line of sight because of their physical presence and shape

For example, the Troop leader on a scenic base can block Line of Sight for the Special Weapons model right behind it.

Or that only those models can shoot from inside of a building that can truly see something

TLOS is a concept usually used for smaller Skirmish games with a lot of terrain were the placing of each individual model is important.

Larger games usually use an abstract Line of Sight to speed up the gameplay.
For example that models in the same unit never block LOS, or that shooting from inside a building is always possible.


But this has nothing to do with which models can be killed.
As this is Wound Allocation and independent from which version of Line of Sight rules are used.

that you can only kill models that are within range and line of sight of weapons VS it is enough to see 1 model to kill the unit is also a thing to speed up gameplay

Next thing are cover and terrain rules, which are also independent from the Line of Sight rules, but get into the same topic as True Line of Sight with True Terrain has different requirements on models and the table than abstract Line of Sight and abstract terrain

best example is a Forrest, as with "true" rules, a Forrest will only work with a lot of trees, making it hard to place infantry and impossible to place larger models
while with abstract rules, a sheet of paper declared as Forrest will do the job.


Problem with 40k is that its core is a small Skirmish game with a lot of micro management and detailed models (for armies and terrain) but it needs certain abstractions to handle the amount of models that are used.
And this abstractions changes with each Edition, some combinations of LOS, Terrain and Wound Allocation rules work better than others and all have their disadvantages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote:
I'll never understood why they switched to TLOS. It complicates things slightly but a "size" stat differentiating between infantry, large infantry and so on as well as some clear terrain rules would be an improvement .

They changed from a size stat to TLOS because it was a problem with having fixed sizes (there were 3) larger models being on the way
and as GW does not consider future releases or development when writing rules and does not want people to know what will come it was easier for them to use TLOS instead of having an unlimited size stat

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 14:54:20


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Mixzremixzd wrote:

If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .


This was a rule previously.

Scenario:

30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?

If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.

If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/14 15:00:23


   
Made in gb
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




Crownworld Qarnac

Thanks for the breakdown and clearing a few things up. I guess what I was really trying to get at was that currently, wound allocation seems to be a much bigger issue IMO between the three game mechanics brought up whilst also being relatively the easiest issue to solve in this current iteration of the game.

 kodos wrote:
Problem with 40k is that its core is a small Skirmish game with a lot of micro management and detailed models (for armies and terrain) but it needs certain abstractions to handle the amount of models that are used.
And this abstractions changes with each Edition, some combinations of LOS, Terrain and Wound Allocation rules work better than others and all have their disadvantages.



Humour me for a moment but what combination of the three do you think works best as the game stands right now?

Whew maybe I have gone off the rails.....


AngryAngel80 wrote:
So this poll reminds me of GW rule design, makes little sense, obviously was placed without any meaningful play testing and we're left waiting for a FAQ because right now the RAW crowd is using the open ended meaning to ruin everyones fun because we know how they intended W but we can't prove it with how it's written.
 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2020/02/24/tneva82-winter-war-tournament-report/<- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in gb
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List




Crownworld Qarnac

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Mixzremixzd wrote:

If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .



If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.




Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?

Whew maybe I have gone off the rails.....


AngryAngel80 wrote:
So this poll reminds me of GW rule design, makes little sense, obviously was placed without any meaningful play testing and we're left waiting for a FAQ because right now the RAW crowd is using the open ended meaning to ruin everyones fun because we know how they intended W but we can't prove it with how it's written.
 
   
Made in at
Regular Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage


If you just changed it to the amount of models you see is the amount you can kill but not the ones that have to die you get something in the middle. You cant snipe models and the defending player can remove models out of los to keep melee units close but if they do they still have models in the open that can keep making them vulnerable to shooting.

There are often middle grounds that could work well but GW likes to make huge changes each time they do something and since most rules dont exist in isolation you often need to tweak something else to make it work well. Like if you change LOS rules you might want to change terrain and wound allocation slightly. What GW often does is only change LOS or they also change something else as much instead of tweaking it slightly so they shift the problem instead of fixing ut
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





The biggest problem I have currently is that we have true line of sight but abstracted base-to-base melee.

An Eldar Wraithknight cannot hit a model on a 1.5" platform because he cannot physically get his base up there, so the guardsman that doesn't come up to his crotch is un-attackable.


This is done so that Powergaming Spike cannot model his Wraithknight holding his sword out super far in front of him and engage models in melee measuring off of the sword.

However, powergaming Spike can declare the antenna of his baneblade will unload all its ordnance into the hairdo of one chaos space marine, obliterating the whole squad as if they were standing out in an open field.

So, you do get situations with abstracted rules where things don't make intuitive sense, BUT it's much harder to powergame overall. for the most part, base to base melee works better and causes fewer arguments than "True Measurement Melee" would.

That's why I'd prefer abstracted LOS. Give each model a "Height stat" which means for LOS they count as an imaginary pillar a certain number of inches tall above their base.Want to see if you can draw LOS to a unit? Drop a tape measure to their base and see if you can see the tape.
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

 Mixzremixzd wrote:

Humour me for a moment but what combination of the three do you think works best as the game stands right now?

without fine-tuning:

models have a Size based on the bases or unit type keyword

Line of Sight:
TLOS with the following exceptions:
All models and/or solid terrain which have the same or bigger Size than the target model block the Line Of Sight completely
Solid terrain and/or models which are 1 Size smaller than the target model and loose terrain (eg Forrest) of the same or bigger Size give the target cover
Every terrain and/or model which is 2 Size smaller has no effect
Additional the shooting model ignore terrain of the same or smaller Size which is in base contact
Models of the same unit are also ignored when you check for line of sight. (models of other friendly units block line of sight normally)
Line of Sight works in both ways. Units which can draw a Line Of Sight to an enemy unit can also be seen by this unit.
If a model stands on a piece of terrain, sum up the size of the model and terrain to check line of sight.


Wound Allocation:
Only models that can be seen and are in weapon range can get a wound from ranged attacks.
No model can get a second wound until all models got their first one and non can get a third one until all got their second one etc.
Allocate Mortal Wounds first and remove the eliminated models.
Proceed with wounds that negate the armour save and remove the losses. Allocate the remaining wounds and make armour saves for the wounded models.
The owning player can choose which models are removed but always have to remove as many models as possible (eg remove full models if units consists of models with more than one HP).
models need to be removed from front to back
Attacks performed against a specific model (because of special rules) can only wound that specific model.

Terrain:
The size of a terrain piece is equal it's high or depth on the table in inch (Rivers or Lakes have a negative size value which is treated the same like a positive value, a size 3 model cannot be seen in a lake 4” deep)

If a model modes in or through difficult terrain whose size is equal or bigger than the size of the model, the movement is halved, hills and other high terrain which is not difficult does not slow models down.
Impassible Terrain
Models cannot move in or through impassable terrain whose size is equal or bigger than the size of the model.
If a model whose size is bigger than those of the impassible terrain moves in or through it, it rolls a D6 for the movement distance. It cannot exceed its normal movement distance.

Cover gives a bonus to the armour save and also apply to models that normally have no armour save.
Models inside or behind any area terrain or behind another unit add +1 to their armour save.
Models inside or behind and touching hard cover (rocks, walls, ruins, most buildings) add +2 to their armour save.
Fortifications or Shelter give a bonus of +3

the cover bonus can turn the armour save into a negative value and that models of the same unit can get a different cover bonus. Weapons that ignore armour saves do not automatically ignore the cover bonus (and the model still has a cover save)
Additional the cover bonus also apply in close combat if the unit is inside terrain or in direct contact with the terrain that gives the bonus (e.g. models behind a wall get a cover save if the wall is between the 2 units in close combat).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/14 16:47:19


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I'd prefer to move to a size stat for units and terrain where a unit or terrain piece that is equal or larger than the target provides a cover save to the target or obscures it in some way.

I dislike the TLOS where banners and antennas can be used for LOS as it stands now, but am not sure what the best way to deal with this would be.

As for wound allocation, I wouldn't go back to the system where the closest models are removed or where sniping specific models in units could happen. Equally the idea that a 20-30 model unit can be wiped out because one model is visible is not the right approach either.

I'd go for a compromise as suggested above where the number of models in LOS and in range of the weapons being fired would be used to determine how many models can be removed from play, but let the defending player determine which models to remove from anywhere in the unit. I like the idea that the one special weapon in the unit can't be sniped and the the abstraction that if that model is killed then another member of the unit picks up the weapon.

I'd consider going a bit further and stipulate that models have to be removed in such a way that unit coherency is maintained. However there would need to be consideration as to how this interacts with removing whole models at a time so that you don't have multiple models in a unit which have lost wounds. Perhaps that models are to be removed such that unit coherency is maintained except where doing so would result in spreading lost wounds throughout the unit. I'm sure that could be phrased more succinctly though.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:

That's why I'd prefer abstracted LOS. Give each model a "Height stat" which means for LOS they count as an imaginary pillar a certain number of inches tall above their base.Want to see if you can draw LOS to a unit? Drop a tape measure to their base and see if you can see the tape.


I'm not really opposed to that, but Warhammer carries such a large variety of units that height stats will either be too copious and require constant lookup or be so standardized that certain models benefit more.

Does this also solve the aforementioned melee problem? It doesn't seem like it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mixzremixzd wrote:

Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?


It used to happened often. Now? Probably not as much considering you can't pick out characters as easily and most people don't use generalists. There is still the choice of picking off TH Intercessor Sarges, or sarges in general to pull out more attacks.

Usually the whole squad gets picked off is avoidable with communication and better placement. Ork blobs are notoriously hard to hide and can benefit from KFF - kicking Boyz with Da Jump from the back edge is also a more secure method of delivery since most anti-infantry guns don't reach that far in the first turn or two.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 16:18:06


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

Daedalus81 wrote:30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?

If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.

If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.


tneva82 wrote:One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage


Back in 3rd/4th at least it was explicitly stated in the rules that taking casualties from anywhere in the squad was meant to represent other soldiers picking up the weaponry of those who died.

So the logical compromise here is that the number of casualties should be limited to the number of models visible to the firing unit, but taken from anywhere in the squad. You used a Rhino to block you LOS so that you could only see the plasma guy, you killed the plasma guy, and someone else in the squad runs over to take his weapon.

I'm not sure how being able to take casualties from anywhere is game-able by melee units, can you explain?
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Falls Church, VA

 catbarf wrote:
I'm not sure how being able to take casualties from anywhere is game-able by melee units, can you explain?


Consider the following:

[[LR]] -------8"----[[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] x [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]]

Here is a Leman Russ (or land raider) firing at 20 Genestealers in single file, with a solid wall cutting the genestealer squad in 2 (the wall is less than 1" wide where the X is). Let's assume the genestealers are at max 2" coherency.

The LR will have to kill every single genestealer to deny a 7" charge. Killing 19 genestealers will be insufficient to keep it from being tied up. If the LR burns 19 genestealers, the narrative assumptions being made here are that:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/14 16:44:46


Some people say they know no fear. What they mean is that they have encountered and conquered it. I, on the other hand, truly know no fear. It is as alien to me as doubt, rage, or mercy.

2nd Concordian Independent Super Heavy Tank Armoured Regiment - 12,376 points
Order of the Luminous Beacon - 2087 points
Nevian Conclave of the Ordo Hereticus - 2002 points 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.


add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






My biggest issue with TLOS at 40ks scale is that we shouldn't be worried about what individual models can see and do. We should be worried about what UNITS do. Apocalypse shows excellent unit to unit interactions instead of model to unit. It speeds everything up drastically, improves terrain rules a great deal. Makes fighting work better. Everything. When a single unit can comprise 30 models stop giving a gak what a single model does. Worry about the units.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.


add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations


The problem with this is it allows sniping of key models within units - squad leaders, special or heavy weapons etc as mentioned earlier in the thread with positoning of tanks etc to ensure that that only specific models are in LOS and range.
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.


add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations


With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.

The good bit of 8th’s casualty removal is that you don’t have to stress about positioning useful dudes at the back, everyone 1.99999” apart, etc etc etc. So much time is saved and units become much more playable so I can swallow the odder abstractions.

 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
Dominating Dominatrix






 JohnnyHell wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.


add: only models within line of sight and weapon range, and models need to be removed from front to back to solve both of those situations


With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.

The good bit of 8th’s casualty removal is that you don’t have to stress about positioning useful dudes at the back, everyone 1.99999” apart, etc etc etc. So much time is saved and units become much more playable so I can swallow the odder abstractions.


Also, flamers and other short ranged specialist weapons just got drastically devalued. Can't put them up front where you could actually use them. They die first before they get to shoot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 17:01:21



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ie
Norn Queen






Dublin, Ireland

For me being able to potentially kill 20 boys when only one of them is visible to the firer is the worst current rule in 8th.

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






 catbarf wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:30 Boyz hiding behind cover. One sticking out. Do you take casualties from anywhere or from what is visible?

If it is the former then this is game-able where melee units can see significant benefit.

If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.


tneva82 wrote:One issue with "can't kill what ain't in los" is rhino sniping though. You can use rhinos(sideway) etc to snipe specific models of squad. This btw helps certain armies that have suitable models to block while others like necrons and eldar whose models don't block los are at disadvantage


Back in 3rd/4th at least it was explicitly stated in the rules that taking casualties from anywhere in the squad was meant to represent other soldiers picking up the weaponry of those who died.

So the logical compromise here is that the number of casualties should be limited to the number of models visible to the firing unit, but taken from anywhere in the squad. You used a Rhino to block you LOS so that you could only see the plasma guy, you killed the plasma guy, and someone else in the squad runs over to take his weapon.


^This.

Limit the killing of models to those you can see. Then let the defender choose which models in the unit to remove. Defender can remove the guy in LOS being sniped, and then the unit can take no more casualties. Or the defender can remove a model out of LOS, and the attacker can still attack the unit because of the single model out of cover.

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 us
Dakka Veteran




Annandale, VA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
I'm not sure how being able to take casualties from anywhere is game-able by melee units, can you explain?


Consider the following:

[[LR]] -------8"----[[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] x [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]] [[G]]

Here is a Leman Russ (or land raider) firing at 20 Genestealers in single file, with a solid wall cutting the genestealer squad in 2 (the wall is less than 1" wide where the X is). Let's assume the genestealers are at max 2" coherency.

The LR will have to kill every single genestealer to deny a 7" charge. Killing 19 genestealers will be insufficient to keep it from being tied up. If the LR burns 19 genestealers, the narrative assumptions being made here are that:

1) The Leman Russ, armed with Heavy Flamer sponsons (optimal for this example), decided to target the rearmost Genestealers behind a solid wall and out of sight as its priority targets
OR
2) The genestealer at the rear ran forwards (3*19 =) 57" (including base width) forwards to take the place of his comrade in the front, through a solid wall.

Both of these narrative assumptions are obviously naff and stupid, and therefore the result is solely due to game mechanics rather than narrative sense, meaning it's "gamey" or "game-able." At least, that's what I interpret from Daedalus's words.


Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

TBH though I think that's an outgrowth of at-will casualty removal in general- we already have the scenario where a unit of Genestealers strung out from 2" away to 20" away, when shot, remove the most distant ones first. Narratively, that implies the same choices- either the soon-to-be-charged are shooting the most distant 'Stealers first, or the 'Stealers are zipping forward as they get shot.

So like, if we're okay with how that currently works from a gameplay perspective, then I'm fine with the same weirdness applying when cover is involved too. It might be a gimmick and might be game-able, but I'm not sure how useful it would really be in practice.

In general I think Lance845 is right; handling units as a whole makes for a much smoother system. But that's neither here nor there short of a really radical overhaul to how 40K works.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/14 17:12:16


 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

 JohnnyHell wrote:

With that system tthere’s no point in ever running a melee unit and you may as well not bother playing melee armies. You’d fail charges constantly so why bother. You’ve ‘solved’ one thing and broken another catastrophically.

With Overwatch, random charge distances, the current point costs and damage potential of melee units, this is their least problem

just because melee units need a complete re-work anyway should not be the reason to "solve" other problems

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




I just want a rule that say you can't shot at banner, antenas or weapons of infantry models.

And if Santa exists, then bring in standar size, so even a converted or dynamic model doesn't get punished for existing.

But the first one would make me happy enough.
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot






Karol wrote:
I just want a rule that say you can't shot at banner, antenas or weapons of infantry models.

And if Santa exists, then bring in standar size, so even a converted or dynamic model doesn't get punished for existing.

But the first one would make me happy enough.


Agree this with opponent. As there is a designers note that staes banners, attenas etc are not viable LoS targets.

I cant remember if in CA19 or BrB, but it is there.

5500
2500 
   
Made in ca
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot





 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I just want a rule that say you can't shot at banner, antenas or weapons of infantry models.

And if Santa exists, then bring in standar size, so even a converted or dynamic model doesn't get punished for existing.

But the first one would make me happy enough.


Agree this with opponent. As there is a designers note that staes banners, attenas etc are not viable LoS targets.

I cant remember if in CA19 or BrB, but it is there.


If that's true, folks have been playing it wrong a long time!

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





 Blndmage wrote:
 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I just want a rule that say you can't shot at banner, antenas or weapons of infantry models.

And if Santa exists, then bring in standar size, so even a converted or dynamic model doesn't get punished for existing.

But the first one would make me happy enough.


Agree this with opponent. As there is a designers note that staes banners, attenas etc are not viable LoS targets.

I cant remember if in CA19 or BrB, but it is there.


If that's true, folks have been playing it wrong a long time!


This does ring a bell actually, I think it was something about targeting only the hull of vehicles so wasn't applicable to infantry models with banners etc. I could be mistaken though.

EDIT: On second thought, I think it was in the Designer's commentary for vehicles without bases measuring ranges to and from the hull and had nothing to do with LOS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/14 18:08:49


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 catbarf wrote:

I'm not sure how being able to take casualties from anywhere is game-able by melee units, can you explain?


Melee units gain the ability to leap frog the field virtually unscathed (jump units more specifically). It isn't the worst thing in the world though.

The whole thing just makes no LOS weapons that much stronger.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: