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.

I've been wondering how practical it would be to replace the current character targeting rules with a number of penalties for targeting characters.

The overall goal would to make it difficult to target characters if they're hiding in cover or in/near units, but also make it less binary than the current rules - where characters are either nigh-invulnerable or else completely exposed with no middle ground.

As a rough idea, it could use something like this:

- All Heavy Weapons get -1 to hit when targeting non-Monster, non-Vehicle Characters. [This is meant to represent the fact that shooting anti-tank guns at a single, infantry-sized man should be difficult. Tbh, you could probably make an argument for them getting -2 to hit.]

- If the character is within 6" of at least one non-Character unit with equal or greater Toughness, models get -1 to hit when firing at him. If the character is within 3" of three or more non-Character models with equal or greater toughness, enemies get an additional -1 to hit when firing at him. [I'm using Toughness in place of Wounds, as it scales far better with model-size.]

- If a non-Vehicle, non-Monster character is not the closest model to the firing unit, they get -1 to hit. Other characters are ignored for the purposes of this rule, unless they are also Vehicles or Monsters. Units that are out of LoS of the firing unit may also be ignored, unless LoS to those units is blocked solely by friendly models. [If you're wondering about the latter part, it's to prevent Rhino-sniping.]

(Snipers would ignore the above penalties, but would still be subject to negative modifiers from wargear or special rules.)


The idea is that it becomes possible to remove some of a character's protection without having to clear everything within half a mile of him. At the same time, a partially exposed character will often still have some level of protection.


This is just a very rough idea and I welcome any suggestions for possible changes or additional modifiers.

I think just basing the targeting restrictions on model type would be a good improvement. So Infantry can protect an Infantry character, Vehicles can protect Vehicle Characters, and the same for Monsters and so on. Then you could maybe give characters some protection based on being close to similar types of units, possibly as an Invulnerable save, similar to how Look Out, Sir! used to work in Warhammer.

That way positioning relative to similar units is important, which is what your rules are trying to promote, I think, but you also get to use existing keywords to determine which units are similar, which seems like a better approach than your Toughness-based one.

I find the original rule of 'closest visible' is still the absolute best. Clean... Simple... Effective.

The only issue anyone could ever bring up with the original rule was 'character sniping', which pales in comparison to all of the bs that the current rule causes. A simple notation of 'friendly units do not count as blocking LoS for the purposes of this rule' would fix it. At that point all would be fine and well and character targeting wouldn't be one of the absolute worst aspects of the game.

Slipspace wrote:
I think just basing the targeting restrictions on model type would be a good improvement. So Infantry can protect an Infantry character, Vehicles can protect Vehicle Characters, and the same for Monsters and so on. Then you could maybe give characters some protection based on being close to similar types of units, possibly as an Invulnerable save, similar to how Look Out, Sir! used to work in Warhammer.

That way positioning relative to similar units is important, which is what your rules are trying to promote, I think, but you also get to use existing keywords to determine which units are similar, which seems like a better approach than your Toughness-based one.

That's probably fair. I was trying to think of something that would be more of a scale than a binary can/can't be shot, but I'll freely admit that my solution certainly wasn't an elegant one.

Yeah, I could get behind using the current mechanics but basing them on keywords.

I'd probably have it such that:
- Infantry can be protected by anything.
- Bikers can be protected by anything except Infantry.
- Vehicles and Monsters can only be protected by Vehicles and/or Monsters.

 oni wrote:
I find the original rule of 'closest visible' is still the absolute best. Clean... Simple... Effective.

The only issue anyone could ever bring up with the original rule was 'character sniping', which pales in comparison to all of the bs that the current rule causes. A simple notation of 'friendly units do not count as blocking LoS for the purposes of this rule' would fix it. At that point all would be fine and well and character targeting wouldn't be one of the absolute worst aspects of the game.

I think there's still the issue of wounds being a terrible metric to base things on, as it means there's basically no accounting for size.

If the current system was based on keywords (as suggested above) or Toughness (as I suggested), then I think it would be a lot more reasonable.

I favour the idea of "Characters may only be targeted if they are the closest visible unit or are not within 3" of a friendly unit of the same type."

Stops characters dancing in the open but being untargetable because of a unit which is closer, but in a completely different direction!

vipoid wrote:

 oni wrote:
I find the original rule of 'closest visible' is still the absolute best. Clean... Simple... Effective.

The only issue anyone could ever bring up with the original rule was 'character sniping', which pales in comparison to all of the bs that the current rule causes. A simple notation of 'friendly units do not count as blocking LoS for the purposes of this rule' would fix it. At that point all would be fine and well and character targeting wouldn't be one of the absolute worst aspects of the game.

I think there's still the issue of wounds being a terrible metric to base things on, as it means there's basically no accounting for size.

If the current system was based on keywords (as suggested above) or Toughness (as I suggested), then I think it would be a lot more reasonable.

I agree that the wounds limit of 10 does feel a little kluged.

some bloke wrote:I favour the idea of "Characters may only be targeted if they are the closest visible unit or are not within 3" of a friendly unit of the same type."

Stops characters dancing in the open but being untargetable because of a unit which is closer, but in a completely different direction!

I like this.

 vipoid wrote:
- All Heavy Weapons get -1 to hit when targeting non-Monster, non-Vehicle Characters. [This is meant to represent the fact that shooting anti-tank guns at a single, infantry-sized man should be difficult. Tbh, you could probably make an argument for them getting -2 to hit.]

What about all the heavy weapons designed to target infantry such as the Heavy Bolter, Assault Cannon, Sniper Rifle or the fact that heavy weapons can be very accurate IRL such as when the M2 Browing MG had a scope attached and was used as a sniper weapon. So that's a no on the first part.

- If the character is within 6" of at least one non-Character unit with equal or greater Toughness, models get -1 to hit when firing at him. If the character is within 3" of three or more non-Character models with equal or greater toughness, enemies get an additional -1 to hit when firing at him. [I'm using Toughness in place of Wounds, as it scales far better with model-size.]

Yes, because a Master in Gravis armor is so much more massive than a Terminator. This is also a fail.

- If a non-Vehicle, non-Monster character is not the closest model to the firing unit, they get -1 to hit. Other characters are ignored for the purposes of this rule, unless they are also Vehicles or Monsters. Units that are out of LoS of the firing unit may also be ignored, unless LoS to those units is blocked solely by friendly models. [If you're wondering about the latter part, it's to prevent Rhino-sniping.]

The friendly models clause is dumb. If your flank is covered by a friendly tank you should 100% be able to spend a bit more time shooting at a distant target.

 some bloke wrote:
I favour the idea of "Characters may only be targeted if they are the closest visible unit or are not within 3" of a friendly unit of the same type."

Stops characters dancing in the open but being untargetable because of a unit which is closer, but in a completely different direction!

Logically how does this make any sense, are they dodging and weaving and using the other unit as human shields? IRL it is often dangerous to be the guy carrying a different weapon or wearing a different rank badge because the enemy, not just snipers, will aim for you first.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

What about all the heavy weapons designed to target infantry such as the Heavy Bolter, Assault Cannon,

Shooting into a mass of infantry is not the same as sniping a single character.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Sniper Rifle

I don't mind criticism but it would be great if you could bother to actually read my post:

(Snipers would ignore the above penalties, but would still be subject to negative modifiers from wargear or special rules.)

 Canadian 5th wrote:
or the fact that heavy weapons can be very accurate IRL such as when the M2 Browing MG had a scope attached and was used as a sniper weapon.

So give them those weapons the Sniper rule.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yes, because a Master in Gravis armor is so much more massive than a Terminator. This is also a fail.

Presumably a Daemon Prince hiding behind guardsman-sized models makes perfect sense to you, though. Or the fact that a Catacomb Command Barge can hide behind Necron Warriors but an Annihilation Barge can't, in spite of them being the same model.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The friendly models clause is dumb. If your flank is covered by a friendly tank you should 100% be able to spend a bit more time shooting at a distant target.

If you you seriously think that parking a rhino in front of a friendly unit should magically improve their ability to snipe a character, then clearly we fundamentally disagree on game design philosophy.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I favour the idea of "Characters may only be targeted if they are the closest visible unit or are not within 3" of a friendly unit of the same type."

Stops characters dancing in the open but being untargetable because of a unit which is closer, but in a completely different direction!

Logically how does this make any sense, are they dodging and weaving and using the other unit as human shields? IRL it is often dangerous to be the guy carrying a different weapon or wearing a different rank badge because the enemy, not just snipers, will aim for you first.

Actually, it's because in the chaos of battle,picking out a guy stood in/near a group of other guys is going to be more difficult than a guy stood on his own. We have to remember that the guys in the field do not have the omnipotent knowledge of who is where and who is important that we, the players do.

In previous editions, snipers picked out a model of their choosing from the units they shot at, so yes, the heavy weapons and squad leaders were at risk.

3" is simply to represent the fact that the rank & file will not be able to distinguish him from the guys around him, so cannot target him specifically. Snipers, of course, still could. In reality, I don't think that a unit would struggle to pick out a chaos sorceror, stood in the middle of an otherwise empty field, just because he is slightly further away than the unit of cultists in the opposite direction. why wouldn't they shoot him?

And that's the thing represented here - why would/wouldn't the unit shoot them? snipers would, because it's their job, they are trained to pick out important characters. Guardsmen would, if the guy is stood there on his own. But they wouldn't specifically target him if he's with a whole bunch of other guys. But they might if he's next to a tank - it's easy to tell him apart!

 vipoid wrote:
Shooting into a mass of infantry is not the same as sniping a single character.

Do you understand how accurate MGs can be in the hands of a skilled user?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Presumably a Daemon Prince hiding behind guardsman-sized models makes perfect sense to you, though. Or the fact that a Catacomb Command Barge can hide behind Necron Warriors but an Annihilation Barge can't, in spite of them being the same model.

Those are also odd, but that doesn't mean your suggestion isn't also a poor fix.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If you you seriously think that parking a rhino in front of a friendly unit should magically improve their ability to snipe a character, then clearly we fundamentally disagree on game design philosophy.

Having a slab of armor, a building's wall, a hill between you and the enemy should all act the same. Why is it that a think wooden wall acts differently than a tank in your system?

 some bloke wrote:
Actually, it's because in the chaos of battle,picking out a guy stood in/near a group of other guys is going to be more difficult than a guy stood on his own. We have to remember that the guys in the field do not have the omnipotent knowledge of who is where and who is important that we, the players do.

So why hasn't that been the experience of special weapons users and squad leaders in the field IRL?

3" is simply to represent the fact that the rank & file will not be able to distinguish him from the guys around him, so cannot target him specifically. Snipers, of course, still could. In reality, I don't think that a unit would struggle to pick out a chaos sorceror, stood in the middle of an otherwise empty field, just because he is slightly further away than the unit of cultists in the opposite direction. why wouldn't they shoot him?[/quoite]
I haven't commented on the current state of the rules in this thread, stay on topic.

And that's the thing represented here - why would/wouldn't the unit shoot them? snipers would, because it's their job, they are trained to pick out important characters. Guardsmen would, if the guy is stood there on his own. But they wouldn't specifically target him if he's with a whole bunch of other guys. But they might if he's next to a tank - it's easy to tell him apart!

This doesn't fit real-world data. Especially given how distinctive the models for characters tend to be in 40k.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Shooting into a mass of infantry is not the same as sniping a single character.

Do you understand how accurate MGs can be in the hands of a skilled user?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Presumably a Daemon Prince hiding behind guardsman-sized models makes perfect sense to you, though. Or the fact that a Catacomb Command Barge can hide behind Necron Warriors but an Annihilation Barge can't, in spite of them being the same model.

Those are also odd, but that doesn't mean your suggestion isn't also a poor fix.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If you you seriously think that parking a rhino in front of a friendly unit should magically improve their ability to snipe a character, then clearly we fundamentally disagree on game design philosophy.

Having a slab of armor, a building's wall, a hill between you and the enemy should all act the same. Why is it that a think wooden wall acts differently than a tank in your system?

 some bloke wrote:
Actually, it's because in the chaos of battle,picking out a guy stood in/near a group of other guys is going to be more difficult than a guy stood on his own. We have to remember that the guys in the field do not have the omnipotent knowledge of who is where and who is important that we, the players do.

So why hasn't that been the experience of special weapons users and squad leaders in the field IRL?

3" is simply to represent the fact that the rank & file will not be able to distinguish him from the guys around him, so cannot target him specifically. Snipers, of course, still could. In reality, I don't think that a unit would struggle to pick out a chaos sorceror, stood in the middle of an otherwise empty field, just because he is slightly further away than the unit of cultists in the opposite direction. why wouldn't they shoot him?[/quoite]
I haven't commented on the current state of the rules in this thread, stay on topic.

And that's the thing represented here - why would/wouldn't the unit shoot them? snipers would, because it's their job, they are trained to pick out important characters. Guardsmen would, if the guy is stood there on his own. But they wouldn't specifically target him if he's with a whole bunch of other guys. But they might if he's next to a tank - it's easy to tell him apart!

This doesn't fit real-world data. Especially given how distinctive the models for characters tend to be in 40k.

I appreciate that characters are more flashy than their peers in 40k, but they also aren't all stood still, posing, as they are on the tabletop. And yes, you are more likely to hit someone other than the character if they are stood in a crowd than if they are stood on their own - especially if that crowd is shooting back, ducking into cover, wreathed in smoke and hellfire, and otherwise doing more than posing dramatically. Plus, you have to know to shoot at him in the first place - a guardsman will see a chaos champion and a chaos marine as fairly equal levels of gak-your-pants, and won't be too picky about which one he shoots at.

I think you are getting too caught up in the comparison to real life. yes, a person can pick their targets, but that level of detail would bog down a tabletop wargame a bit too much. The fundamentals of it is that if anyone could shoot a character, then all the characters die turn 1, and that's a crap game design. However, making characters untargetable when they are stood alone, unsupported, is also crap game design. Some decisions should have consequences, and leaving your character stood in the open is one of them.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Do you understand how accurate MGs can be in the hands of a skilled user?

Feel free to post an video of a skilled user sniping with a Spandau. I'll wait.

More seriously, if they're as accurate as you claim then why even bother with hit rolls? Surely Heavy weapons should just auto-hit? Because if they have zero issues sniping a single man on the other side of the battlefield, almost completely obscured by other men, then missing is clearly something that happens to other people.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Those are also odd, but that doesn't mean your suggestion isn't also a poor fix.

Would you care to suggest any fixes or alternatives?

Merely saying "nope", "fail", "poor" etc., whilst not actually suggesting how the problem could be fixed is not especially helpful.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Having a slab of armor, a building's wall, a hill between you and the enemy should all act the same. Why is it that a think wooden wall acts differently than a tank in your system?

The difference is that one of those things is fully under the control of the owner of the firing model.

I get what you're saying but as I said I simply don't think a player should be able to improve the sniping ability of a friendly model by blocking their sight with a Rhino.

 some bloke wrote:
I appreciate that characters are more flashy than their peers in 40k, but they also aren't all stood still, posing, as they are on the tabletop. And yes, you are more likely to hit someone other than the character if they are stood in a crowd than if they are stood on their own - especially if that crowd is shooting back, ducking into cover, wreathed in smoke and hellfire, and otherwise doing more than posing dramatically. Plus, you have to know to shoot at him in the first place - a guardsman will see a chaos champion and a chaos marine as fairly equal levels of gak-your-pants, and won't be too picky about which one he shoots at.

A guardsman wouldn't but how about a Space Marine or Custode?

I think you are getting too caught up in the comparison to real life. yes, a person can pick their targets, but that level of detail would bog down a tabletop wargame a bit too much. The fundamentals of it is that if anyone could shoot a character, then all the characters die turn 1, and that's a crap game design. However, making characters untargetable when they are stood alone, unsupported, is also crap game design. Some decisions should have consequences, and leaving your character stood in the open is one of them.

If anybody can shoot a character you need to hide those characters or the game needs to evolve to where special characters function like Stratagems while also giving army-wide buffs within a narrow range. So Calgar's model stays at home but you instead buy him as an army wide upgrade.

 vipoid wrote:
Feel free to post an video of a skilled user sniping with a Spandau. I'll wait.

More seriously, if they're as accurate as you claim then why even bother with hit rolls? Surely Heavy weapons should just auto-hit? Because if they have zero issues sniping a single man on the other side of the battlefield, almost completely obscured by other men, then missing is clearly something that happens to other people.

Modern weapons are accurate to the point where misses are down to human error at typical combat ranges. Look up the change in MOA accuracy from WWII to the present day and get back to me.

Would you care to suggest any fixes or alternatives?

Merely saying "nope", "fail", "poor" etc., whilst not actually suggesting how the problem could be fixed is not especially helpful.

My fix would be to go back to rolling leadership tests to target units that aren't the closest too the firing unit. I'd then toss in an exception for shooting at models with more than 10 wounds, fliers, etc. It's simple, fixes most issues, and makes leadership a stat worth caring about again.

The difference is that one of those things is fully under the control of the owner of the firing model.

I get what you're saying but as I said I simply don't think a player should be able to improve the sniping ability of a friendly model by blocking their sight with a Rhino.

Why shouldn't they have the ability to make a tactically sound play?

So, I've advocated a similar rule based on a Size Characteristic, which somewhat maps to Toughness, but not entirely.

Your rule kinda screws Daemons (who's Heralds enjoy +1 Toughness-or at least, Nurgle ones do) by making their ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL characters freely targetable.

I like the general idea, but it needs refinement.

A while back, someone suggested removing the restriction on being closest to the enemy and instead just require the character be within 3” of a friendly unit. It’s easier to determine, prevents solo characters from being safe and lets you do a cool “lead from the front” charge.

I wouldn’t worry about keywords or unit types yet, since that can lead to unintended interactions.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Why shouldn't they have the ability to make a tactically sound play?

Because, much like tri-pointing, what you consider 'tactical' others consider 'gamey'.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I've advocated a similar rule based on a Size Characteristic, which somewhat maps to Toughness, but not entirely.

Your rule kinda screws Daemons (who's Heralds enjoy +1 Toughness-or at least, Nurgle ones do) by making their ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL characters freely targetable.

Okay, that's a good point.

Do you think it would be better to tie it to keywords (Infantry, Biker, Monster etc.)?

I think it's better to tie it to a Size Stat.

Because it's a little silly for a Grot (Infantry) to block for a Warboss (Infantry), if we're getting granular, which is what you seem to be trying to do.

Plus, there's the odd keywords, like Cavalry, Battlesuit, Swarm... (Though there is not, to my knowledge, any Swarm Characters.)

 vipoid wrote:
Because, much like tri-pointing, what you consider 'tactical' others consider 'gamey'.

Soldiers have used tanks as cover since the first tank hit the battlefield. Modern tanks literally have external phones on them so the infantry can talk to the crew and coordinate. Were you aware of this before calling such tactics gamey?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Because, much like tri-pointing, what you consider 'tactical' others consider 'gamey'.

Soldiers have used tanks as cover since the first tank hit the battlefield. Modern tanks literally have external phones on them so the infantry can talk to the crew and coordinate. Were you aware of this before calling such tactics gamey?

Communicating with the crew of a tank=/=using the tank to block LoS to AIM BETTER.

Using tanks as cover? Makes perfect sense.
Using a tank to shoot a guy who you couldn't normally shoot? Makes pretty much no fluff sense.

There are two factors at play.

Size and character status.

I don't see a problem with saying:

You can't target a character with the same unit type key word as the next closest enemy unit within X".

ie, vehicle character, can't be targeted if another vehicle is within X" Monster character and monster etc etc.

This wold then just require each character to get a keyworld that their units also have.

Ghaz might have 'mega armour', which means any other non character unit with mega-armour must be targeted first if within X".

Or he could count as a Dredd, in which case dredds become his shield.

You drop the wound count entirely and just use Character and keyworld combos

 JNAProductions wrote:
Using tanks as cover? Makes perfect sense.
Using a tank to shoot a guy who you couldn't normally shoot? Makes pretty much no fluff sense.

Does cover give you time to aim better? I think we can agree that it does.
Does a tank provide cover? I think we can agree that it does.
If both A and B are true, then why are you suggesting that combining them should invalidate the truth of one part or the other?

-----

My suggestion, because people have asked:

Let characters join squads again, the closest models take wounds first, bring back template weapons, bring back armor facings and the vehicle damage chart. Models make Ld tets to shoot at units that aren't closest to them unless the target has more than 10 wounds, or is a monster, vehicle, or lord of war.

Vehicles get increased hull points to make up for the new weapon damage system. Glancing blows deal half damage. Your roll on the damage chart is modified by how much damage you just dealt to the vehicle.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Using tanks as cover? Makes perfect sense.
Using a tank to shoot a guy who you couldn't normally shoot? Makes pretty much no fluff sense.

Does cover give you time to aim better? I think we can agree that it does.
Does a tank provide cover? I think we can agree that it does.
If both A and B are true, then why are you suggesting that combining them should invalidate the truth of one part or the other?

Does cover give you time to aim better? If it's a bunker designed to allow maximum visibility to you while minimizing enemy retaliation, sure! If it's a tank that's currently moving (even if only a little bit) to get the best aim itself and isn't designed specifically to give you cover, you're merely using it because it's a big, solid, and relatively friendly object, though... Not so much.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does cover give you time to aim better? If it's a bunker designed to allow maximum visibility to you while minimizing enemy retaliation, sure! If it's a tank that's currently moving (even if only a little bit) to get the best aim itself and isn't designed specifically to give you cover, you're merely using it because it's a big, solid, and relatively friendly object, though... Not so much.

Then why do infantrymen like using tanks as cover so much then? Why do tanks have phones on them if they're basically just a 'big, solid, and relatively friendly object' randomly rolling about the battlefield?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Does cover give you time to aim better? If it's a bunker designed to allow maximum visibility to you while minimizing enemy retaliation, sure! If it's a tank that's currently moving (even if only a little bit) to get the best aim itself and isn't designed specifically to give you cover, you're merely using it because it's a big, solid, and relatively friendly object, though... Not so much.

Then why do infantrymen like using tanks as cover so much then? Why do tanks have phones on them if they're basically just a 'big, solid, and relatively friendly object' randomly rolling about the battlefield?

Because a tank has better armor than a random building or tree?
Because the tank is moving in a similar direction as them, meaning they can keep cover on the move?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because a tank has better armor than a random building or tree?
Because the tank is moving in a similar direction as them, meaning they can keep cover on the move?

Or because the infantry is working with the tank as part of a mixed unit patrol, which is now SOP for urban combat. You do know about how the military works IRL, right?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because a tank has better armor than a random building or tree?
Because the tank is moving in a similar direction as them, meaning they can keep cover on the move?

Or because the infantry is working with the tank as part of a mixed unit patrol, which is now SOP for urban combat. You do know about how the military works IRL, right?

No, I don't. I respect those who work as part of the military, but I'm not part of it.

But if you're gonna start crying about realism... Perhaps play Bolt Action? I've heard good things about it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, I don't. I respect those who work as part of the military, but I'm not part of it.

But if you're gonna start crying about realism... Perhaps play Bolt Action? I've heard good things about it.

I suggested that this shouldn't be an exception to the rule, got told it was gamey, explained why it isn't and this is your response? You call my suggestions unhelpful and obtuse and pull this yourself...

Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, I don't. I respect those who work as part of the military, but I'm not part of it.

But if you're gonna start crying about realism... Perhaps play Bolt Action? I've heard good things about it.

I suggested that this shouldn't be an exception to the rule, got told it was gamey, explained why it isn't and this is your response? You call my suggestions unhelpful and obtuse and pull this yourself...

Respectfully, Canadian, you've been using a lot of, "in the real world millitary, it works like this," statements to support your stance. I think many of us just find this kind of a lackluster argument in the context of 40k where a common and surprisingly-effective tactic is to charge the enemy gunline with chainsaws on sticks. It's not uncommon for people to bring up realism in this forum, and a certain amount of realism is important for maintaining immersion. In this particular case, I believe your discussion stemmed form this...

Canadian 5th wrote:

- If a non-Vehicle, non-Monster character is not the closest model to the firing unit, they get -1 to hit. Other characters are ignored for the purposes of this rule, unless they are also Vehicles or Monsters. Units that are out of LoS of the firing unit may also be ignored, unless LoS to those units is blocked solely by friendly models. [If you're wondering about the latter part, it's to prevent Rhino-sniping.]

The friendly models clause is dumb. If your flank is covered by a friendly tank you should 100% be able to spend a bit more time shooting at a distant target.

Wyldhunt wrote:
]As the quote shows, the intention here is to prevent "rhino-sniping" aka "tunnel vision rhinos." If you're not familiar with those terms, the idea there is that you physically block your own unit's line of sight so that they can only see the character the unit they want to "snipe", thus eliminating the fog of war effect and character protection the normal rules are meant to create.

Yes, and I think this is a good thing. It makes positioning important and gives people a reason to bring rhinos again.

It might be realistic for infantry to use tanks as cover, but surely yelling, "Hey Bob! Frank! Roll your tanks forward so that there's a tiny gap between you so that I can shoot better at that one little ant on the horizon," isn't so realistic.

The call would go more like, "Hey, Dominguez get your #@$%& *&%$# slab-sided ass up here and get us some cover. I've got a priority target up ahead and would rather not get shot today."

So allowing tunnel vision rhinos isn't really a net gain for realism

How is my above counterpoint unrealistic?

and it's probably a net loss for gameplay as it creates a probably-unintended vulnerability in character units that would render many characters less viable as options. Plus, your opponent probably wouldn't have a lot of fun watching your devastators snipe his warlord just because your rhinos pushed their butts together.

You mean we could go back to the days of 3.5 where you didn't see named characters on every table? That would be amazing!

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
]As the quote shows, the intention here is to prevent "rhino-sniping" aka "tunnel vision rhinos." If you're not familiar with those terms, the idea there is that you physically block your own unit's line of sight so that they can only see the character the unit they want to "snipe", thus eliminating the fog of war effect and character protection the normal rules are meant to create.

Yes, and I think this is a good thing. It makes positioning important and gives people a reason to bring rhinos again.

It might be realistic for infantry to use tanks as cover, but surely yelling, "Hey Bob! Frank! Roll your tanks forward so that there's a tiny gap between you so that I can shoot better at that one little ant on the horizon," isn't so realistic.

The call would go more like, "Hey, Dominguez get your #@$%& *&%$# slab-sided ass up here and get us some cover. I've got a priority target up ahead and would rather not get shot today."

So allowing tunnel vision rhinos isn't really a net gain for realism

How is my above counterpoint unrealistic?

It's one thing for a rhino to block the enemy on your 3 so you can focus on shooting the enemy on your twelve. it's another when the character on your 12 is standing in the middle of a screening unit, and you're suddenly able to shoot him because your tanks did a millimiter-precise synchronized dance routine blind you to the screening models. I see where you're coming from, but do you really feel that using tanks to play peekaboo with one face in a crowd thus suddenly lifting the fog of war is "realistic?" Surely we can agree there's something at least as weird and gamey about that as there is to the current character targeting rules, right?

and it's probably a net loss for gameplay as it creates a probably-unintended vulnerability in character units that would render many characters less viable as options. Plus, your opponent probably wouldn't have a lot of fun watching your devastators snipe his warlord just because your rhinos pushed their butts together.

You mean we could go back to the days of 3.5 where you didn't see named characters on every table? That would be amazing!

I'll defend named characters until I'm blue in the face, but I feel like you're setting up a false premise here. Tunnel vision rhinos won't necessarily reduce the number of special characters people take. What it would do is make the battlefield toxic for characters that depend on screening to live. So people will stick to taking the cheapest characters, the characters that can somehow survive tunnel vision rhinos, and characters that don't benefit from screening. So you'll see even more of Pask, but you'll discourage people (even more) from taking something inoffensive like a commissar. Lias Issodon might remain viable thanks to his deepstrike bomb antics, but the humble librarian will become a liability.