Switch Theme:

Line of Sight is Still Poorly Implemented in 9th Edition  [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 ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Although loads better than it was in 8th (which imo was almost unplayable), LoS still needs work.

Drawing LoS from any point to any point is not good game design. It is time that GW decide upon base sizes and use them as the base of "vertical cylinders" that are used to determine LoS between models.

I am also seeing a lot of confusion of rules regarding the difference between dense terrain and obscuring terrain. Many people are in for some nasty surprises when they realize that while dense terrain is more generous in its granting of the cover bonus by using the base as the point of measurement, many models will have lavishly posed sticking out bits that will mean their model is actually not obscured and is about to eat a lot of wounds during the shooting phase, even though 90% of the model (including all of its "essential organs") is out of LoS.

Please correct me if I am wrong here (somewhat hoping I am, to be honest).

Also, people who play space marines aren't allowed to lecture other players about "modelling for advantage".

Happy Saturday everyone!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/18 13:16:05


 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, you are 100% right. These is this strange difference between how you define the LoS for one and for the other. I was actually hoping that my harpie would finally be able to hide herself, but it seems like a -1 to hit is the best she will get.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Florida

One way I found to be helpful is to discuss what you are doing with your opponent while positioning models. It's not 100% a solution, but does help eliminate those unexpected discussions regarding LOS during a shooting phase.

I do like the cylinder concept, but it's just not something we have for 40K.

No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sarigar wrote:
One way I found to be helpful is to discuss what you are doing with your opponent while positioning models. It's not 100% a solution, but does help eliminate those unexpected discussions regarding LOS during a shooting phase.

I do like the cylinder concept, but it's just not something we have for 40K.


Communication for the win.

I'm not sure how cylinders would work with stuff like Eldar grav tanks. If the cylinder goes to the top (ignoring antennas) there's a huge void of emptiness for the "hit box" near the front meaning you could not see the model at all and still shoot it. Or am I too obtuse to understand this concept?

   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yeah, I haven't had any issues with this. While I play, if I'm intending for a unit to be out of line of sight, I very clearly call it out and explain my reasoning. It was the same in 8th too - if there was a tiny bit of my model hanging past something that looked to me to be totally line of sight blocking, my opponent would call it out "no, I don't think so, because I can see a bit of your wing through these two windows here".

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Also, people who play space marines aren't allowed to lecture other players about "modelling for advantage".

I'm just wondering what the gesesis of this statement is.

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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Moving away from TLOS for the vertical distance obscuring is good, but now we're in this bizarre place where you use TLOS for some stuff, you use "any point on the base to all points on the base" for other stuff, and then you use "all points on the base to all points on the base" for yet other stuff, and then you use TLOS for other stuff. You even have situations like obscuring where you use TLOS for horizontal distance but not TLOS for the vertical, on the same LOS check.

It's frankly a bit of a hot mess. They should have been brave enough to just ditch TLOS entirely and move to base-to-base. It would require either putting tanks on bases (the better solution) or defining what part of a tank is the hull, but either way, it'd be better than what we have now.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
Moving away from TLOS for the vertical distance obscuring is good, but now we're in this bizarre place where you use TLOS for some stuff, you use "any point on the base to all points on the base" for other stuff, and then you use "all points on the base to all points on the base" for yet other stuff, and then you use TLOS for other stuff. You even have situations like obscuring where you use TLOS for horizontal distance but not TLOS for the vertical, on the same LOS check.

It's frankly a bit of a hot mess. They should have been brave enough to just ditch TLOS entirely and move to base-to-base. It would require either putting tanks on bases (the better solution) or defining what part of a tank is the hull, but either way, it'd be better than what we have now.


I think you're over complicating it. An obscured building blocks a vertical space not unlike a fully opaque wall. If you step to the side of that wall you can be shot.

Drawing lines to every point with regards to dense allows targeting models to apply the correct modifier based on their position, because Dense *is* a loose visual blocking style of terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/18 16:20:38


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Having "dense" and "obscuring" terrain is unnecessary. Troops occupying terrain that is dense are obscured Duh.

Once upon a time we had "area terrain" to represent woods, ruins, etc. Simply allowing LOS be drawn to/from a unit in area terrain, but not [/i]through[i] area terrain (to a unit on the other side) is clean and effective. Then GW can fix the "everybody has breaching gear and can walk through walls" nonsense.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/18 21:33:18


 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




In my gaming group we still use the old rule of main body of the model counts, no raised arms, no weapons, spikes, antenna or wings. I know, some people on dakka made the experience that that ruling leads to discussions - we never had that problem and simply like it more and so continue to use it.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Yarium wrote:
Yeah, I haven't had any issues with this. While I play, if I'm intending for a unit to be out of line of sight, I very clearly call it out and explain my reasoning. It was the same in 8th too - if there was a tiny bit of my model hanging past something that looked to me to be totally line of sight blocking, my opponent would call it out "no, I don't think so, because I can see a bit of your wing through these two windows here".


Why do it durning your movment phase though? It is better to let you make an error and then shot you through the windows.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






IMO, as long as it relies on true line of sight in any significant capacity it will be poorly implemented. Even with a stipulation that it must be drawn to a model's main 'body' it is a poor substitute for base-to-base or cylinder measurement.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Models are not cylinders, you cannot draw line of sight to a cylinder that isn't there. There is no need for the game to be abstract, maybe spears and banners shouldn't count, but abstraction would make things more difficult to check and harder to hide.
Karol wrote:
 Yarium wrote:
Yeah, I haven't had any issues with this. While I play, if I'm intending for a unit to be out of line of sight, I very clearly call it out and explain my reasoning. It was the same in 8th too - if there was a tiny bit of my model hanging past something that looked to me to be totally line of sight blocking, my opponent would call it out "no, I don't think so, because I can see a bit of your wing through these two windows here".


Why do it durning your movment phase though? It is better to let you make an error and then shot you through the windows.

Because you don't want to be viewed as a bad person in fear of getting kicked out of the tournament/club/house you are playing in or in fear that people will stop coming over to your house playing with you when there's a clear intent from Yarium that he wants his opponent to object while he is doing his movement so the game doesn't devolve into whether Yarium has made a fixable mistake based on a half millimetre of wing being visible. Now that's if you are a bad person, if you were a good person you'd feel bad about pulling this stunt and the reward of getting an advantage in a game of toy soldiers would be outweighed by how bad you'd feel for being a bad person.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/19 06:34:16


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Wicked Ghast




 NinthMusketeer wrote:
IMO, as long as it relies on true line of sight in any significant capacity it will be poorly implemented. Even with a stipulation that it must be drawn to a model's main 'body' it is a poor substitute for base-to-base or cylinder measurement.


Yeah, but in my experience, that tends to make game tables flat and full of 2d printed neoprene material. It doesn't look good and doesn't help much for the visuals for the game, in my opinion. WMH and Crisis Protocol both can be played on completely 2d tables, and those games can be silly to watch because its just models on a printed surface that's all flat. I know I personally don't want that for WH40k, though that's just my opinion.
   
Made in gb
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard







Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.


Umm... yes, depending on the individual's definition of fun, then take backs during a friendly game are entirely acceptable. I have personally always rather like GWs emphasis on story telling as an important part of the game. Not all games need to be hyper competitive.

Also gaming is always and irrevocably "play pretend". That is the entire point. The important bit is that both players are on the same page with respect to the boundaries of that pretend play, hence communication is so important.

Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.


Mindsets like these are the reason I always felt uncomfortable in competitive sports. I never cared much about winning and always saw rules as mere guidelines, but in competitions you meet people who think very differently and strict about these kinds of things.

40K is first and foremost a roleplaying, story-telling event for me. Of course you can do take backs, if you're unsure whether your model is hidden, simply ask, explain your intent and we move on. It's a game after all, something to relax and have fun. When I read Karols posts it often sounds more like a punishment for prisoners or something people would have to pay me money to do it
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Gregor Samsa wrote:Although loads better than it was in 8th (which imo was almost unplayable), LoS still needs work.

Drawing LoS from any point to any point is not good game design. It is time that GW decide upon base sizes and use them as the base of "vertical cylinders" that are used to determine LoS between models.

I am also seeing a lot of confusion of rules regarding the difference between dense terrain and obscuring terrain. Many people are in for some nasty surprises when they realize that while dense terrain is more generous in its granting of the cover bonus by using the base as the point of measurement, many models will have lavishly posed sticking out bits that will mean their model is actually not obscured and is about to eat a lot of wounds during the shooting phase, even though 90% of the model (including all of its "essential organs") is out of LoS.

Please correct me if I am wrong here (somewhat hoping I am, to be honest).

Also, people who play space marines aren't allowed to lecture other players about "modelling for advantage".

Happy Saturday everyone!


You are surprised GW mucked it up?
9th edition is nothing more than refixing all the tings they fixed in 5th edition and then tossed out when they rewrote the game mechanics for 8th...then throw in a healthy dose of cash grab new edition hype. .

Sarigar wrote:One way I found to be helpful is to discuss what you are doing with your opponent while positioning models. It's not 100% a solution, but does help eliminate those unexpected discussions regarding LOS during a shooting phase.

I do like the cylinder concept, but it's just not something we have for 40K.


Yep it is part of friendly game play-your intent is to hide model X from being seen by unit Y? cool i will just consider that terrain blocking LOS unless i move around it etc....



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Why I can't understand is the triple standard.

- Dense cover: Trace a line between the bases
- Obscuring: Trace a line between models
- Shooting: Check if the target is visible

   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Of course, intent matters when gaming with your local crew. However as 9th edition is apparently much more a "tournament edition", it is important to keep in mind how LoS works RAW. As when you roll up to the tournament your list will likely be dramatically different considering the fact your opponent will give you no leeway regarding these unfortunate situations.

This makes practising for tournaments more difficult as you essentially have two metas: the local, friendly meta where you can run the lists you like and enjoy. And the competitive meta, where if you take your favourite winged creature, be prepared for it to eat a ton of wounds because the tip of its tail sticks around a corner.

It would have been much better to bring these two worlds closer together, and the way to do that is by addressing LoS clearly. They went halfway with the "obscuring" trait. Here is hoping it becomes FAQ'd (or am I dreaming?).

And as questioned above: no, I am not surprised GW borked this. However it did catch me by surprise as I had not looked closely at the revealed rules, but did endlessly hear the hype train about how "terrain matters" in 9th. So when I did finally dive into the text, I was surprised by the weird difference in how LoS is drawn in obscuring terrain vs dense. It is still much better than 8th, as a lot of situations the tip of the tail will still be "obscured" because the shooting model LoS does pass over/through the terrain which obscures. But it is not as a well done as the dense terrain cover bonus, which uses base to base. But yes all of these editions are much worse than 5th, however, I am a bitter old vet now and in my mind, 6th and 7th editions did not even exist because of the wretched state GW was in as an organization.

I am a big fan of using the base of models as the "footprint" that extends to the top of their head (or whatever constitutes the hull of the vehicle). I personally think that's the best way to bring some symmetry and evenness to the situation. Models get different base sizes to indicate their battlefield "footprint". Anyway, that is a different topic altogether.

Time to bust out my 2nd edition Hive Tyrants once again. They're about the same size as a warrior these days.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/19 12:30:13


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Florida

Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.


Intent moves the game forward. Myself and my opponent can spend 20 minutes trying to mitigate every angle for a single unit and really make for a boorish game. There are a lot of nuances in the game and the social interaction between the two players.

You also become a better player when you are playing in this fashion. Rather than look for the millimeter mistake in positioning ( I see the tip of the sword of a single model out of 10 models, now they all get shot of the table), the impetus is on you to overcome the obstacle of the unit being out of LOS. If you assume your opponent is playing their army 100% perfectly as intended, you have to be able to play better in order to win.

If everyone is of the same understanding of how they want to play the game, that is far more important. Spending a few minutes having that discussion before the game goes a long way. When one player is having a horrible experience with another player and quits after turn 1, who is the loser? I would state both players lose as they did not get to actually play a game of 40K, which I assume is why they were at the table in the first place.

And I also allow for takebacks. If my opponnent forgot to cast a power and is now in the shooting phase and it hasn't drastically impacted the game, I allow it. There is a lot of nuances to having an enjoyable game of 40K which tends to get lost in translation on forums or social media.


No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

@Gregor
Yes everything was tiny in 2nd ed by comparison just like primaris are huge compared to 3rd-7th marines.



I don't see 6th and 7th as a total loss, 6th had mysterious terrain which i have a lot of fun with(but that's about all it had going for it). also adding in snap fire, overwatch, grenade throwing as well as giving CC weapons AP vales from 7th all work great in 5th edition. not to mention my cult mechanicum finally get to play on the ground instead of just BFG. and since the codex is back compatible with 5th it is a win/win.

Of course horus heresy fixed many of the problems with 7th mostly by removing formations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/19 13:26:18




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.

You are wrong. Search sportsmanship on Wikipedia. Your dog eat dog worldview is not one which most 40k players share. Obscuring the table is not banned either, but it wouldn't be fair if your opponent shut off the electricity in the basement and used his night vision goggles to move his models and then won through timing you out as your fumble your way around the table in the dark. Now you might carry around a phone to light up the basement in case your opponent pulls this masterfully clever tactic, but it wouldn't be fair to win or lose based on whether you remembered to bring night vision gear or a flashlight/phone to a game of 40k.
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Although loads better than it was in 8th (which imo was almost unplayable), LoS still needs work.

Drawing LoS from any point to any point is not good game design. It is time that GW decide upon base sizes and use them as the base of "vertical cylinders" that are used to determine LoS between models.

I am also seeing a lot of confusion of rules regarding the difference between dense terrain and obscuring terrain. Many people are in for some nasty surprises when they realize that while dense terrain is more generous in its granting of the cover bonus by using the base as the point of measurement, many models will have lavishly posed sticking out bits that will mean their model is actually not obscured and is about to eat a lot of wounds during the shooting phase, even though 90% of the model (including all of its "essential organs") is out of LoS.

Please correct me if I am wrong here (somewhat hoping I am, to be honest).

Also, people who play space marines aren't allowed to lecture other players about "modelling for advantage".

Happy Saturday everyone!


A lot of people are excited about the changes, me included. The line is framed any part of the BASE TO BASE. If your base is completely behind obscuring terrain then you cannot be seen, full stop.

This means Maggi and Morti can both be easily hidden, despite thier ridiculous wings sticking out, and thier bodies being 2/3s visible above the terrain.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 vict0988 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.

You are wrong. Search sportsmanship on Wikipedia. Your dog eat dog worldview is not one which most 40k players share. Obscuring the table is not banned either, but it wouldn't be fair if your opponent shut off the electricity in the basement and used his night vision goggles to move his models and then won through timing you out as your fumble your way around the table in the dark. Now you might carry around a phone to light up the basement in case your opponent pulls this masterfully clever tactic, but it wouldn't be fair to win or lose based on whether you remembered to bring night vision gear or a flashlight/phone to a game of 40k.


Oh dear, you used the term "sportsmanship" - Karol now has a license to go off on one about how the wrestling deathmatches that his school attends in lieu of actual sporting events are cutthroat, where breaking a leg is a valid strategy to win, etc, etc.

Can someone protect the dead horse when he responds, please?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Although loads better than it was in 8th (which imo was almost unplayable), LoS still needs work.

Drawing LoS from any point to any point is not good game design. It is time that GW decide upon base sizes and use them as the base of "vertical cylinders" that are used to determine LoS between models.

I am also seeing a lot of confusion of rules regarding the difference between dense terrain and obscuring terrain. Many people are in for some nasty surprises when they realize that while dense terrain is more generous in its granting of the cover bonus by using the base as the point of measurement, many models will have lavishly posed sticking out bits that will mean their model is actually not obscured and is about to eat a lot of wounds during the shooting phase, even though 90% of the model (including all of its "essential organs") is out of LoS.

Please correct me if I am wrong here (somewhat hoping I am, to be honest).

Also, people who play space marines aren't allowed to lecture other players about "modelling for advantage".

Happy Saturday everyone!




A lot of people are excited about the changes, me included. The line is framed any part of the BASE TO BASE. If your base is completely behind obscuring terrain then you cannot be seen, full stop.

This means Maggi and Morti can both be easily hidden, despite thier ridiculous wings sticking out, and thier bodies being 2/3s visible above the terrain.



OK that's sounds really dumb, i get the wings banner poles etc not counting because epic modeling, but if i can see their upper body and head i can see them unless you are using area terrain rules like 3rd ed or DUST otherwise i would say find some large blocking LOS terrain.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/07/19 14:40:56


 
   
Made in de
Hellacious Havoc




Forsaken wastes of Brandenburg

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


A lot of people are excited about the changes, me included. The line is framed any part of the BASE TO BASE. If your base is completely behind obscuring terrain then you cannot be seen, full stop.

This means Maggi and Morti can both be easily hidden, despite thier ridiculous wings sticking out, and thier bodies being 2/3s visible above the terrain.


But that's not right. The base-to-base wording is only for the 'dense' terrain trait, i.e. for applying a -1 to hit mod. 'obscuring', which is the one for hiding models completely, still simply says 'one model is not visible to another if blabla between them'. Obscuring does not mention the word base anywhere.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Spoletta wrote:
Why I can't understand is the triple standard.

- Dense cover: Trace a line between the bases
- Obscuring: Trace a line between models
- Shooting: Check if the target is visible



Same. The inconsistency is annoying. The terrain system feels tacked on by someone else (particularly with non intuitive stuff like dense terrain somehow benefiting chargers).

The fact that dense and obscuring work in opposite ways particularly (one is 'all lines' the other is 'any line,' iirc) so one is very much easier to claim than the other.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





Snugiraffe wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


A lot of people are excited about the changes, me included. The line is framed any part of the BASE TO BASE. If your base is completely behind obscuring terrain then you cannot be seen, full stop.

This means Maggi and Morti can both be easily hidden, despite thier ridiculous wings sticking out, and thier bodies being 2/3s visible above the terrain.


But that's not right. The base-to-base wording is only for the 'dense' terrain trait, i.e. for applying a -1 to hit mod. 'obscuring', which is the one for hiding models completely, still simply says 'one model is not visible to another if blabla between them'. Obscuring does not mention the word base anywhere.


Yeah just reread it. That is annoying as gak, it's going to be confusing as hell, espically with terrain with both obscuring and dense.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Flinty wrote:
Karol wrote:
Bad person? There is no rule that makes you agree or tell your opponent that he is doing an error.

Intent play is for lazy people, the whole idea of any game is that you have to learn how to not make mistakes, and that if you do them you are going to be punished for them. And yes this sometimes means that if you make a millimeter mistake you get punished for it.

There is no good and bad when two people compete. Only winning or losing, and if you want to have more of the first and less of the second, then you have to learn to put work in to what ever you are doing, train yourself to be exact. Otherwise what you do is not gaming, but play pretend. May as well allow take backs next or something similar.


Umm... yes, depending on the individual's definition of fun, then take backs during a friendly game are entirely acceptable. I have personally always rather like GWs emphasis on story telling as an important part of the game. Not all games need to be hyper competitive.

Also gaming is always and irrevocably "play pretend". That is the entire point. The important bit is that both players are on the same page with respect to the boundaries of that pretend play, hence communication is so important.


I don't particularly care for playing by "intent" myself. If you didn't do the thing, you didn't do it, and there are times when people claim they "intended" something merely to gain an advantage after the fact. If you're new to the game, sure, I'll be lenient, but saying "this unit has cover" and then not putting that unit in cover doesn't fly. Better rules avoid this problem.

Expecting people to play by the rules is hardly "hyper competitive. Intent is ambiguous. RAI doesn't work because we can never be sure what GW intended, only the rules written on the page, and people interpret "what they really mean" differently.

What separates miniatures games, RPGs, video games, and so on from playing pretend is their structure. Without which things inevitably devolve into "whatever I say happens, happens" or bad, self-centric improv. Rules make it easier, and facilitate a specific experience and vision. As well as restricting our gameplay to make our choices more meaningful.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: