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.

Cities of death looks good, for all that the cover rule still sticks in my craw. The grenade buff is cool.

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

I too loath true line of sight.

Weird in the first Q&A pete mentioned they'd like to bring supplements like CoD back again in the future... did hesitate a bit i guess he knew it was baked into the new edition.

That grenade rule is fun, and also makes it so that there is upsides and downsides to camping the cover in Cities of Death, which I really like. Means that Imperial vehicles with Frag Assault Launchers and the like will become death dealers!

 Latro_ wrote:
Weird in the first Q&A pete mentioned they'd like to bring supplements like CoD back again in the future... did hesitate a bit i guess he knew it was baked into the new edition.

So I guess we'll see a Planetstrike article soon too

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Really? I have the exact oppesit experience.
Whats the alternative?

It's also worthy to note -

June 12th to 16th: Part of Exhibition Closed

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2017/03/15/june-exhibition-area-closed/

& also May 28th is GWs fiscal/financial years end...

We'll probably hear a preorder & release date by May 28th...

 Charles Rampant wrote:
That grenade rule is fun, and also makes it so that there is upsides and downsides to camping the cover in Cities of Death, which I really like. Means that Imperial vehicles with Frag Assault Launchers and the like will become death dealers!

Well, Land Raider Redeemers were, fluffwise, made for just this scenario, and if the terrain permits them, they'll rule on CoD like they are designed to.

Wonder if techmarines still improve cover? If so, marines in cover could become very annoying to remove from cover.

I really like that they are including these rules in the core rulebook. It'll make these types of games much more common.

I rather like that the core rules have built in optional enhancements built in. By not cramming them into the core rules it keeps the main game simplified, but by having them there players aren't being forced to shell out extra money for what was usually a page or so of extra stuff to take into consideration.

Extra generic strategems for the game types are also a nice way to give more tactical options to the players while also making the players manage their resources (namely their CP) well.

With most players having urban terrain and the balancing that Cities of Death gives armies by limiting the range of shooting and adding in more cover for assault based units, it becomes a wonderful game type for pretty much everyone, and with it in the core rules I see hope for it being a common way to play.

That said, I was hoping for the Drop Pod article today since they said it would be getting it's own article.

Other than specifics, can anyone else thing of any general stuff we're missing to understand 8th?

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.

How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?

Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?

And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.

So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?

gungo wrote:
So a 3+ power armour unit in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?

I would guess it was the first option but I might be wrong.

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Really? I read the opposite - some units (presumable all infantry at least) get a benefit from just being in ruins at all, and others like vehicles need to be obscured. Sounds like it's about getting rid of the majority of TLOS checking to me. I'm basing that assumption off this quote from today's article:

Infantry are the big winners here. They alone have the flexibility and dexterity to move easily between levels of a building, over ruined walls, through doors, hatches and windows, as well as taking advantage of holes blasted in the ruins themselves. They are also the only units that benefit from cover naturally, just for being in a ruin. Other units (monsters, vehicles etc…) will need to actually be obscured to gain any bonus.

If true, it speeds things up a lot and should eliminate most rules arguments.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I rather like that the core rules have built in optional enhancements built in. By not cramming them into the core rules it keeps the main game simplified, but by having them there players aren't being forced to shell out extra money for what was usually a page or so of extra stuff to take into consideration.

Fully agreed.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.

How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?

Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?

And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.

Infantry automatically benefit from cover. Keyword Infantry.
Monsters and Vehicles are different, and yes, if you convert something that looks to add advantages or disadvantages to a model when it comes to cover that needs to be discussed with your opponent prior to the start of the game. This isn't rocket science, people.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.

How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?

Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?

And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.

Yes. It looks cool but if you want an extra tall Dreadnought and all the bonuses that come with it, such as enhanced LOS for one, you pay the penalty. If you don't want to take that risk, don't convert. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Oldschool Marines: The game assumes you are using the most recent models. That's no different to a card game like MTG or YGO assuming you have the latest print of a card, the latest Errata, assuming you have the latest patch for a video game. TLOS is a very simple system, can you see or can you not see? The issue lies when you introduce issues such as these, like "my model is this tall but can it be this tall instead?" Old models and conversions go outside what the rules are built for as there are infinite possible conversions and situations, so it uses the latest issue of models as it assumes that's what all players will be using. If it tried to take into account Old Marines and Old Nids and this and that it would become a 5 volume tome of "What To Do If Your Opponent has converted 1991 issue Space Marines by adding a 3mm cork disc to their base and they are posed with an arm in the air and they are hiding behind a 2006 version Chimera."

For those situations:

If the Dread is extra tall, and you can see it, you can shoot it.
If the Marine is short enough to hide and you can't see it, you can't see it.

There's no debate. If you feel an opponent is modelling for advantage, call a TO, but if you're playing in a matched setting you should be bringing standard models.

gungo wrote:
So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?

I'd assumemit'd follow the old WHFB mechanics: it can increase it beyond a 2+ save for purposes of determining how modifiers take away from your armour save, but you still fail on a roll of a 1. So given the rit buffs you might effectively be a -2+ to save and require a -5 to get back to a regular 3+ but still fail on a roll of a 1 effectively making you act as if it where a 2+ mechanically.

gungo wrote:
So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?

In 2nd edition, you used to take all pluses and minus then 2+ was a maximum armor. So,

Shooting a Marine with a lascannon in hard cover was (3+) - 2 cover = 1+ then -3 rending = 4+ save vs the lascannon.

If you shot that same marine with a bolter.... (3+) - 2 cover = 1+ then - 0 rending = 1+ save always fails on a 1.

 Deadshot wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

It can look simple, yes, but it won't be.

How do conversions figure into this? Imagine you want to convert an extra tall Dreadnought? Are you going to get penalized by it?

Additionally, Imagine that you have a wall that is just high enough to cover an old school RT Marine but not high enough to cover one of the more recent marines - how does that work?

And those are just the simpler questions - I won't even delve into some of the discussions I've seen over TLS.

Yes. It looks cool but if you want an extra tall Dreadnought and all the bonuses that come with it, such as enhanced LOS for one, you pay the penalty. If you don't want to take that risk, don't convert. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Oldschool Marines: The game assumes you are using the most recent models. That's no different to a card game like MTG or YGO assuming you have the latest print of a card, the latest Errata, assuming you have the latest patch for a video game. TLOS is a very simple system, can you see or can you not see? The issue lies when you introduce issues such as these, like "my model is this tall but can it be this tall instead?" Old models and conversions go outside what the rules are built for as there are infinite possible conversions and situations, so it uses the latest issue of models as it assumes that's what all players will be using. If it tried to take into account Old Marines and Old Nids and this and that it would become a 5 volume tome of "What To Do If Your Opponent has converted 1991 issue Space Marines by adding a 3mm cork disc to their base and they are posed with an arm in the air and they are hiding behind a 2006 version Chimera."

For those situations:

If the Dread is extra tall, and you can see it, you can shoot it.
If the Marine is short enough to hide and you can't see it, you can't see it.

There's no debate. If you feel an opponent is modelling for advantage, call a TO, but if you're playing in a matched setting you should be bringing standard models.

I know all that and I am not disputing that.

The problem here is that you're calling a TO for something that is supposed to be simple - you are complicating things: the very opposite of simplicity as I am sure you knowe. Meanwhile in an abstract line of sight system you wouldn't even need to call a TO because that would be covered.

Do note: I am not defending or attacking TLS or Abstract LoS systems - I can see the pros and cons of each. I simply don't believe TLS is that simple.

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

Of course it's simple, but that's not what I said: I said it causes a tremendous amount of arguments. The biggest is if something counts as obscuring, but I've also seen near-unresolvable standoffs over how many models in a unit can be seen through small cracks, especially when terrain keeps you from putting your head close enough to where the model is.

Effects of being in area terrain or drawing a line through terrain to resolve cover effects is a lot cleaner for that kind of thing.

Vorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The discussion about the new rule set is a bit a waste of time, since GW have given us only part of the rules. They opened the door a bit and let us have a glance into a shiny new room they say. I'm cautious since the OP and underwhelming units/models, gaps and loop holes of the rule set are glooming everywhere.

I think the way in which people are so eager to declare things OP or underwhelming when they haven't got anywhere near to the majority of the picture kind of tells you that they are the kind of people that wouldn't be happy with a game handcrafted by God himself.

Indeed. If DakkaDakka had been around when the Lord said "Let there be light", half the forum would have complained about how their darkness army was now invalid.

gungo wrote:So a 3+ power armour unit not moving in ruins gets +2 to armour does this completely negate -2 rending? Or does the armour cap at 2+ save and get rended to 4+ save?

If it works like AoS, there is no actual cap on the save (I can get my Fatemaster up to an effective -1+ (yes. negative 1 or better save) against non-flying models), but a "1" always fails. I'd expect that to be the case here.

 kestral wrote:
Disembarking before the transport moves is a solid choice - it was that way back a few editions and I think it worked. Disembarking into close combat.... ....how exactly is that going to work with model placement? We can assume that everything open topped now, but still.

You have room to disembar, disembark away? But where has it been said you can disembark into close combat?

Loved the cities of death article. Being big fan of city fight games this is fun. Maybe best article for me so far!

What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:



This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?

From today's article:
"They (Infantry) are also the only units that benefit from cover naturally, just for being in a ruin. Other units (monsters, vehicles etc…) will need to actually be obscured to gain any bonus."

I added (Infantry) for context.
This is black and white, infantry models are golden for cover save benefits regardless of how many models in the unit are "obscured".

 Deadshot wrote:

changemod wrote:
Sounds like true line of sight is only getting stronger. Shame, I can't think of anything that causes more arguments on the tabletop.

Its a simple enough system. Can the model see the unit? If not sure, then no. If yes then shoot. You either see the unit or you don't see the unit. If you can sorta see, then you can see.

Problem with the TLOS is that it and miniature models don't really work that well...To have for example forest that would actually be blocking LOS(have you ever tried fighting in forest? Paintball etc. That is one TOUGH place to track LOS far!) trees need to be so clumped up that end result is you have trouble putting models!

Same with ruins. Terrain is abstracted generally for sake of playability. Abstracted terrain+non-abstract rules=bad combination.

 kestral wrote:
Disembarking before the transport moves is a solid choice - it was that way back a few editions and I think it worked.

Yep. In 5th edition, if you got out of the rhino before it moved, you could assault.

 kestral wrote:
Disembarking into close combat.... ....how exactly is that going to work with model placement? We can assume that everything open topped now, but still.

Yeah, that sounds wonky. I definitely want to read those rules.

Youn wrote:
What if your opponent is modeling marines as follows:

Spoiler:

This is a well modeled marine but seriously gives the marine player an advantage in a city game. They could have a equal set of marines for when they are moving, is replacing the model based on movement even a legal thing?

Gonna be honest. If someone goes through the effort of modelling his army twice over to represent moving/going to cover (well done at least)? I'll work with that and play him.