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.

Just wondering what everyone's opinions are on having units that are hidden so that the enemy can't determine what they are until they have sighted them?

Obviously it would be a custom ruleset, but I'm attempting to write some up and curious if anyone would actually be interested in trying them out at some point and if its something they would like to see done?

Thoughts?

It would require a third person to act as arbitrator to make sure there would be no cheating and that one unit doesn't just jump across the board.

It just wouldn't work. If one unit in the codex had that special rule then you would always know it was that unit. If multiple units had that special rule you would identify the unit as soon as they shoot so all units with the special rule either need the same range weapon or can not shoot. They would also all need the same toughness, saves and wounds or you could identify them as soon as you shoot at them. Finally, you are allowed to see your opponents list and point cost so you could probably identify the unit just from that.

This sounds pretty much like the camo rules from infinity

We tried the "blind transport" rules once. We wrote down what unit was in which transport and stuck that note on each one. When it was time to "reveal", you simply flipped over the paper and deployed that unit.

We didn't care for it, but it was easy enough to do.

Who said anything about it being a unit rule?
You can have a general rule of units in reserves being hidden from sight and the opponent can see what they are, or that units inside trasports are hidden.

You will need some method to ensure fairness, so no player will get tempted to cheat. either a 3rd player to oversee, or writing down everything in orderly manner or multiple notes and reveal them when appropriate.

Some very valid opinions, however sadly I was hoping for a little more enthusiasm!

To clarify as Boomwolf said, it would NOT be a unit specific rule. It would affect all units. To clarify a few points:

-If 1 unit was using it, yes easy to identify. If the whole army is "hidden" it is harder to establish what is where. The army list, will either be hidden, and shown AFTER the game, or only the army list will be shown at the start of the game and after. Not during. (Not 100% on the army list ruling)

-Yes, when a unit shoots it could effectively identify them. True, but if a SM Chaplain sees a load of rokkits coming towards them, I guess its a fair chance they will twig they are tankbusta's anyway! Under my proposed rules, hidden units CAN shoot, but they have to take a test to see if they reveal their identity to the enemy when doing so.

-You can't shoot at hidden units. If you haven't seen them, how can you target them? The exception to this is indirect fire (Ordnance barrage). (Although I may add an extra penalty to the scatter roll)

-Units will be represented on the board by "counters" (similar to Space Hulk). The counter sizes DOES vary for different unit sizes.

- Camo rules from Infinity, I have never played Infinity, only 40k. Can you elaborate on how it works?

-The blind transport rule could indeed be a part of this rule set, although it could be optional. IE: When the transport is revealed you know what unit is already inside. OR there is a counter on the back of the transport which is the embarked unit.

-The idea is, the underside of the counter corresponds with a unit in the army. When the unit is sighted. The counter is flipped and it reveals who it is!

---------------

I have a rough draft of the rule set about 60% complete. (Counter sizes/Deploying/Movement/Shooting/Assault/Visibility Test) I just need to include a few extra bits and refine. Then find someone to play test them with me. Is no-one else interested in trying them out? Would be great for Urban/dense scenery battlefields.

Left to add:

-Unique Special Rules
-Possibly additional leadership traits
-Re-hiding

Couple of custom designed scenarios to complement them possibly.

 Beatonator wrote:
-Yes, when a unit shoots it could effectively identify them. True, but if a SM Chaplain sees a load of rokkits coming towards them, I guess its a fair chance they will twig they are tankbusta's anyway! Under my proposed rules, hidden units CAN shoot, but they have to take a test to see if they reveal their identity to the enemy when doing so.

This is kind of confusing. If a unit is revealed when you can see it (representing things hidden entirely out of LOS in a terrain-heavy game) then how is a unit shooting at something with a non-barrage weapon while still being hidden?

If you can still be "hidden" while an enemy unit has LOS the whole system makes no sense. Just to give the most extreme example it doesn't make any sense that my troops can't figure out the difference between a land raider and a tactical squad, that should be immediately obvious as soon as they get LOS to it. And while it might make sense to have a chance of failing to spot the difference between carbine fire warriors and pathfinders the difference between kroot and fire warriors is immediately obvious just like the tank/infantry difference. So the vast majority of the time a unit should be identified as soon as any enemy unit can draw LOS to it, and the few exceptions will immediately reveal themselves to the player because only a short list of units will ever stay hidden.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Beatonator wrote:
-Yes, when a unit shoots it could effectively identify them. True, but if a SM Chaplain sees a load of rokkits coming towards them, I guess its a fair chance they will twig they are tankbusta's anyway! Under my proposed rules, hidden units CAN shoot, but they have to take a test to see if they reveal their identity to the enemy when doing so.

This is kind of confusing. If a unit is revealed when you can see it (representing things hidden entirely out of LOS in a terrain-heavy game) then how is a unit shooting at something with a non-barrage weapon while still being hidden?

If you can still be "hidden" while an enemy unit has LOS the whole system makes no sense. Just to give the most extreme example it doesn't make any sense that my troops can't figure out the difference between a land raider and a tactical squad, that should be immediately obvious as soon as they get LOS to it. And while it might make sense to have a chance of failing to spot the difference between carbine fire warriors and pathfinders the difference between kroot and fire warriors is immediately obvious just like the tank/infantry difference. So the vast majority of the time a unit should be identified as soon as any enemy unit can draw LOS to it, and the few exceptions will immediately reveal themselves to the player because only a short list of units will ever stay hidden.

I guess "hidden" isn't the right word, basically un-noticed. The plan is... If they are within X range and no cover, they have been spotted. If however they are hidden in cover, they have a better chance of remaining hidden. A unit hiding in ruins can still fire their weapons if they haven't been spotted. I see what your saying about the tanks/larger units, which is worth taking on board and maybe making them auto-pass visibility tests unless at a distance and well obscured.

 Beatonator wrote:
I guess "hidden" isn't the right word, basically un-noticed.

The problem is that on the scale of 40k you just aren't going to have un-noticed units unless they're stealth specialists or 100% out of LOS of everything. The distances are just too short, even an obscured view of a unit in cover is going to tell you that a unit is there and give you a pretty good idea of what it is. And it's almost impossible to have a non-specialist unit remain hidden once it shoots or takes any other kind of action.

True. Are you saying its not worth trying at all though?

Just because it may be difficult to make it "realistic", doesn't mean it couldn't be done, or that it wouldn't be fun.


So far, with the rules I have written out I think it could make for some fun games. At the same time it could be a massive pile of gak, but surely if they have been thought out well it's worth play testing?

You could always use counters to represent POTENTIAL units deployed.
(using some dummy counters.)
And only revealing what unit was actually present when they are , in visual range and target aquired.(Successful roll to hit.)

This way you could use numbers under the counters and write down which units are represented by which numbers .(And use spare ones as dummies. Eg 1 dummy unit for every 4 actual units.)

Just a thought.

 Beatonator wrote:
Some very valid opinions, however sadly I was hoping for a little more enthusiasm!

People here are surprisingly resistant to any attempt to change the game, attributing any such desire to be an obvious case of "hurr durr you got stomped by X so now you want Y"

I'd say keep it simple;

~At the start of the game, nominate any (?) number of infantry units (other types may also work; beasts, jet infantry, but I'm doubtful about bikes/MC/vehicles of any kind) to be "concealed"
~Concealed units are placed on the board as a 'counter', which should just be a standard height model as the counter does need to have a height aspect for true line of sight
~Concealed units will eventually be revealed. When this occurs, place one model on the concealment counter, and every other model as close as possible exactly like a deep strike deployment.
~Concealed units are revealed immediately if; they move more than 6", they run, a non-flier/flying MC gets line of sight on the counter (or anywhere along a counters movement path during a movement phase), if they shoot, or if they assault.
~Concealed units are not revealed if Line of Sight to them passes across a piece of terrain or area terrain, or if they are spotted beyond 24" in night fighting
~Concealed units may only be the target of attacks once they have been revealed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Beatonator wrote:
I guess "hidden" isn't the right word, basically un-noticed.

The problem is that on the scale of 40k you just aren't going to have un-noticed units unless they're stealth specialists or 100% out of LOS of everything. The distances are just too short, even an obscured view of a unit in cover is going to tell you that a unit is there and give you a pretty good idea of what it is. And it's almost impossible to have a non-specialist unit remain hidden once it shoots or takes any other kind of action.

If we were to talk 'realistic' you may see an "Ork" but you wouldn't be able to say "Oh look, one Ork, ergo I know thats a unit of Shoota boys with twenty one models, two big shootas, and a Nob leader with a big choppa, eavy armour, and bosspole"

Counter based stealth would relay this exact level of information to the player without giving the specifics they wouldn't be entitled to in this situation.

Not to mention 40k doesn't give a damn about realistic distances - ie the firing range on all the guns being 10% of what it should be.

 Dakkamite wrote:
~Concealed units are placed on the board as a 'counter', which should just be a standard height model as the counter does need to have a height aspect for true line of sight

This causes major problems. A single model is very easy to hide out of LOS, but a whole unit isn't. So you can have a situation where the counter is "hidden", but the unit would have been in plain sight and easily spotted.

~Concealed units are revealed immediately if; they move more than 6", they run, a non-flier/flying MC gets line of sight on the counter (or anywhere along a counters movement path during a movement phase), if they shoot, or if they assault.

Why shouldn't flyers/FMCs be able to spot them?

~Concealed units are not revealed if Line of Sight to them passes across a piece of terrain or area terrain, or if they are spotted beyond 24" in night fighting

So a unit standing in open terrain behind a low fence is still "hidden", even though anyone looking in their general direction can see exactly what they are?

Also, what you've done is effectively make turn-one shooting have a limit of 24" instead of 36" under night fighting, which is a really bad idea.

If we were to talk 'realistic' you may see an "Ork" but you wouldn't be able to say "Oh look, one Ork, ergo I know thats a unit of Shoota boys with twenty one models, two big shootas, and a Nob leader with a big choppa, eavy armour, and bosspole"

No, you wouldn't know the exact upgrades. But you would know the difference between shoota boyz and lootas. One is a mob of orks with normal rifles that is probably charging at you as fast as possible, the other is a bunch of obvious heavy weapons camped in a good shooting position. To make this work in any kind of realistic way you'd have to make special-case rulings for every set of units about what can and can't be hidden, and that's just going to be a confusing mess that isn't worth the effort.

 Peregrine wrote:


This causes major problems. A single model is very easy to hide out of LOS, but a whole unit isn't. So you can have a situation where the counter is "hidden", but the unit would have been in plain sight and easily spotted.

Actual dudes would be a lot more flexible in hiding than our models represent. I see no issue here.

Why shouldn't flyers/FMCs be able to spot them?

I don't think that an aircraft flying at supersonic speed twenty feet off of the ground would have the ability to identify anything let alone concealed units.

So a unit standing in open terrain behind a low fence is still "hidden", even though anyone looking in their general direction can see exactly what they are?

The flexibility thing. Also I did mention that the counter had to have a height for purposes of TLOS - A low rail fence thats clearly transparent would not block LoS in this case, but a modest fence with the top head and shoulders, or a ruin with a small window etc - thats what would be blocked.

Also, what you've done is effectively make turn-one shooting have a limit of 24" instead of 36" under night fighting, which is a really bad idea.

Just get out and spot it. I see no issue here.

To make this work in any kind of realistic way you'd have to make special-case rulings for every set of units about what can and can't be hidden, and that's just going to be a confusing mess that isn't worth the effort.

No I don't, it's already been covered - its all hidden unless you meet the condition for revealing the unit.

Lanrak wrote:You could always use counters to represent POTENTIAL units deployed.
(using some dummy counters.)
And only revealing what unit was actually present when they are , in visual range and target aquired.(Successful roll to hit.)

This way you could use numbers under the counters and write down which units are represented by which numbers .(And use spare ones as dummies. Eg 1 dummy unit for every 4 actual units.)

Just a thought.

Thats almost exactly what I was planning.

Dakkamite wrote:
People here are surprisingly resistant to any attempt to change the game, attributing any such desire to be an obvious case of "hurr durr you got stomped by X so now you want Y"

I'd say keep it simple;

~At the start of the game, nominate any (?) number of infantry units (other types may also work; beasts, jet infantry, but I'm doubtful about bikes/MC/vehicles of any kind) to be "concealed"
~Concealed units are placed on the board as a 'counter', which should just be a standard height model as the counter does need to have a height aspect for true line of sight
~Concealed units will eventually be revealed. When this occurs, place one model on the concealment counter, and every other model as close as possible exactly like a deep strike deployment.
~Concealed units are revealed immediately if; they move more than 6", they run, a non-flier/flying MC gets line of sight on the counter (or anywhere along a counters movement path during a movement phase), if they shoot, or if they assault.
~Concealed units are not revealed if Line of Sight to them passes across a piece of terrain or area terrain, or if they are spotted beyond 24" in night fighting
~Concealed units may only be the target of attacks once they have been revealed.

This sounds similar to what I was thinking, albeit a little different. You have a raised a few good points though and I will adjust a few of my rules with these in mind, thanks!

Dakkamite wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


This causes major problems. A single model is very easy to hide out of LOS, but a whole unit isn't. So you can have a situation where the counter is "hidden", but the unit would have been in plain sight and easily spotted.

Actual dudes would be a lot more flexible in hiding than our models represent. I see no issue here.

Why shouldn't flyers/FMCs be able to spot them?

I don't think that an aircraft flying at supersonic speed twenty feet off of the ground would have the ability to identify anything let alone concealed units.

So a unit standing in open terrain behind a low fence is still "hidden", even though anyone looking in their general direction can see exactly what they are?

The flexibility thing. Also I did mention that the counter had to have a height for purposes of TLOS - A low rail fence thats clearly transparent would not block LoS in this case, but a modest fence with the top head and shoulders, or a ruin with a small window etc - thats what would be blocked.

Also, what you've done is effectively make turn-one shooting have a limit of 24" instead of 36" under night fighting, which is a really bad idea.

Just get out and spot it. I see no issue here.

To make this work in any kind of realistic way you'd have to make special-case rulings for every set of units about what can and can't be hidden, and that's just going to be a confusing mess that isn't worth the effort.

No I don't, it's already been covered - its all hidden unless you meet the condition for revealing the unit.

Interesting thoughts, the flyer issue would indeed need thinking about, however I think a Zooming flyer can "reveal" units if they are in plain LoS, (IE out on the open) however if there is any form of cover they wouldn't be able to spot/identify them.

The model height is a very good point and something I had not considered (despite considering LOS!), will work that in to the counter rules!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have almost finished the "first draft" of the rules, which I would be happy to upload once its finished off and had a proof-read over, if anyone is interested?

 Dakkamite wrote:
Actual dudes would be a lot more flexible in hiding than our models represent. I see no issue here.

Of course there's a problem here. You can have a unit "hidden" by something so small that there's no way you could fit every member of the unit behind it, even if you packed them in as densely as possible. I'm talking about completely ridiculous situations like hiding an entire 50-man platoon blob behind a single Chimera. Or worse, hiding that entire 50-man blob behind a single column in a ruin that is barely large enough to hide a single person behind.

I don't think that an aircraft flying at supersonic speed twenty feet off of the ground would have the ability to identify anything let alone concealed units.

If it can't identify targets then how can it shoot at anything?

The flexibility thing. Also I did mention that the counter had to have a height for purposes of TLOS - A low rail fence thats clearly transparent would not block LoS in this case, but a modest fence with the top head and shoulders, or a ruin with a small window etc - thats what would be blocked.

Why wouldn't it block LOS? You said that the unit is not revealed if you draw LOS to it across terrain, now you want to limit it to certain types of terrain?

Just get out and spot it. I see no issue here.

The issue is you're giving a huge defensive advantage for no good reason. Hidden deployment is supposed to be about surprising your opponent, not making units more durable against shooting.

No I don't, it's already been covered - its all hidden unless you meet the condition for revealing the unit.

And my point is that makes no sense fluff-wise. If I can see your unit at all I can tell the difference between shoota boyz and lootas, or fire warriors and kroot. So to make the hidden unit rules make any sense you have to have lots of special-case rules to cover which sets of units can be plausibly confused with each other. For example, you have to make a special-case rule that when you deploy a hidden Tau unit you have to announce whether it's a pathfinder/fire warrior unit or a kroot unit or a vespid unit. There's no general rule that would group pathfinders and fire warriors together, you have to make a special-case rule to handle it. And special-case rules are bad.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course there's a problem here. You can have a unit "hidden" by something so small that there's no way you could fit every member of the unit behind it, even if you packed them in as densely as possible. I'm talking about completely ridiculous situations like hiding an entire 50-man platoon blob behind a single Chimera. Or worse, hiding that entire 50-man blob behind a single column in a ruin that is barely large enough to hide a single person behind.

Blow up the Chimera. Move 1" to the side and reveal the unit behind the pillar.

The 50-man blob is literally a one off anomaly as the unit size for anything else is at max 30.

If it can't identify targets then how can it shoot at anything?

For the same reason that six (or what, 12+ with Necrons) supersonic aircraft can cartwheel around an area the size of a football pitch - hurr durr on GWs part. As I'm not GW I feel no reason to be bound to such silliness.

Why wouldn't it block LOS? You said that the unit is not revealed if you draw LOS to it across terrain, now you want to limit it to certain types of terrain?

Well as I clearly cannot alter my original suggestion in any way I guess you can stand behind a 1mm rock and be invisible.

The 'draw a line across terrain' aspect is there to include area terrain which often has no physical cover on parts of it.

The issue is you're giving a huge defensive advantage for no good reason. Hidden deployment is supposed to be about surprising your opponent, not making units more durable against shooting.

Ask any soldier, or any reasonably realistic firearms based wargame and they'll tell you that seeing the enemy is a huge aspect of shooting them. If you are hidden then you cannot be shot at nor assaulted. I'm glad that this gives a defensive benefit on top of everything else as that helps to balance the assault/shooty elements of the game.

In light of the defensive bonus I'm adding one new rule to the concealment rules I suggested earlier; any unit that wishes to move whilst concealed moves as though in difficult terrain. This represents the slower pace of troops sticking to cover and concealment rather than just waltzing about in plain sight

And my point is that makes no sense fluff-wise. If I can see your unit at all I can tell the difference between shoota boyz and lootas, or fire warriors and kroot. So to make the hidden unit rules make any sense you have to have lots of special-case rules to cover which sets of units can be plausibly confused with each other. For example, you have to make a special-case rule that when you deploy a hidden Tau unit you have to announce whether it's a pathfinder/fire warrior unit or a kroot unit or a vespid unit. There's no general rule that would group pathfinders and fire warriors together, you have to make a special-case rule to handle it. And special-case rules are bad.

No, I don't have to do any of that. You either reveal the unit or you don't. I'm not adding special case rules which would likely be larger than the original concealment rules just because you think it has to be there for this to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Beatonator wrote:
I have almost finished the "first draft" of the rules, which I would be happy to upload once its finished off and had a proof-read over, if anyone is interested?

Would be very keen to see this. Don't be put off by the haters, its generally just a vocal minority.

Instead of instantly becoming visible after doing something, why not have a check against the units with LOS? how about Initiative v initiative based on the assault to-hit table? that's what I'm doing for my 4th ed killteam revival/redux

I can see that slowing the game down quite a bit tbh. A faster but less dynamic way would be to simply have an INT check for the unit whenever it attempts an action whilst concealed.

Shooting while concealed would be an issue though. Either it always breaks concealment or theres some penalty (snapshots for instance). Assaults while concealed should always break concealment except possibly if the assault occurs in area terrain or something.

Eh, theres heaps of ways to do this.

Ok I need two things and then I think I can give you something nice.
First I need the scale of bases and examples of things that would go on them.
Next I need playtesters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
New Infiltrators

We are now calling the infiltrators special rule "advancing" (or anything better if you can think of it)
A natural base is the default base that a model usually mounted on


- At the start of the game nominate up to three units of models that are (to 28mm scale) (or a better, more specific list if you can think of one, beasts infantry etc, but it has to exclude crisis suits and the likes of those so jetpack and possibly jump infantry can't be included)

- To represent these units you must have 1 (size 2) base for every 4 natural (size 1) bases and 1 (size 3) base for every 3 natural (size 2) bases. These will be called infiltrator markers.



- Infiltrators have 3 states; hidden, compromised and sighted

○ All infiltrators start out in the hidden state, in this state they cannot be attacked, but they can be damaged indirectly

○ Infiltrators can compromise their position if they move, assault or fire and end their turn within 24" of enemy models even if they pass all perception tests

○ Infiltrators become sighted if they fail a stealth check. These checks are taken straight after completing any action within 24" of a non-flyer model (there is a guide to these checks below). If a unit becomes sighted, replace any infiltrator markers with the remaining amount of models. Models are to be placed base to base or as close to, occupying the same space as the infiltrator markers.



- All shooting attacks made against infiltrators must be resolved at -1 bs, all charges against infiltrators (must first pass a morale test/count as charging through difficult terrain), infiltrators also gain +2 to their cover save at all times, this stacks with shrouded and stealthy

- If there is no cover between any enemy units and an infiltrator unit and the enemy unit is not affected by blind or pinning the infiltrators must take an initiative vs initiative check using the average initiative of enemy models with direct line of sight

- Template, blast or heavy weapons fire that fails to eradicate the entire targeted unit or within 24" of a 2nd unit will automatically change the infiltrators' state to sighted if neither enemy is affected by blind or pinning

- Assaults that fail to eradicate the entire targeted unit during the infiltrators' turn or within 6" of a 2nd unit will automatically change the infiltrators' state to sighted if neither enemy is affected by blind or pinning

- Infiltrators that end their turn within 12" of an enemy unit after running have their state changed to sighted if the enemy unit is not affected by blind or pinning


the pattern for the table is:
4|4|5|5|5|6|6|6|6|6
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
from there take the numbers down diagonally to the right (you lot are smart enough to figure that out)