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.

 Peregrine wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.

Still doesn't matter - the rule in question requires a group to interpret the rules a certain way, because the way they are written is vague and not explicit. Peregrine is absolutely right: Just because you can infer what you think the rule means (aka RAI) doesn't excuse GW for not making it clear from the start (RAW).

To stick with the better example, the psychic powers rule is vague. It gives no indication whatsoever that it's equal to your mastery level; that's inferred and the generally assumed response, but it's not definite because the rule is poorly written and, therefore, up to interpretation.

 Peregrine wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.

Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.

Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.

That's the point he was making - the rules (for LOS at the time) didn't say how to treat models with no eyes, so it was 100% reliant on interpretation.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.

Well yes, of course they do. But to be functional in the game, the rules either need to define what that 'other type of sight' is, or they need to make it irrelevant (as GW has finally done with 7th Ed.

Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.

Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.

The fact is that in several editions you had to draw LoS from the position of each model in the firing unit to the position of each model in the target unit (Real Line Of Sight) in order to determine which models could fire, which could be hit, and whether the target unit as a whole got any cover -- for instance if firing through a forest you had to check whether the trees individually blocked LoS between individual models.

You also had to take account of whether the bits of models you could see were legal targets. Things like banners and tall horns were not counted as targettable, the body and limbs were counted, but maybe not big wings if they were very cool looking, and in some cases there might be arguments.

All the above was an utter faff but that is how the rules were, without worrying about "eyes", and this Real LoS looking was to be done from the positions of the models as they stood after movement, not 3 seconds earlier when "realistically" they would have been in different positions, or 3 seconds later when they realise they can't see a target and shift position slightly.

This is an example of the abstraction of the game. I would argue there are better ways of doing it, but that is how GW chose to do it, and it would disallow your chaps from looking over the edge of the balcony.

After playing a feth-ton of Dawn of War again - all of DoW2 and now DoW1 + exp1 + exp2 to get into the spirit of my new Blood Ravens army, and then some space marine for good measure, I really wish GW would use their license more for things like this. Feth their table top game, 40k the license is so much more than that. If GW wants to win, they need to partner with some good devs and churn out some more good games like this - or some good visual media, 40k would make a good animated series imo. Relic did some amazing work, Creative Assembly has the potential to do so too... but also the potential to do gak. I got Space Hulk in the humble bundle recently... direct translation of tabletop to PC is a huge waste. It's... barely playable, if it wasn't set in 40k I wouldn't have gone past the second mission. More good PC games please GW and less gak!!!

KommissarKarl wrote:
You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.

Of course I can dismiss it, because it IS a house rule. There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.

@Yonan: P* Studios could handle a pretty intense 40K game...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact is that in several editions you had to draw LoS from the position of each model in the firing unit to the position of each model in the target unit (Real Line Of Sight) in order to determine which models could fire, which could be hit, and whether the target unit as a whole got any cover -- for instance if firing through a forest you had to check whether the trees individually blocked LoS between individual models.

You also had to take account of whether the bits of models you could see were legal targets. Things like banners and tall horns were not counted as targettable, the body and limbs were counted, but maybe not big wings if they were very cool looking, and in some cases there might be arguments.

All the above was an utter faff but that is how the rules were, without worrying about "eyes", and this Real LoS looking was to be done from the positions of the models as they stood after movement, not 3 seconds earlier when "realistically" they would have been in different positions, or 3 seconds later when they realise they can't see a target and shift position slightly.

This is an example of the abstraction of the game. I would argue there are better ways of doing it, but that is how GW chose to do it, and it would disallow your chaps from looking over the edge of the balcony.

I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.

 snooggums wrote:
I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.

It was 4th edition, and it was a half-measure that only applied when LOS involved area terrain or close combats, although some players extended it to cover the whole game (either because they preferred it that way or they misunderstood the LOS rules). And it caused no end of arguing as a result.

 insaniak wrote:

 snooggums wrote:
I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.

It was 4th edition, and it was a half-measure that only applied when LOS involved area terrain or close combats, although some players extended it to cover the whole game (either because they preferred it that way or they misunderstood the LOS rules). And it caused no end of arguing as a result.

Append that last sentence to "...because in my personal experience it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing about what a model could see." It is possible that the plethora of area terrain usage made it easier for my games as well, but I also prefer some abstraction for terrain because it makes placement of models in terrain easier as well.

The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)

Area terrain was treated as a "blob" with edges and height defined by the placement of the tree models.

Linear terrain was handled differently

Vehicles were handled differently.

People adapted this with house usages because it was rather messy and impractical, rather than because it was unclear.

The TLoS rule has the advantage of establishing a single mechanism, though it is not a very practical one given the variability of model shapes and designs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)

No, 4th had arbitrary size categories (infantry Size 1, large models Size 2, vehicles Size 3) to denote height where area terrain or close combats were involved and used true LOS the rest of the time.
3rd ed used true LOS, but models blocked LOS up to twice their height. Because reasons.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.

But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!

 insaniak wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)

No, 4th had arbitrary size categories (infantry Size 1, large models Size 2, vehicles Size 3) to denote height where area terrain or close combats were involved and used true LOS the rest of the time.
3rd ed used true LOS, but models blocked LOS up to twice their height. Because reasons.

and caused no end of arguments. I remember a discussion on here about, probably, the FAQ and "magic cylinder" interpretation that some people had. ANd people classifying everything,m including hills, as area terrain making Tau JSJ even more ridiculous. Oh, and skimmers didnt block friendly LOS. because reasons.

I've yet to really have any arguments about LOS in any game. Sometimes requires your opponent to come round to your side of the table, and to (pre 7th) not simply assume LOS HAD to be reciprocal.

 Klerych wrote:
But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!

*looks at gun drone model*

Nope. There is nothing that is even close to obviously being an eye/optical sensor/etc. If your defense for your house rule not being a house rule consists of "you can find some random vaguely roundish bit and call it an eye" then you're really getting desperate. Just admit the obvious, the rule as-written is broken and requires house rules to fix it.

I read one of the back pages of the 3rd edition rulebook last night, and if need be I will type it out and post it here. I really hope that is not necessary.

The page was written by Andy Chambers and it talks about the basic philosophy of game design that *PLAYERS* are designed to be given the freedom to interpret and decide on how they WANT to play the game. It specifically states that writing strict and overly detailed rules is not appropriate for the type of game GW was/is trying to create.

Now, there are smart people on this board with smart opinions, and I'm not here to insult or tell anybody they have to LIKE this philosophy or concept or rules......

but being that his is the THIRD edition rulebook that came out over a decade ago, I think it is safe to say that GW isn't going to deliver on the types of demands many of you are making on the rule set. Continued nitpicking on the lack of specificity is evident of a complete oversight of this basic principle. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have better ideas on how this or that should work, good. Bring your insight to the game and use it with like minded, logical, fair, and rational other people. That's what makes the world go round, is it not?

I'll counter that by asking how many pages these "not overly detailed" rules are currently taking to commit to paper?

VanHallan wrote:
I read one of the back pages of the 3rd edition rulebook last night, and if need be I will type it out and post it here. I really hope that is not necessary.

The page was written by Andy Chambers and it talks about the basic philosophy of game design that *PLAYERS* are designed to be given the freedom to interpret and decide on how they WANT to play the game. It specifically states that writing strict and overly detailed rules is not appropriate for the type of game GW was/is trying to create.

Now, there are smart people on this board with smart opinions, and I'm not here to insult or tell anybody they have to LIKE this philosophy or concept or rules......

but being that his is the THIRD edition rulebook that came out over a decade ago, I think it is safe to say that GW isn't going to deliver on the types of demands many of you are making on the rule set. Continued nitpicking on the lack of specificity is evident of a complete oversight of this basic principle. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have better ideas on how this or that should work, good. Bring your insight to the game and use it with like minded, logical, fair, and rational other people. That's what makes the world go round, is it not?

The problem with that idea is that:

1) Unclear rules benefits no one. Even if you don't care they aren't clear, they still don't benefit you. Clear rules, however, do benefit people.

2) Even if you happen to like playing fast and loose with the rules, you can still do that even if the rules are clearly written.

3) For the most part, the sorts of things that are "open to interpretation" aren't the sorts of things that actually add to the game depending on how you interpret it anyway.

If that is genuinely is their philosophy, then it's stupid. Far more likely it just sounds like a bad excuse as to why they don't put any effort in to writing.

150-200 pages? I don't have any rulebooks on my person at the moment. Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities. Again, not saying the rules can't be fixed. Just suggesting people use their own wits to correct errors they believe exist as needed. It's not like we're building bridges here. Screwing up the instructions isn't going to harm anybody.

VanHallan wrote:
Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities.

That's the thing, to be clear the rules do NOT have to be increasingly long and convoluted. GW writers write their rules in such an imprecise fashion that we end up with long convoluted rules where shorter more concise rules are entirely possible.

The first time I read the 6th edition rulebook (after being out of the game for a few years) my first though was time and time again "holy gak why did it take them a whole page to explain the rules for blah when a paragraph should be sufficient".

I don't know man. I totally see what you're saying. To me, its like music. Some things make sense to some people and just confuse the gak out of others. The more you try to fix it, the more you try to explain, the more some people understand and the more some people get confused. I try to explain gak to my drummer all the time and end up just wanting to kill him, and I'm sure vice versa.

I'm just saying, GW did acknowledge this years ago, and I think its pretty much a given at this point and RAW is not meant to be the standard of how the game is played. Rules as understood by two or more opposing players and agreed to or rolled for is how this works. If you don't like it, fine.

But people that are bringing this stuff up about LOS are contributing to the problem in their own special way IMO. Maybe I am wrong.

That's because GW's vision of the game has always been a "gaming club" with people who are friends or at least know each other beyond "Jim with the Eldar that's at the store every week", so RAI works better because you can easily come to an agreement.

I think its MORE telling that in over a decade they haven't learned that concise rules are better.

I maintain they like writing rules in a "conversational tone" in the poor attempt at being "entertainment" which with that method allows for all kinds of sloppy wording.

I think they should write a very concise, short, rule element and draw a box around it or something to separate it from the extra verbiage that are used to explain it. They do this to a limited extent but need to commit a bit further.

It would also allow for a condensed small book publication with only the rules with no elaboration, for reference it would be refreshing to not play the "spot the specific rule text".

VanHallan wrote:
150-200 pages? I don't have any rulebooks on my person at the moment. Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities. Again, not saying the rules can't be fixed. Just suggesting people use their own wits to correct errors they believe exist as needed. It's not like we're building bridges here. Screwing up the instructions isn't going to harm anybody.

Compare and contrast..

"To establish line of sight, draw a straight line from the model's eyes to any visible part of the target model. Exclude items such as banner poles"

Vs

"To establish line of sight, draw a straight line from any part of the model to any visible part of the target model. Exclude items such as banner poles"

Or

"The number of powers a Psyker can cast each turn is dependent on their mastery level."

Vs

"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."

I've paraphrased from the book, but the gist is there.

Increased clarity does not require increased volume.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
That's because GW's vision of the game has always been a "gaming club" with people who are friends or at least know each other beyond "Jim with the Eldar that's at the store every week", so RAI works better because you can easily come to an agreement.

I think its MORE telling that in over a decade they haven't learned that concise rules are better.

Exactly, and rather than adapt to the fact that, for many, this isn't their gaming reality, they continue to cut the toes off the foot that is their customer base in order to fit the glass slipper of their concept of what 40K should be.

The same attitude is visible in their product release schedule, where they consistently release new kits that nobody wanted when there are many kits and sculpts that people are extremely keen to see re-done.

As I've said before

"They'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy."

Although, to balance what is a fairly critical post somewhat, I think it is possible to see, both in some of the changes in 7th and other factors, that they are slowly, and incrementally, changing in ways that have been demanded fairly consistently on boards like this for some time. Whether they are motivated, and capable enough to keep doing it only time will tell.

You may have a point, but you're still trying to teach a pig to sing here.

If you want to waste time griping over a bunch of minutiae, that's your choice. I would rather sort it out with my friends or gaming group and/or play by house rules. That is what GW intends. If there are better games out there, play them.

I don't know what any of this griping seeks to accomplish, but in my view all it does accomplish is an ever changing and never satisfying reboot of the rules every few years.

Its impossible to keep things simple because people ask for clarification on things that should either go without saying or simply flat out aren't of vital importance. Just my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think that GW's idea of the game is a fine one WHEN IT WORKS. Just they try to force that on everyone and not care if it doesn't work.

Perfect examples clearly illustrating the problem Azreal. Nothing at all is gained from the current lack of clarity and plenty is lost throughout all instances of it. That is just one of the problems with GW rules.

Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on how to make a sandwich, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.

The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.