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.

pm713 wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.

And no, it doesn't ruin "realism".

What's Warhmachine do?

Puts some felt mats on the board as terrain and then completely avoids them and slams headfirst into each other anyways, at least in my local area.

Oh, except for some stealth guys or something, that use terrain to hide in but they usually are ignored except for other stealth guys because people have to headbutt eachother in the middle of the field.

 Whitebeard wrote:
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.

And no, it doesn't ruin "realism".

Yeah, getting rid of area terrain was a rather silly decision.

Remind me again, what was the deal with area terrain? It was very abstract and easy to work with wasn't it?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Remind me again, what was the deal with area terrain? It was very abstract and easy to work with wasn't it?

Basically, most terrain pieces were just defined by their boundaries with walls and trees just existing for aesthetic reasons. You would have a large base, piece of paper, a loop of flock, etc. outline an area and then just put a few trees in there to mark it as a forest (5+). A model didn't need to be physically obscured by a tree to get a cover save. Similarly with ruins (4+) or high grass (6+). As long as a unit was inside the terrain it got a cover save. You only really used true line of sight for things like sandbags, trenches, or fortifications so that you could effectively flank a unit in a fortified position.

The problem with TLOS is that cool-looking terrain doesn't really work conveniently with miniatures since you often end up with wobbly-model syndrome or scratched paint from blobbing all your models behind one tree. Also it's much slower when dealing with large numbers of models.

Ah yes, that's right. I'd forgotten the details over the years. Thanks for the details.

But we really need to get back to that. It's simple and easy to work with. If you combined that with a cover system that simply increased your regular save instead of being an entirely separate thing that's often ignored then we'd be on the right track.

In Warmachine, terrain simply represents terrain, it does not actually model it. So you don't have to worry about the silly details.

I am purposively making my tzeentch heralds on discs riding low (discs low to the ground) so they can potentially hide behind LOS blocking terrain. I also use an old Great Unclean One, as he has some chance of hiding behind a wall if he needs to.

I was playing once and I remember seeing a PIECE of a tau crisis suit, through god knows how much terrain, and then shooting at it. And I thought to myself "these rules are really dumb AND unrealistic."

And they benefit the hell out of shooting armies, that can blast through the entire field. Through multiple woods, friendly models, the legs of a knight, the works.

 Whitebeard wrote:
In Warmachine, terrain simply represents terrain, it does not actually model it. So you don't have to worry about the silly details.

I am purposively making my tzeentch heralds on discs riding low (discs low to the ground) so they can potentially hide behind LOS blocking terrain. I also use an old Great Unclean One, as he has some chance of hiding behind a wall if he needs to.

I was playing once and I remember seeing a PIECE of a tau crisis suit, through god knows how much terrain, and then shooting at it. And I thought to myself "these rules are really dumb AND unrealistic."

And they benefit the hell out of shooting armies, that can blast through the entire field. Through multiple woods, friendly models, the legs of a knight, the works.

Yeah, I picked up some cheap old-school Tyranids, my Hive Tyrant is only like 4" tall. The new model is like four times larger, making him much easier to shoot.

One important thing that I forgot to mention about area terrain, you were only able to shoot through 6" of less of terrain, beyond that it was assumed that your line of sight was too obscured for shooting to be effective. This was important tactically since you could maneuver flankers through enemy blind spots. A forest or city block near one table edge could provide total cover for movement without the opponent saying "ah, I can see that guy's hand through the windows, I'm going to shoot at him."

Some good points in here and some that... I believe haven't been fully thought out... and seem to be more 'personal gripes' than actual problems.

My $0.02... The core mechanics are fine. Most of the issues come from the ridiculous amount of the special rules and expanded rules.

Would this be an easy way to say if something is in cover:

If, when measuring the range, the tape measure crosses any other unit(s) besides the target and/or any terrain features, then the target is in cover. Does that make sense?

 oni wrote:
Some good points in here and some that... I believe haven't been fully thought out... and seem to be more 'personal gripes' than actual problems.

My $0.02... The core mechanics are fine. Most of the issues come from the ridiculous amount of the special rules and expanded rules.

I would disagree. A lot of these core issues are a major reason why I don't really play much anymore and why it's hard to bring in new players. Between rules disagreements, convoluted/awkward gameplay, and more than a few time-sucking rules, it's hard to consistently have an enjoyable time with 40k. So many games get bogged down with both players pouring through their rulebooks trying to resolve a rule dispute, or with one player watch the other one make rolls and re-rolls just to see how far their unit moves through that forest. I think the complicated and bloated rule-set is a much larger problem.

pm713 wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.

And no, it doesn't ruin "realism".

What's Warhmachine do?

Ruin realism, among other things

If anything, the new approach to terrain is impractical. It's really nice, but just not practical.
That's why Warmachine, which is more about the game than the miniatures, terrain and visual goodies, doesn't bother with realistic stuff.


I totally understand the point about rules, time, and stuff.

But honestly, when 2D terrain is enough, people just bring 2D terrain and the games are a LOT less nice to look at.

I personally love the battle reports by StrikingScorption82 on Youtube, and one of the big things that make the images awesome is terrain.


I would also like to see simpler, faster rules, but not at the cost of 40K tables becoming 2D board game mats with 2D mini mats for terrain areas.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.

And no, it doesn't ruin "realism".

What's Warhmachine do?

Puts some felt mats on the board as terrain and then completely avoids them and slams headfirst into each other anyways, at least in my local area.

He's referring to the model volumes depending on their base size. The LOS for these is on the spray template. It doesn't matter how big or small a model is, their base size determines what it has LOS to (terrain nonwithstanding) and what has LOS to it.

Anybody else feel like they tried to make the tabletop game feel more like the DOW games? (Force organization going out the window, grenade throwing, jump troops having HoW, etc) I've been reading the7th ed rulebook after being "lost in the warp" for all of 6th ed, and I have to say it is shockingly different from 5th. There is good and bad in the changes (which will differ between various factions), but the biggest problem is that the rules are clumsily worded. I expect the British of all people to have proper English grammar and get idiomatic phrases right (minor nuisance to be sure). There are several points where the writer makes it clear that they are aware of certain ambiguities in the rules, but does not adequately clarify these issues when they are noted. One such issue is base sizes. Now that they don't sell 60mm bases, what am I to do with my 3rd edition guard autocannons? Is putting them on spare cavalry bases acceptable?
There are things I like, such as grenade throwing and things I am skeptical about. But for now I am just trying tro cram into my brain a radically different set of rules so I csn play somewhat competently.

CplPunishment wrote:
Anybody else feel like they tried to make the tabletop game feel more like the DOW games? (Force organization going out the window, grenade throwing, jump troops having HoW, etc) I've been reading the7th ed rulebook after being "lost in the warp" for all of 6th ed, and I have to say it is shockingly different from 5th. There is good and bad in the changes (which will differ between various factions), but the biggest problem is that the rules are clumsily worded. I expect the British of all people to have proper English grammar and get idiomatic phrases right (minor nuisance to be sure). There are several points where the writer makes it clear that they are aware of certain ambiguities in the rules, but does not adequately clarify these issues when they are noted. One such issue is base sizes. Now that they don't sell 60mm bases, what am I to do with my 3rd edition guard autocannons? Is putting them on spare cavalry bases acceptable?
There are things I like, such as grenade throwing and things I am skeptical about. But for now I am just trying tro cram into my brain a radically different set of rules so I csn play somewhat competently.

They sell 60mm round bases: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Citadel-60mm-Round-Bases

As to whether you need to rebase, that's an issue between you and your playgroup. I caved in and redid mine when I moved to a new city and started playing mostly against strangers.

As a primarily 3rd and 4th ed. player, I found the random charge distances, challenges, flyers and psychic stuff the hardest to get used to.

pm713 wrote:

 Whitebeard wrote:
Another thing they need to ditch is the ridiculous TLOS/cover system. Just make it like Warmachine. Easier. No debate over whether a model can be seen or not.

And no, it doesn't ruin "realism".

What's Warhmachine do?

I believe the way 4th edition handled it. I could be wrong, but from what I remember it was abstract and there were different "sizes" troops were like middle size then you had Monstrous Creature size and then Ripper size. Warmahordes called it "volume" to be more technical and 4th edition was just more abstract.