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.

TLS had a lot of stipulations like weapons, backpacks, banners and wings not counting for targetting. Mostly because by allowing targetting of those things you punished people who liked to do conversion work, and made hiding behind most walls basically impossible.

Frankly I kind of want a hybrid system between needing to squat down with a laser pointer and the more abstract stuff. Maybe like you can basically shoot anything, but if you can,t draw an unobstructed line from the shooting unit to any model in the target unit you get a modifier to hit depending on what,s in the way (-1 for a wall or they're partially covered, -2 if there is an intervening unit, -3 the unit is behind several obstacles or you can,t see them at all).

Obviously my idea is fairly rough and could use more refinement, but considering the average weapon in 40k should be able to punch through the average wall to hit the guys you know who are behind it I would love to see a mechanic that makes targetting more permissable, but with lower chances to hit for doing so.

I guess you would have to have an adult discussion with your opponent. It still amazes me this isn't obvious...

And if they are all laying down, they can't see to shoot as well.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I guess you would have to have an adult discussion with your opponent. It still amazes me this isn't obvious...

And if they are all laying down, they can't see to shoot as well.

Which is such a waste of time compared to abstract Los that most games use.

changemod 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.

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.

I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.

If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.

75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?

The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions.
"Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?"
And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I guess you would have to have an adult discussion with your opponent. It still amazes me this isn't obvious...

And if they are all laying down, they can't see to shoot as well.

It should be this obvious, however, I can get behind the roll-off idea if problems arise in a tournament setting.

Logic? In a game with aliens? It's called balance. You don't get to use everything you have while being unable to be touched. That's gamey. What they have done is balance.

Get your Farseer exposed to risk if he wants to influence the fight, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

At this point, most of these teaser articles are just making me less excited about the new edition. Especially the faction focus ones. There's so little about how the rules will fit the background or make for a fun game or make for interesting choices during a game. It's all "this unit wasn't very good before, now it's awesome!!!" Or "here's a rule that doesn't fit the background at all but will make this unit awesome!!!"

The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.

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?

Armor - Rend = roll to meet or beat

Cover = + to roll

1s always fail.

 Deadshot wrote:


I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.

If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.

75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?

The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions.
"Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?"
And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.

I think you underestimate the entire group of people who is reading that right now and having a panic attack over what they're going to do when their opponent claims that their model has 74% cover, where-as the model clearly has 75.3% through their masterful positioning and clever maneuvering.

 Deadshot wrote:
I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.

That would also be likely then same for narrative/open. Or how many alternative LOS systems you think they will cram into 12 page ruleset?

75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?

If you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 48% obscured only and doesn't get it's save is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 48% vs 50%?

If you base rules on some % in TLOS you will have arguments unless it's "do you see any piece of the model" at which point it becomes quite silly(reminds me on turn signal on land raider where marine behind wall got shot on his backbanner!)

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?

No. Modelling your miniatures in a variety of poses is fine. But you don't get to switch out your miniatures throughout the game for competitive advantage. The former is a grey area, where a slight competitive advantage can be incidentally gained from modelling, the second is outright blatant cheating.

If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.

changemod 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.

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.

A $10 laser pointer solves 99% of those problems. Just saying...

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.

Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.

One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.

Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.

One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.

I agree that flamers should benefit from this as well.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.

You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.



Also

Warhammer 40,000 We notice you! Forge World have committed to releasing rules for all of the models they currently have on sale, so the Renegades will indeed get rules. What they look like, and how they function... well, we haven't seen that yet...

Warhammer 40,000 Joshua Leinard G. Cardeno We haven't seen anything yet; we have plans for FW sneak peeks soon, mind... watch this space.

tneva82 wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
The stronghold assault and cities of death articles are a little better, but still mostly about how the game rules don't care about representing anything in the background. "To make up for how good it is to take cover in some ruins, we made grenades WAY BETTER at hitting people who are taking cover than they are at hitting people in the open!" The core rules sounded like they had potential, but the more details come out the worse this sounds to me.

Umm grenades(and flamers) ARE generally deadlier on closed enviroments. Now albeit it's arguable should it be on open air ruins but if you have ruined building and grenade is lobbed there that grenade is going to be more efficient than at unit in open.

One could argue flamers should benefit from that max hit on such situation as well.

For a bunker that might make sense. For a ruined building it makes no sense. Given the choice, if a grenade is going to land near you, would you rather be in a ruined building or in the open? The choice should be obvious to anyone. In a ruined building there may be a hunk of concrete between you and the grenade. In the open there will not be. It makes no sense.

 JoeyFox wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.

You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.

Bonus points if your targets follow the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer designs and have little targeting circles...

Daedalus81 wrote:

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?

Armor - Rend = roll to meet or beat

Cover = + to roll

1s always fail.

Its not that simple. If both are a modifier to the roll, they'll cancel out, as AP-1 and Cover +1 will cancel out. But if cover modifies the actual value of the armour save, and AP is just a modifier then that presents a different issue.

For example, take a 2+ save in +1 cover getting shot by a -2 weapon.

Apply the +1 to armour first, and assuming that saves are capped at 2+, this does nothing. Roll and get a 3. The AP-2 brings this to a 1 and the model takes a wound.


However, if both are a modifier

Roll your armour save of 2+ and get a 3. Now, AP-2 would bring this down to a 1, so should fail, but does the +1 from cover bring this back to a 2 and then pass it?





The order makes a clear difference here. If cover improves the Sv Characteristic, its useless for 2+ models. But if both are simple modifiers to the roll made, they can cancel out.


Obviously a natural 1 will always fail.

You assume cover has some sort of cap that _Activates before all modifiers are applied_. Don't remember any game that works like that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 JoeyFox wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.

You gave me an idea... I want to make an army of {whatever} using empty bases, sprue standing up, with crude cut-outs of the represented models. Like Range-Targets. Ally in a small guard contingent, painted in bright-colored training officer uniforms, as the observers / field workers. TRAINING EXERCISE.

Bonus points if your targets follow the Imperial Guardsman's Uplifting Primer designs and have little targeting circles...

That's the idea. I'll look into it... but Ill stop talking this here to avoid OT.

What can we expect to preorder at the earliest data?
The rules are free. But to what extent?

 wuestenfux wrote:
What can we expect to preorder at the earliest data?
The rules are free. But to what extent?

At least book with all the matched point costs will be on preorder. Those aren't free.

tneva82 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.

That would also be likely then same for narrative/open. Or how many alternative LOS systems you think they will cram into 12 page ruleset?

75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?

If you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 48% obscured only and doesn't get it's save is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 48% vs 50%?

If you base rules on some % in TLOS you will have arguments unless it's "do you see any piece of the model" at which point it becomes quite silly(reminds me on turn signal on land raider where marine behind wall got shot on his backbanner!)

A fair argument, but here's my reasoning. If its 50/50, its always going to be an argument because each player has a equal basis for argument (assuming that it is indeed 49/51 and not TFG trying to argue 30/70). If its 25/75, the attacking player has reason to say "that's not quite enough," and the defender reason to argue it is, because you're trying to get over the line just enough for it to count. But a 75/25 split in favour of the defender should remove any argument between normal, reasonable people.* You aren't trying to argue that your model is hidden just enough, you are arguing that it is well hidden, by which there can be no debate. Its no longer about an argument of "Barely hidden vs not hidden" or even "hidden vs not hidden." Its arguing "mostly hidden or not hidden," and there'll be few people who can say that 74%, even if not the exact 75%, is not enough for a cover save.*

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

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?

No. Modelling your miniatures in a variety of poses is fine. But you don't get to switch out your miniatures throughout the game for competitive advantage. The former is a grey area, where a slight competitive advantage can be incidentally gained from modelling, the second is outright blatant cheating.

If my opponent wants to switch out his models in-game whenver he wants a cover save or wants line of sight, I'm gonna demand the right to switch out my Raven Guard scouts and assault marines with empty bases so he can't draw line of sight and shoot them. I mean, they strike from the shadows so it must be fluffy right? His army just can't see them, and if he can't see them he can't shoot them.

The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.

daedalus wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:


I have a feeling such things will be done away with in Matched Play and be reduced to simple: Can you see it or can you not? Obscured is 75% or more. Simple solutions to simple problems.

If you can see any models in the unit you can kill any model in the unit as your opponent can assign wounds to whoever they please.

75% obscured also fixes previously issues, 5th Ed required 50% which can be debated. 6th and 7th 25% which also led to arguments. But 75%? Sure, 75% is hard to precisely measure, but if you're trying to argue that Carnifex is 70% obscured only and doesn't get its save, is it really an argument worth having? Are you going to be TFG and argue 73% vs 75%?

The main reason for arguments in 40k is asshat behaviour. Its a beer and pretzels game, beer and pretzels solutions.
"Okay, I'm not 100% sure I'm right so I'll let you have this decision, but I get the next one!" or "Roll off?"
And yes, I know there is now official "matched" play, but its still a beer and pretzels game.

g the

I think you underestimate the entire group of people who is reading that right now and having a panic attack over what they're going to do when their opponent claims that their model has 74% cover, where-as the model clearly has 75.3% through their masterful positioning and clever maneuvering.

* This where the asterisks come in and yes, maybe I am underestimating the Nerd Panic about this. However, you can't write the rules for pedantic and nitpicky people who call you out on 74.444449% covered vs 74.499999%. You have to write rules assuming that the people playing are straightforward, reasonable people**. The way to solve a lot of 40ks issues is A) Don't be a nob (not the green orky kind) and B) don't be a nob.

**This of course doesn't mean anything against mental health or learning difficulties such as autism or such, which is its own unique issue, but assuming both players are don't come under this bracket, don't be a nob about it. That's all 40k involves.

We also don't know how terrain interfaces with who goes first in combat or anything about possible movement penalties, correct? That's all pretty key.

Back to transports for a second, we know that, generally, the squad needs to get out before the vehicle moves. However, there's nothing preventing certain vehicles from allowing a charge after their movement or something bespoke like that. I'm thinking of certain open topped vehicles and stuff that's described as having "assault ramps" and the like. Or maybe adding to or modifying charge moves on the turn the unit deploys. Re-roll charge distance doesn't sound broken, just as an example.

The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.

Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".

Also, GW has had a rule to fix those nit picky arguments since time immemorial - roll off for it and move on. That and a laser pointer fix pretty much all my problems.

Rules are a framework to play as game with your opponent.
Your army is fighting your opponent's army.
This is the only fighting there should be.

If you're fighting with your opponent you will have a bad time.
If you cannot always agree, dice off debatable calls, so long as you're mostly having fun.
If you cannot agree regularly, don't play each other.

There has to be some social contract to a game that can't be written down, where people behave agreeably and don't start trying to say they're an expert at estimating micropercentages of model cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.

Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".

The whole reason for rules like Go To Ground is to eliminate the need for this. So you can't do abstracted stuff like that for benefit AND switch a model out for tangible benefit on top. I'd applaud the person who unpacked that army from its case for the time and dedication in making every model twice, then laugh and decline to play them.

I wonder how the Tau drones will interact with cover. They didn't have the Infantry keyword, maybe Drone applies to more that just them and they have their own category?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The squating marine is fine in my opinion, its a legal set of legs that is currently produced by GW and so totally valid. If you build an entire army with this there will obviously be issues, namely MFA but a TO can easily be called to deal with MFA as with all things. MFA is obvious when it happens, and easily dealt with.

Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".

Which doesn't change that certain units benefit more from crawling/kneeling poses than others. Assault units for example will improve with those as they don't really get hurt much by hard to shoot. They instead prefer easier cover.

Just another reason to get rid of TLOS. Without that there isn't problem with modeling one way or another. Either way it plays the same. Even the infamous crawling wraithlord!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Exactly. But what you can't do is switch out the model in the middle of the game for a standing model and say "This Space Marine is standing up so he can draw a Line of Sight". And then switch it back out for the kneeling model saying "...and now he's ducking to break Line of Sight and prevent any return fire".

I agree. That would be not cool.

The other alternative to weird models is that you just play them assuming they're the stock model. I have a GK dread that has autocannons mounted on the wrist of a DCCW. I cut down the barrels to make them less long, but the angle and length would still let him get some pretty wild shots by comparison to the normal ones. I just tell people that I'm going to draw the shot from where the guns SHOULD be as if it was modeled with the same FW autocannon that's on the opposite arm. I have had literally zero people have an issue with that.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever played a game, be it at Adepticon or a FLGS where there was a problem that communication and setting expectations couldn't solve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Just another reason to get rid of TLOS. Without that there isn't problem with modeling one way or another. Either way it plays the same. Even the infamous crawling wraithlord!

I can't seem to find it now, but you reminded me of a picture I saw once of a genestealer head glued to a base. The genestealer was "burrowing" and the guy said it was legit because he used the entire model. (He took the rest of the model, ground it up, and used it for basing, IIRC.)