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.

I have been listening to a lot of podcasts lately, and have been reading a lot of posts here on Dakka and other places about nuHammer terrain and cover rules, and a couple of points seem to come up often. One of these is that the new "abstract" rules let people play more games more quickly. But about this I have an honest question.

One of the things that I always enjoyed - maybe more than most - is the look of the table from a model's eye view, but with the new terrain and cover rules this "immersion" is broken. Now more than ever in recent memory (the only kind I have left at my age) the rules seem to demand that we "imagine" what it would be like rather than seeing the situation on the tabletop in a stop-motion sort of way.

So, looking at the models half painted on my project desk, I am wondering - Why bother?

What is the purpose of working so hard at beautifully painted and posed, individually converted WYSIWYG models, especially infantry, only to have the realism that comes with that forgotten when the models finally hit the tabletop?

Not sure what you are getting at. 8th ed. still uses true line of sight to determine if you can shoot at someone. You also still have to be obscured if you want to claim cover from a statue for example, and if you are a vehicle also from ruins.

In 40K you still roll for every single Grot to fire his pistol and every Imperial Guard sergeant to hit with his power sword. Concerning units and their equipment there's actually not that much abstraction. But yes, we lost searchlights and fire points.

Also... we are talking about 40K. "realism" is not a word that fits into this context .

There was never any realism. As far as the dollhouse effect goes (and I love the stuff. The Little Camera Big Results thread on this forum is a great example) it's still there. You can still in any round put your head level with the table and look at your models in a standoff against the tyranid horde creeping up the table at you through the terrain you put work into.

Nothing has changed, you're perceiving a slight that isn't really there. Get a nice little camera, take inspiration from the thread I mentioned earlier and start taking some action shots during your games. It sounds a lot like that's all you're missing.

 jeff white wrote:
I have been listening to a lot of podcasts lately, and have been reading a lot of posts here on Dakka and other places about nuHammer terrain and cover rules, and a couple of points seem to come up often. One of these is that the new "abstract" rules let people play more games more quickly. But about this I have an honest question.

One of the things that I always enjoyed - maybe more than most - is the look of the table from a model's eye view, but with the new terrain and cover rules this "immersion" is broken. Now more than ever in recent memory (the only kind I have left at my age) the rules seem to demand that we "imagine" what it would be like rather than seeing the situation on the tabletop in a stop-motion sort of way.

So, looking at the models half painted on my project desk, I am wondering - Why bother?

What is the purpose of working so hard at beautifully painted and posed, individually converted WYSIWYG models, especially infantry, only to have the realism that comes with that forgotten when the models finally hit the tabletop?

...wat? Dude you know this is a sci-fi game right? What the heck are you talking 'realism'?

I am sure by "realism" he means the "suspension of disbelief".

In other words, trying to make the unreal understandable in a real world context.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at. 8th ed. still uses true line of sight to determine if you can shoot at someone. You also still have to be obscured if you want to claim cover from a statue for example, and if you are a vehicle also from ruins.

In 40K you still roll for every single Grot to fire his pistol and every Imperial Guard sergeant to hit with his power sword. Concerning units and their equipment there's actually not that much abstraction. But yes, we lost searchlights and fire points.

Also... we are talking about 40K. "realism" is not a word that fits into this context .

I appreciate the reminders.
TLoS is a big deal, and the FAQ seemed to clear up that behind cover means benefitting even if part of the same unit that was targetted in the open at the same time, as well implying that without line of sight the there can be no wounds (right?). Because, if the guy behind the wall and unseen can die from small arms fire then there is a problem with the wall.
Even with this (these?), there remain 360degree fire arcs, and tanks shooting from behind walls with only a smidge poking out, and tanks claiming cover with just a corner on a terrain base (as the bases are what matter)... And then I heard this guy from Frontline talk about his 200 conscripts trying to kill a stormlord or baneblade or something similar, and being disappointed that it didn't happen.
See, this is where it all comes off the rails.
I used to joke with a buddy that I wanted to design a potato gun that could hurt an Abrams M1. He got so mad. I was silly. But it didn't mean that I didn't enjoy trying.
It was a fantasy, and fun for me.
He hated it.
Rules as they stand, well, if I am in a tank and a potato gun hurts me, then I will be having words with whoever built that tank.
We also have tanks hemmed in by infantry, unable to shoot (at that infantry!).
Just, see this makes zero sense to me.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:
There was never any realism. As far as the dollhouse effect goes (and I love the stuff. The Little Camera Big Results thread on this forum is a great example) it's still there. You can still in any round put your head level with the table and look at your models in a standoff against the tyranid horde creeping up the table at you through the terrain you put work into.

Nothing has changed, you're perceiving a slight that isn't really there. Get a nice little camera, take inspiration from the thread I mentioned earlier and start taking some action shots during your games. It sounds a lot like that's all you're missing.

I know the thread.
I like it.
Sort of porn really.

Doesn't answer my question.
I still disagree with you fundamentally.

I think that I don't understand what you mean by dollhouse effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

...wat? Dude you know this is a sci-fi game right? What the heck are you talking 'realism'?

Try making a sci fi anything that is not realistic.
Luke Skywalker has to lift logs with the force.
That is only significant cuz shyte is heavy in real life.
Realism makes it significant.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

teknoskan wrote:
I am sure by "realism" he means the "suspension of disbelief".

In other words, trying to make the unreal understandable in a real world context.

This. Thanks.

I agree and you're not alone...we've been house ruling it pretty consistently from the beginning.

Remember, the most important section in the rulebook regarding terrain is the portion where it says "use these examples to make up your own terrain rules". So if you're playing with someone you know, use whatever terrain/line-of-sight rules you want. Outside a tournament, nobody gets a say in how you play. I still shoot from my vehicles solely using the location of the weapon (not firing around a corner with the tip of a hull, etc.).

 jeff white wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Not sure what you are getting at. 8th ed. still uses true line of sight to determine if you can shoot at someone. You also still have to be obscured if you want to claim cover from a statue for example, and if you are a vehicle also from ruins.

In 40K you still roll for every single Grot to fire his pistol and every Imperial Guard sergeant to hit with his power sword. Concerning units and their equipment there's actually not that much abstraction. But yes, we lost searchlights and fire points.

Also... we are talking about 40K. "realism" is not a word that fits into this context .

I appreciate the reminders.
TLoS is a big deal, and the FAQ seemed to clear up that behind cover means benefitting even if part of the same unit that was targetted in the open at the same time, as well implying that without line of sight the there can be no wounds (right?). Because, if the guy behind the wall and unseen can die from small arms fire then there is a problem with the wall.
Even with this (these?), there remain 360degree fire arcs, and tanks shooting from behind walls with only a smidge poking out, and tanks claiming cover with just a corner on a terrain base (as the bases are what matter)... And then I heard this guy from Frontline talk about his 200 conscripts trying to kill a stormlord or baneblade or something similar, and being disappointed that it didn't happen.
See, this is where it all comes off the rails.
I used to joke with a buddy that I wanted to design a potato gun that could hurt an Abrams M1. He got so mad. I was silly. But it didn't mean that I didn't enjoy trying.
It was a fantasy, and fun for me.
He hated it.
Rules as they stand, well, if I am in a tank and a potato gun hurts me, then I will be having words with whoever built that tank.
We also have tanks hemmed in by infantry, unable to shoot (at that infantry!).
Just, see this makes zero sense to me.

What did make so much sense to you before? Was it that a tank with tracks made specifically to travel over difficult ground had an almost 20% chance to get permanently stuck in a small crater? Was it that a guy on a bike or a tank or a guy on foot could cover the exact same distance? Was it that when shooting from a flyer from above you'd still hit a tank in the front? Most real tanks are most vulnerable from above, not in the back. Was it that things described as jet fliers take so long to travel across a table that a guy on foot could almost run along with it? Was it that with TLoS, sitting on a balcony could very well mean that you couldn't see someone anyone below because your model was modelled crouching?

I could go on and on. The amount of stupid abstractions is no higher than it has ever been. You just made peace with the old ones. Make peace with the new ones.

Something to consider is that there are simply different assumptions about cover in this edition. Namely that it is only any good if the figure is actively making use of it.

Whilst a figure is in a piece of area terrain they are actively making use of the cover - ducking behind rocks, hiding behind trees and shrubs, lying down at the edge of a crater etc - and so get the cover bonus.

Whilst a figure is in the open they are not actively making use of cover, they're running about or standing/kneeling and firing. Therefore they don't get the cover save.

If there is stuff in between you and the target then it is assumed that it is not enough to affect your firing at them unless it is actually LoS blocking.

Might I also point out that area terrain is not exactly a new concept and hasn't prevented wargamers from enjoying their toy soldiers for the over a hundred years that it's been a thing.

 Elbows wrote:
I agree and you're not alone...we've been house ruling it pretty consistently from the beginning.

Remember, the most important section in the rulebook regarding terrain is the portion where it says "use these examples to make up your own terrain rules". So if you're playing with someone you know, use whatever terrain/line-of-sight rules you want. Outside a tournament, nobody gets a say in how you play. I still shoot from my vehicles solely using the location of the weapon (not firing around a corner with the tip of a hull, etc.).

This is very helpful.
Thank you for pointing to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

What did make so much sense to you before? Was it that a tank with tracks made specifically to travel over difficult ground had an almost 20% chance to get permanently stuck in a small crater? Was it that a guy on a bike or a tank or a guy on foot could cover the exact same distance? Was it that when shooting from a flyer from above you'd still hit a tank in the front? Most real tanks are most vulnerable from above, not in the back. Was it that things described as jet fliers take so long to travel across a table that a guy on foot could almost run along with it? Was it that with TLoS, sitting on a balcony could very well mean that you couldn't see someone anyone below because your model was modelled crouching?

I could go on and on. The amount of stupid abstractions is no higher than it has ever been. You just made peace with the old ones. Make peace with the new ones.

Ummm. No.
One thing that I have learned is to fear those who begin a sentence with the word "You".
I never made peace with the old ones.
And I am not about to start.
Mediocre is never good enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norsed wrote:
Something to consider is that there are simply different assumptions about cover in this edition. Namely that it is only any good if the figure is actively making use of it.

Whilst a figure is in a piece of area terrain they are actively making use of the cover - ducking behind rocks, hiding behind trees and shrubs, lying down at the edge of a crater etc - and so get the cover bonus.

Whilst a figure is in the open they are not actively making use of cover, they're running about or standing/kneeling and firing. Therefore they don't get the cover save.

If there is stuff in between you and the target then it is assumed that it is not enough to affect your firing at them unless it is actually LoS blocking.

Might I also point out that area terrain is not exactly a new concept and hasn't prevented wargamers from enjoying their toy soldiers for the over a hundred years that it's been a thing.

I am not familiar with the deep history of area terrain.
Would like to know more.

I think that I see where you are going with this,
though it doesn't touch the main point, that the WYSIWIG super realism in modeling
doesn't match the abstract rules that end up deciding the fate of the models.

It bothers me too, a bit, I confess. But I forgive GW for doing it.

To illustrate GW's thinking: if you, Mr. Tempestus Scion, Esq., deep-struck behind an Exocrine in a narrow alleyway, it should be just as helpless as a Vindicator, but in prior editions it wasn't. The only way to remedy this is to 1) take fire arcs away from vehicles and make them like MC's as they are now or 2) give fire arcs to everything else in the game (except, arguably, the Infantry unit type).

It's done for the sake of game balance and a reduction of complexity. I don't blame them for that, since the biggest criticism of 7th imo was its bloat.

In a nutshell you have the various forms of Kriegspiel, which being played on a map has area terrain by default. And even if you discount that as it used blocks rather than toy soldiers you have Wargames For Boy Scouts, which predated Little Wars by a few years and was essentially a simplified, deterministic form of Kriegspiel played with toy soldiers. Little Wars of course had the ultimate True LoS with matchstick firing naval guns, and the first instance of it.

The thing is, all wargaming is an abstraction, unless you actually start firing guns at each other. And the terrain rules are not the most abstract element of 8th. Plus, I think it's a good way to indicate cover intent without the use of counters or record sheets.

 jeff white wrote:

One thing that I have learned is to fear those who begin a sentence with the word "You".

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Starting a sentence with the word "you" doesn't define it at all.

 jeff white wrote:
You can build a shadowseer with bits and a big mask from the voidweaver starweaver kit.

 jeff white wrote:
You might be able to get thirty boys for less than ten pounds

 jeff white wrote:

You can't be serious...

 jeff white wrote:
You should have your own building or stages of cover for an advance,

 jeff white wrote:
You can convert meks from boys and big meks from nobs

 jeff white wrote:
You've got more than an open mind.

 jeff white wrote:

You are projecting again sunflower.
That feeling of certainty you seem to have is false.
You are not seeing what you think that you are seeing.

See?

 jeff white wrote:

I never made peace with the old ones.
And I am not about to start.
Mediocre is never good enough.

You'll forgive me for thinking you actually wanted to get into the game when you started rather than start off with this feeling you seem to be describing that it simply isn't worth it (which you did seem to ascribe to the fact that it was getting too silly/too abstract.)

The silliness of the rules as written though, are not even abstract - they're just bad. They are, however, easily fixed.

Every person in the 40K group that I've been visiting has said (more or less) "Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense..." when confronted with the new terrain rules. That's never a good sign. It's easily fixable though - I've had no issues with house ruling terrain into a more sensible set of rules.

Again, to reiterate:

I'd be fine with increasing complexity, giving things like monsters or battlesuits facings, and putting facings back on tanks. Give them armour values too - you could even give a Space Marine an armour value, since he's essentially wearing tank armour.

You could redesign the game, where a squadron of Leman Russ tanks fights a plattoon of Space Marines in a big game, and include tables and rolls up to and including what the tank gunners had for breakfast that morning.

Or you could throw the baby out with the bathwater and just say "feth it, these rules represent everything from a small firefight in a crowded office-space to orbital bombardments hitting battleship-tanks!" That seems to be GW's approach.

I think one issue is that 40k as written is "abstract" in quotes. This is a game where "use your imagination" is used to rationalize why airplanes die when they land on top of an infantry model or leave the table, while "the rules are clear" explain why the game has granular differences between Power Axes, Power Swords, and Power Mauls.

That, and the assorted "variants" of 40k (Kill Team, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, etc) all act as "optional" bolt-ons rather than being cleanly integrated into the core rules.

One "early draft" homebrew I considered in the past for making thr game scale upwards, is to do something akin to a "reverse Decurion", where detachments become akin to a pyramid, and certain detachments can purchase benefits depending on assorted factors (does this detachment have x auxiliary, y sub-detachment, etc). Thus if your army was only *one* Patrol detachment, you could take "Kill Team" as a Detachment Modifier, among other options. (Which could be admittedly neat from a Narrative/fluff perspective if you want to play a Last Chancer army, etc).

Norsed wrote:
In a nutshell you have the various forms of Kriegspiel, which being played on a map has area terrain by default. And even if you discount that as it used blocks rather than toy soldiers you have Wargames For Boy Scouts, which predated Little Wars by a few years and was essentially a simplified, deterministic form of Kriegspiel played with toy soldiers. Little Wars of course had the ultimate True LoS with matchstick firing naval guns, and the first instance of it.

The thing is, all wargaming is an abstraction, unless you actually start firing guns at each other. And the terrain rules are not the most abstract element of 8th. Plus, I think it's a good way to indicate cover intent without the use of counters or record sheets.

What are the most abstract rules in 8th?
I am in earnest, here.
Should I start another thread asking this question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

One thing that I have learned is to fear those who begin a sentence with the word "You".

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Starting a sentence with the word "you" doesn't define it at all.

 jeff white wrote:
You can build a shadowseer with bits and a big mask from the voidweaver starweaver kit.

 jeff white wrote:
You might be able to get thirty boys for less than ten pounds

 jeff white wrote:

You can't be serious...

 jeff white wrote:
You should have your own building or stages of cover for an advance,

 jeff white wrote:
You can convert meks from boys and big meks from nobs

 jeff white wrote:
You've got more than an open mind.

 jeff white wrote:

You are projecting again sunflower.
That feeling of certainty you seem to have is false.
You are not seeing what you think that you are seeing.

See?

 jeff white wrote:

I never made peace with the old ones.
And I am not about to start.
Mediocre is never good enough.

You'll forgive me for thinking you actually wanted to get into the game when you started rather than start off with this feeling you seem to be describing that it simply isn't worth it (which you did seem to ascribe to the fact that it was getting too silly/too abstract.)

Ok, I should have been more specific.
I fear people who start a sentence "You" and then proceed to tell me what I think and feel.
In this case, the "you" points to me.
In the cases above, I am using the word "you" in the sense of a generic anybody, as we often do in English...
Different cases.

And yes, I am not going to burn my collection (25 years, now, maybe)
but I do get weary especially as I live so isolated from an active community.
Dakka is basically all I have, now.
So, I tend to put everything hobby related here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
The silliness of the rules as written though, are not even abstract - they're just bad. They are, however, easily fixed.

Every person in the 40K group that I've been visiting has said (more or less) "Wait, what? That doesn't make any sense..." when confronted with the new terrain rules. That's never a good sign. It's easily fixable though - I've had no issues with house ruling terrain into a more sensible set of rules.

I am with your group on this one.
Thanks for the confirmation.

 jeff white wrote:

In the cases above, I am using the word "you" in the sense of a generic anybody, as we often do in English...
Different cases.

Except the last one where you're specifically telling a person that he isn't as good at seeing through his eyes as you are. Fear youuuu~

 Purifier wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

In the cases above, I am using the word "you" in the sense of a generic anybody, as we often do in English...
Different cases.

Except the last one where you're specifically telling a person that he isn't as good at seeing through his eyes as you are. Fear youuuu~

In that instance,
I was responding to someone telling me how I feel or think.
As in "you just told me what is in my head rather than ask."
Which is what I am finding here again.
Seems to be an outbreak...

Which brings us back to where I started.
Why bother with realistic modeling when rules are made for collectible card players?

 jeff white wrote:
Why bother with realistic modeling when rules are made for collectible card players?

Because models are neat.

Hi jeff.

Allow us to agree to disagree. Or to agree on different parts where appropriate, as you'll see. I will try to answer just your post, and not any of the replies you already had.

You always enjoyed the look of the table from a model's eye view. I do too. Simply love to look through modeled windows and try to spot the enemy. Within a bit of reason of course. I always hated when people told me they "can see my captain behind that wall" when all they realistically could perceive through True Line Of Sight, was the tip of the banner pole from the massive banner on his back (at least as tall as the model itself, from head to toe). 'Realistically', that captain would probably be crouching behind that wall, keeping his head down and not waving around a stupid banner as not to attract a lot of ammo... attention I mean.

To me, that breaks the immersion of the game. Fething around about a sword tip that protrudes from a door opening, claiming line of sight. The current rules say that a unit must be completely within a model terrain piece to gain cover. To me, that means they have to take care to have no stragglers in a kill zone. When taken from another point of view, the abstract rule makes a lot more sense, than arguing about dynamically posed, but often static (try bending their arms and legs...) models that have a part sticking out, and are therefor eligible targets for the enemy. To me, the current rule of adding to the saving throw instead of making it harder to hit an enemy in cover, is more of a problem than having to obscure a certain minimum area of my vehicles.

When we get to WYSIWYG, more stuff happens. Most people I know never bothered to glue the pistol holsters to their tactical space marines who carry boltguns. Most say, that it is standard equipment from the Codex (Index at this moment), and therefor WYSIWYG does not apply. But still they make bolt pistol attacks in the shooting phase when their models are within 1" of enemy models. And I must admit that sometimes even the miniature sprues don't give all the necessary components for one to have all Codex/Index options, and a fully WYSIWYG squad. Some parts don't even exist, yet. Ever found a Chaos Space marine Terminator combi-plasma on the sprues?

Looking at the models half painted on my project desk, I am wondering - why not complete them? I like the visual appeal of two fully assembled and painted armies on a beautiful gaming table. To me, an abstract rule that I might still try to find a justification for is less of an immersion breaking thing than a pair of sprue-grey legs glued to a featureless base, and having a boltgun blue-tacked on top of the hips to indicate which trooper it is. If the opponent is some kid with more time than money, and/or he is trying a new squad, I'd still play, of course, but just lower my expectations as to what I am going to see on the table. But my preference is still the visual spectacle.

Which brings me to the question about purpose. I have several answers to which you may agree, or disagree.
One purpose is for yourself, the satisfaction of saying "I did that!" or "I finsihed my captain conversion and he looks great!".
Another purpose is clarity. Neither you, nor an opponent, can make mistakes about wargear load-outs when the model is built WYSIWYG. If I had a euro for every time somebody said: "sure, this is a Space Marine Captain with plasma pistol and power fist. But for this game I will proxy him for my Eldar Autarch with power sword, Swooping Hawk wings, shuriken pistol and a shimmer-shield." or something like that. It's not called WYSIWYG for nothing, and one does benefit from it as much as an opponent does.
A third purpose for painting, posing, and converting is so that your Space Marine Sergeant A, even if they share the very same wargear, doesn't look much like Space Marine Sergeant B, or his brothers, Space Marine Sergeants D, E, F, or G. Remember the times of the Second Edition, where all the Goff Boyz sort of looked the same, all with their arms wide, an oversized pistol in one hand, pointing slightly down, and some axe in the other, the handle always pointing straight up? Even when painted differently, this soon became repetetive. To me, at least it did.