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.

The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

Indeed, and given that common understanding at the table it's fine and dandy, but heaven forbid this hobby seems to include lots of people who hold such discussions as a personal attack on their wellbeing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

When i'm not in a serious game I don't shoot antennas, but if I'm competing hard then both my opponent and I know that we'll shoot what we can see and we create verbal agreements on intention and check with each other if the model can be seen or not.

These things are not hard and people like to make mountains out of mole hills.

I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Fun guy.

Since we're wishlisting I would LOVE the Killteam terrain rules and alternating activations.

Even just adding a similar mechanic to the shooting phase as we have in KT would do a lot for the whole alpha strike issue imo.

But I'm definitely not an expert, has anyone experimented with something like that in 40k?

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

Exactly. I've literally never heard of it before today.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Fun guy.

Since we're wishlisting I would LOVE the Killteam terrain rules and alternating activations.

Even just adding a similar mechanic to the shooting phase as we have in KT would do a lot for the whole alpha strike issue imo.

But I'm definitely not an expert, has anyone experimented with something like that in 40k?

Yes, up to rewriting the whole turn structure to somewhat randomized alternating activations Bolt Action style. It works well.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think 40k games and there spin offs are the only games that do not handle this with rules stating that things like antennas or things outside It’s profile are not eligible for shooting or being shot at that I have play.
So it’s also not hard for game designers to compensate for.

I may be mixing up 40k editions >.>

It's always a matter of where you draw the line.

In the end it is a double edged sword. Your antenna can shoot me and I can shoot your antenna.

Rarely can I recall such a scenario in a game though. People like to pretend that there's a huge issue, but in my experience it just isn't one - especially if you're communicating with your opponent.

Exactly. I've literally never heard of it before today.

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Apple fox wrote:

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

I'm unconvinced that there is a rule that is simple, requires no communication, checking of tables / sheets, and creates no confusion/frustration when certain models slip between the designated bands.

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Refusing to take even the slightest initiative when playing a game and interpreting it's rules just seems...off.

Like it's weird to me that it's their fault not yours. If a menu recommends a wine with a particular dish, but conventional wisdom and your own experience tells you another wine would be much better, you don't order the recommended wine and then complain that they should've paired it better.

I mean, you can. But at that point there's no helping you.

The more I think about the PA release schedule the more I think an 8.5/soft reboot/change will happen.
Not sure it'll be the summer but certainly this year?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

I'm unconvinced that there is a rule that is simple, requires no communication, checking of tables / sheets, and creates no confusion/frustration when certain models slip between the designated bands.

You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

It does not come up, but other things do that the rule would cover.
It’s a very powerful and useful rule from a design perfective of the game. It would probably be even more value to GW who go for Rule off cool before game design.
Set your cool dude on a rock, he does not lose anything. Have a marine down low, gains nothing. Hand outside of cover since he is pointing. Can’t be shot of for his incompetence.

Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

No communication needed of rules are written well, cool dude does not mean Characters. I’m putting this squad out of LOS is one of the biggest and most annoying issues.
But hey, simple rule covers all those scenarios without more time wasted, literally the reason you state for it’s not being needed is why it’s so good.

Refusing to take even the slightest initiative when playing a game and interpreting it's rules just seems...off.

Like it's weird to me that it's their fault not yours. If a menu recommends a wine with a particular dish, but conventional wisdom and your own experience tells you another wine would be much better, you don't order the recommended wine and then complain that they should've paired it better.

I mean, you can. But at that point there's no helping you.

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

Apple fox wrote:


You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.

My method as explained involves no real rules. It is just interaction with my opponent. Stating intent and confirming it. There is no magic to it.

A system where every unit is assigned some sort of height value and then terrain has a height value, but this terrain has a slightly different value and this unit is kind of a weird size, but it got this value so we do what we can sort of thing...just isn't simple or always intuitive or straightforward. In smaller skirmish level games where there is more time to handle fewer models? Sure.

I'm sure Warhammer could have such a system, too. And I'd be fine, but what we have now is unencumbered, because I'm already socializing with my opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


You stated that it’s not to hard to do just above. So extending it tot he rules is easy.
Being that a bunch of other games can manage it with little issue, and players seem to have no issue extrapolating it as evidence by posts just above. How are you unconvinced.
How many tables would you need, if the game designers are competent it should be very little for players to handle.
Communication in the game is part of the game, but that does not mean that players should have to communicate details that Hold little value but extra time used.

And it has huge value for the more creative side, it’s hard to turn up to a tournament and start with a bunch of this is not right, Remeber all these extra details.

My method as explained involves no real rules. It is just interaction with my opponent. Stating intent and confirming it. There is no magic to it.

A system where every unit is assigned some sort of height value and then terrain has a height value, but this terrain has a slightly different value and this unit is kind of a weird size, but it got this value so we do what we can sort of thing...just isn't simple or always intuitive or straightforward. In smaller skirmish level games where there is more time to handle fewer models? Sure.

I'm sure Warhammer could have such a system, too. And I'd be fine, but what we have now is unencumbered, because I'm already socializing with my opponent.

A rule that covers it opens up other parts of the game for rules.
Terrain itself can be easy in such a system so that’s not a worry, again it really just comes down to competence of the 40k team.
It works fine in even games with models as high as 40k without issue.

As communication is great but tournament rules can benefit a great deal. Things like conversions are covered, strange poses as well.
As well as a place to fall back on when issues pop up.
And you could ignore it as it seems like you and your group have no issues.

They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

My point is not to make excuses for an admittedly laughable rules oversight.

My point is that people who insist that a flag pole counts as a viable target "bEcAuSe ThE rUlEs ArE wRiTtEn ThAt WaY" in defiance of all common sense and reasonable desire for a fun experience for the guy who put a banner on his squad leader's backpack is DMV-tier
levels of gormless bureaucratic thinking.

That's what I mean by taking the initiative. Rising above mindless obedience to an obviously sloppily-written rule. The fact that people are modeling their banner carriers holding the flag parallel to the ground is an obscene example of WAAC weirdos running a local meta.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

It's a wargame though. If the rules don't say "those wires and bitz don't count for LoS" sure you can't just shoot them. GW purposely did not create a tight rule set though. Why you bother to defend them on that is beyond me. Have some standards.

Klickor wrote:They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

Yeah, the previous editions had rules like this. Had several rules discussions on it here.

Games like Infinity and WarmaHordes get around it by basically abstracting the volume that the model takes up based on its base size no matter what overhang, squatting, or lying the model itself has involved. Terrain is often handled that way as well. Why GW just doesn't work that way is beyond me, but they honestly don't care about how their rules work so long as they can make it seem cool. They went to True Line of Sight way back and haven't looked at it again, apparently.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

What, clean rules lead to the ability to change things up more and taking more of the game into your own hands if you want it. As well as leads to less issues.
This just seems like a massive dodge to me. Slightest initiative, a rule that handles simple things as well as sets common ground for players is not leading to games of players taking no initiative with there games or no creativity.

My point is not to make excuses for an admittedly laughable rules oversight.

My point is that people who insist that a flag pole counts as a viable target "bEcAuSe ThE rUlEs ArE wRiTtEn ThAt WaY" in defiance of all common sense and reasonable desire for a fun experience for the guy who put a banner on his squad leader's backpack is DMV-tier
levels of gormless bureaucratic thinking.

That's what I mean by taking the initiative. Rising above mindless obedience to an obviously sloppily-written rule. The fact that people are modeling their banner carriers holding the flag parallel to the ground is an obscene example of WAAC weirdos running a local meta.

We aren't supposed to do the job of the rules writers. If it's such a silly oversight, why don't you email them to get it corrected?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

And that right there IS the problem, because this isn't a single player game.

It's a wargame though. If the rules don't say "those wires and bitz don't count for LoS" sure you can't just shoot them. GW purposely did not create a tight rule set though. Why you bother to defend them on that is beyond me. Have some standards.

They have standards, they're just different than yours. They enjoy fun.

We aren't supposed to do the job of the rules writers. If it's such a silly oversight, why don't you email them to get it corrected?

Because I'm not slavishly locked into a line of text in a book. Because playing a game in an objectively not-fun way because it's "not my job" to play around a minor rules shortfall is a sweaty attitude.

 Charistoph wrote:

Klickor wrote:They had earlier editions were you had to shoot the body of the model and things like swords, banners or decorative wings on jump packs etc didnt count. They actually mentioned it in the rules. But it is one of the things they couldnt put a line in the rule book for since they wanted it to be short enough to brag about. Not a good decision at all and they could have put it in an errata or FAQ if they wanted to at any time.

So antennas killing antennas through one door, 2 Windows and a forest is the intent by the game designers of the base 40k game. Even if not its them that are incompetent and not the gamers fault at all.

Yeah, the previous editions had rules like this. Had several rules discussions on it here.

Games like Infinity and WarmaHordes get around it by basically abstracting the volume that the model takes up based on its base size no matter what overhang, squatting, or lying the model itself has involved. Terrain is often handled that way as well. Why GW just doesn't work that way is beyond me, but they honestly don't care about how their rules work so long as they can make it seem cool. They went to True Line of Sight way back and haven't looked at it again, apparently.

I would prefer getting rid of true LOS myself however in 40k the abstract system would have issues. Both of the games you mentioned are much more standardized in terms of unit types and sizes. All factions in infinity have LI, MI, HI, TAGS, etc. Units are given base sizes and heights based on type. For 40k the armies are much more varied and there are a lot of models without bases. My theory years ago on true LOS was that is was adopted because GW basically gave up trying to make abstract LOS work in 40k.

Removed - BrookM

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The rules say for it to happen. Not my problem.

Ah so if there's rule that says "before game roll a dice. On 2+ space marine win the game" it's not your problem because rules say so?

Just because something is in rules doesn't mean it's good rule. And bad rules are everybody's problem. There's no excuse to have bad rules in games. Even less excuses to let them stay there.

No, you just don't have standards. With your supposed ones, you don't even NEED rules. Just go pewpew with the models and dont even bother to roll dice; whoever made the best pewpew noise wins!

To be clear your idea of "standards" is to continue playing a game I otherwise enjoy very much in a way that actively makes it less fun for me as both a gamer and a hobbyist while spamming GW with complaint emails?

And in your mind that is ethically superior to mentally adding a line that excludes saiyan hair from LoS rules?

OK buddy. As I said above, you seem like a fun guy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

well the thing is that this smells of intent play, not everywhere in the world do people play with intent in mind. In fact my country is known for not playing like that and over multiple systems, not just GW games. I remember polish judges getting in trouble with corvus belli over it.

It is okey when opponents let you change the rules, is a bad way to play, because it assumes that opponents, or at least the majority of them, are going to say yes. Everytime your in a place when they say no, your kind of a hit twice, once by a bad rule system, and the other time by people saying that the fix is not fixed rules, but people being lenitent with RAW.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Which boils down to communication.

Characters can't be freely targeted any more so it is moot, but "hey can you considering the model as a little shorter and behind cover, because of this scenic base?" "Sure"

"I'm putting this squad out of LOS. Can you see it?" "Yes, that guy's arm is still sticking out, but that's fine - I won't shoot them".

well the thing is that this smells of intent play, not everywhere in the world do people play with intent in mind. In fact my country is known for not playing like that and over multiple systems, not just GW games. I remember polish judges getting in trouble with corvus belli over it.

It is not that you rely on "intent" as you seem to indicate that I mean RAI.

What I mean is that I tell my opponent what I am intending to do and they tell me if I am correct or not from their perspective.