Switch Theme:

40k 9th edition rumour and speculation  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.


I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.

It's also usually acceptable to ask the opposing player whether or not a unit *you* think they can't see is visible to them. In most social games a good opponent will say yes or no rather than letting you think the unit is hidden before shooting them anyway. It's commonly considered bad etiquette.

Interesting that Polish players seem to favor a much more "gotcha" style of play.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/12 20:52:27


The 1st Legion
Interrogator-Chaplain Beremiah's Strike Force
The Tearers of Flesh 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.


Yes, it is as simple as: "to we use house rules for line of sight or not?"
If the answer is yes, everything is fine, if the answer is "no I don't like house rules and want to play according to the book" you get the situation above

if you hear the "no" more often than the "yes" for house rules, it is fine to ask the designers to change those rules as somehow they make the game not fun any more


A lot of people complain about 5th Edition 40k, but all those bad things that happend for them never happened for me because we used house rules to get over it.
but the level of acceptance declined over time and end of 7th it was more or less gone
people claim that 40k 8th is the best game ever made by GW and therefore any house rules just make it worse

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.


I don't believe he's saying a player can say "You can't see my models when they're behind this piece of terrain". He's suggesting there should be a conversation beforehand about what counts as "visible". The aforementioned flagpole, a base rim etc.

It's also usually acceptable to ask the opposing player whether or not a unit *you* think they can't see is visible to them. In most social games a good opponent will say yes or no rather than letting you think the unit is hidden before shooting them anyway. It's commonly considered bad etiquette.

Interesting that Polish players seem to favor a much more "gotcha" style of play.


Correct - we're not changing what the rules do. We're just communicating what we're trying to do so there are no "gotcha" moments.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.


So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:

people claim that 40k 8th is the best game ever made by GW and therefore any house rules just make it worse


Wouldn't we all like to have some of whatever they're smoking?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/12 21:27:15


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





ccs wrote:


So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?



No.

I move models into cover believing they are in cover, but my opponent can actually see and shoot them.

VS

I move my models into cover and ask, "can you see these guys? I'm trying to get them behind cover." If they say yes then I move them until they are or I give up if there are no opportunities.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/12 21:41:10


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
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.

Yes, and chances are you guys would defend GW saying "just houserule it". After all, it is done everything else, minor or major.

You don't see the problem here?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
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.

The way you "enjoy" does not need a rulebook if you're doing everything the rules writers should be doing. So no, you don't have standards. My standards aren't even that hard to meet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/12 21:49:04


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
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.


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!



Ah yes, how could I have been so blind as to think I'd have standards when I know quite well what I like to get out of a game, am willing to put effort into my own fun like a grown up human being, socialize with my gaming partners and constructively talk about these things with them to ensure we all have fun with a pastime we put a lot of dedication in and even find out those people think this is a most positive part of their lives. How dare we enjoy tinkering with systems that boldly declare in their sprawling pages that using them in any manner one sees fit, when all this time the answer was right there under our noses:

One can only be a shining beacon of hobbying correctly if they shut their ears from anybody elses' thoughts, entrench themselves in their own one true way of holy writ as made by the Authority (while loudly and incessantly deriding that set as a sucky one that could easily be fixed IF ONLY SOMEONE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT) since no-one else is authorized to do games design and for the final touch, always remember to imply anyone who has the gall to do something else must be on an immediate slippery slipe to making pew pew noises at the playground like a complete dolt. Because of course they are, despite overwhelming evidence of people having FUN with their hobbies just fine.

Yes, I must be the one without standards here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/12 23:03:11


#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!


You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Is there a point to this thread anymore? honestly.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Sherrypie wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!


You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung

No, it IS white knighting. You aren't fixing anything. What you're doing is supporting GW with their lazy writing. DIY means nothing when everything you mentioned can be done for anything from games with better rules down all the way to Chess. Yes, Chess can be done with all the garbage you say to "fix the game yourself".
So what other reason is it to put that effort in? The answer is simple. You'll simply defend GW for anything. Saying you can do both things in the first sentence is not true. Either you stand your ground and stop giving daddy GW money for their garbage printed rules or not. There's no middle outside your imagination.
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut






Riiight. Keep on shouting into the void, mate, meanwhile those of us who aren't seemingly consumed by our selfasserted hubris of righteousness can carry on getting a lot of gaming out of those materials you so despise. How horrible, whole minutes of our lives might be wasted on improving the experience every now and then by such endeavours.

Seriously, take a breather once in a while, Slayer, you just sound more and more miserable the longer you keep on treading that argument. The dichotomy you're building there is just not any universal truth, despite your continued grumbling about it. A person can be perfectly happy to support GW as a whole, like most players probably do since it's nice to have your beloved games be supported by a non-dead company, while not agreeing with all they do.

#ConvertEverything blog with loyalist Death Guard in true and Epic scales. Also Titans and killer robots! C&C welcome.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page

Do you like narrative gaming? Ongoing Imp vs. PDF rebellion campaign reports here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/786958.page

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
ccs wrote:


So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?



No.

I move models into cover believing they are in cover, but my opponent can actually see and shoot them.

VS

I move my models into cover and ask, "can you see these guys? I'm trying to get them behind cover." If they say yes then I move them until they are or I give up if there are no opportunities.


Yeah, I figured that's how you & yours do it. It's how we normal people do it. I was asking Karol if his group would lie to him if he did this.
   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 Sherrypie wrote:

Seriously, take a breather once in a while, Slayer, you just sound more and more miserable the longer you keep on treading that argument. The dichotomy you're building there is just not any universal truth, despite your continued grumbling about it. A person can be perfectly happy to support GW as a whole, like most players probably do since it's nice to have your beloved games be supported by a non-dead company, while not agreeing with all they do.


To be honest, this is usually the case with most of the very vocal minority on Dakka.

For every person here that says 40k is a dead game, there are thousands who enjoy their hobby.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


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.

yes and that is exactly what we don't do here. You can't say I move them, in a such a way that you don't see my models, because first your opponent here will not play like that, and second even if you somehow wanted to do it, they will shot you if they see you. I don't know what the english name for it is, but "traping" is a valid way to play here.


Sounds like a terrible play group...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 03:25:38


"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Sherrypie wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
IOW: I don't mind being a white knight and doing GW's job for them. Sure we can explain concerns with the game, their terrible editing, and overall lackadaisical attitude towards actual issues, but why bother? After all, daddy GW gives you freedom to fix the game yourself!


You are quite quick to put words into other people's mouths, aren't you? Here in the real world folks are very much capable of both telling GW that their games would benefit from tighter rules while using what's on offer to create games they like to play. Shocking, I know.

Also, calling someone a white knight for supporting taking matters into their own hands singing praises of the DIY-culture that fixes GW's brainfarts and not rigidly only accepting the writ given from above is so rich I might've just burst a lung

No, it IS white knighting. You aren't fixing anything. What you're doing is supporting GW with their lazy writing. DIY means nothing when everything you mentioned can be done for anything from games with better rules down all the way to Chess. Yes, Chess can be done with all the garbage you say to "fix the game yourself".
So what other reason is it to put that effort in? The answer is simple. You'll simply defend GW for anything. Saying you can do both things in the first sentence is not true. Either you stand your ground and stop giving daddy GW money for their garbage printed rules or not. There's no middle outside your imagination.


You realize that you come off as the crazy ranting dude on the corner waiving the cardboard Repent/End is Nigh sign, right?

Anyways, rant on if it makes you feel better. Me? I've got house-ruled GW games to play.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

Which is a problem if the main advantage of a game are easy to learn rules and easy to find pick up games

playing a game and realising in the middle that the opponent plays something different as he has different house rules under the same name without knowing that he uses house rules



And GW is lazy at best for now.
a reason why people think 9th must be near as there is no afford put into anything they are doing for 8th

so people hope that the reason is that the focus is on a new and better edition and therefore is no time to do releases properly

but this would be an excuse for old GW with a small studio that struggle and not the big company that could afford another design team

they just do the minimum work for maximum profit and if 9th does not come sooner than later (or GW stop being lazy at writing rules), there will be a lot of disappointed people.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






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

Why? It's like that for almost every other game.

"Let's play a game of magic!" "Commander or 60 card casual?" "Commander!" "Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*
"Let's play a game of risk!" "Starwars, GoT and classic risk?" "Starwars!" "Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*
"Let's play a game of chess!""Ok, let's go!" *play game according to rules*

Wouldn't it be awesome to have a game start like this:
"Let's play a game of Warhammer40k?" "Matched play or narrative?" "Narrative!" "Which mission?" "The one with the guards" "2000 points?" "Sure" "Ok, let's go!"
... and then play the entire game exactly like it is written in the rules and have fun while doing so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
So if you directly asked them "Can you see this model?" they'd lie to you, let you finish the move & then shoot the model anyways?

I've actually have had this happen once. I gave him the shot, stopped all unnecessary communication with him for the game and just refused to play with that person until he eventually apologized. If was forced to play him (in a tournament or league), I would have known what to expect. It's really not that complicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Charistoph wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

I have played over a hundred games of Monopoly and never once used house rules to do so. That's probably why I hate the game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/13 13:27:22


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





Why? It's like that for almost every other game.


There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.


If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 15:01:05


The 1st Legion
Interrogator-Chaplain Beremiah's Strike Force
The Tearers of Flesh 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Considering the amount of times I had to argue whether a deffrolla is part of the hull or not in 5th, it's not surprising that I noticed the lack of that rule in 8th quickly.

The point is that your friends (or everyone else) aren't sweaty douchebags if they insist they can shoot your banner - that's what the rules say.
It's fine to house-rule a game to make it more enjoyable. It's not fine to insult people who play game by its rules.

This is the relevant rule:
In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible.

Any part is any part, including banners, wings, antennas and sayan hair.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/13 14:22:41


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:

If you check out my posts earlier in the thread I mentioned how shocked I was that this was even a thing. My friends and FLGS group have always treated Saiyan hair as not being eligible for LoS. It's never even been a conversation.

I hear you when you say we shouldn't have to bend over backwards to make a game system work. But in this case we're not. It's virtually the only thing we "change" in the ruleset, and until yesterday I didn't even realize it was a "change".

That's probably why I'm arguing so much for it not being a big deal, it's so common sense we didn't even realize we were technically not playing by the rules lol. I pinged my group and a good chunk of them were actually shocked that RAW you *could* target Saiyan hair.


It is not a big deal because you are used to it and doing otherwise is strange or a big deal

A group that is used to target Banners and shot antenna with antennas, it us strange to do it differently

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Call us bad at reading the rules if you will, I'll be over here happily modeling my squad Sgt with an awesome banner on his backpack because my friends aren't sweaty douchebags who insist it's targetable.


If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed? Because if it's allowed, then I don't see how that's any different from using other ancillary parts to determine LOS, but if it's not allowed, then that's suggesting you have to trace LOS from the gun itself, which is a house rule that has a huge impact on game balance.

You don't need the condescension. We know things can be houseruled to make more sense; I have to houserule the terrain rules for my setup to be at all useful. The issue is that something as basic as LOS shouldn't need house rules to be intuitive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 14:47:37


   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





 catbarf wrote:
 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
Call us bad at reading the rules if you will, I'll be over here happily modeling my squad Sgt with an awesome banner on his backpack because my friends aren't sweaty douchebags who insist it's targetable.


If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed? Because if it's allowed, then I don't see how that's any different from using other ancillary parts to determine LOS, but if it's not allowed, then that's suggesting you have to trace LOS from the gun itself, which is a house rule that has a huge impact on game balance.

You don't need the condescension. We know things can be houseruled to make more sense; I have to houserule the terrain rules for my setup to be at all useful. The issue is that something as basic as LOS shouldn't need house rules to be intuitive.


You're right I deleted the offended content. Sorry for the crappy attitude. There's enough of that on the internet without me adding to it.

The 1st Legion
Interrogator-Chaplain Beremiah's Strike Force
The Tearers of Flesh 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 Jidmah wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are so many people in this thread who seem very turned off or even offended by the very idea of playing the game by its rules.

To be fair, when there aren't much in the way of rules, or they make for a pretty crap game... It really is one of the reasons why Monopoly has so many house rules for it, and often without people knowing they are house rules because that's how their parents were taught the game by their parents.

I have played over a hundred games of Monopoly and never once used house rules to do so. That's probably why I hate the game.

There is a difference between adding rules to make your game more enjoyable and the game constantly requiring you create rules to make it work.

Then you probably didn't learn Monopoly rules from others who learned it from others and you bothered looking at the rules. Oddly enough, sometimes I would run in to that with 40K where someone remembered the rules from a previous edition (or two) and treated them as part of the current ruleset. Aside from things like Monopoly Kids or the more exotic editions, Monopoly really hasn't changed much since the Great Depression. 40K is on its 4th edition since I started collecting, and 5th since I started looking in to picking it up.

And those Monopoly house rules, or even 40K modifications like ITC, are not constantly requiring the creation of rules. They were created some time ago and are just constantly being put in to use. Utilizing the TLOS rules from 6th and 7th would be an example of both of these concepts.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/13 17:12:58


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

 catbarf wrote:

If I trace LOS for a Leman Russ from the front tip of its hull, is that a 'sweaty douchebag' move, or is that allowed?


It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
It's both.

And it can get worse when you start shooting from your antena, firing your left sponson out of your right side, etc. Sure, you're playing by the rules, but you're also clearly being TFG.


Am I being TFG if I want my Malcador Defender to be able to shoot more than one gun at a time? Because as sensible as 'weapons can only shoot from their physical location, through their modeled fire arcs' is, that's not in the rules, and it has a huge effect on balance. It also means that there are situations where you are visible but cannot shoot back, which is not the case for non-vehicles.

On that note, do infantry work the same way? My Death Korps heavy weapon teams are low to the ground and my buddy's Elysians are prone on bipods, are we both TFG if we measure LOS from their heads rather than their guns?

Does my Carnifex, on an oval base, need to pivot to shoot an enemy behind it? Or do based models get a free pass on fire arcs, while non-based vehicles are more constrained?

See, this is my problem with treating houserules as the solution to inadequate design: If you and I are in the same club and we've been doing this for years, sure, we can set up our own tweaks on the formula, and once we walk through all of the above then we can have a mutually enjoyable game.

But if I go to the club and play against a random opponent, I've always assumed we measure from any point of the hull because, hey, that's what the rules say, that's how the game's been balanced in 8th, and since the ground scale simply can't be 1:1 (otherwise the game starts to get utterly absurd), a tank's position must be more abstract than literally the space occupied by the model. And now it seems that makes me TFG.

I really don't think we should have to go through this long checklist of deciding how we want to modify basic game mechanics before we play a casual pickup game. I certainly haven't had to do that in other wargames.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/13 18:05:59


   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Just because you can house rule a bad rule doesn't excuse it being written poorly in the first place, and inf act makes it worse because a house rule, even a sensible one, is 100% optional versus the actual rule as written and can not realistically be enforced all the time. No matter how "duh" it might be, if it's not an OFFICIAL rule it can't be consistently enforced.

TLOS is a perfect example. It should be that you ignore banners/aerials/etc. for determining LOS. The rules as written don't do that, stupid as it might be. So saying that TLOS is fine because you house ruled it to not treat those as valid or your playgroup isn't "sweaty douchebags" who would insist it's targetable doesn't have relevance because according to the rules, like them or not, they ARE targetable. Should they be? Absolutely not, but they are. You ignoring the rules, even if that part of the rules is nonsensically stupid and shouldn't exist, is still house ruling a rule and then pretending that there's no problem because you choose to ignore it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/13 18:15:37


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

The LOS rules are designed to be unambiguous and avoid debates over what ‘counts’.

That’s it.

If you find it unappealing and house rule it that’s cool, but that’s why the rule is the way it is. No point in posturing around it. There’s no intellectual high ground or low ground, just personal preference.

FWIW our group plays as written, as it speeds things up and saves time arguing edge cases. It works perfectly fine.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: