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.
If the argument for their uniqueness is spamming Wulfen and Thunderwolves, then it wasn't really a unique army to begin with whether you like it or not.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
Do snotlings and terminators the the same size base? If not why would they be the same size?
Also, thats not really how it would work. Each model would get a height stat equal to a number of inches above their base, representing the height of a typical model. Youd draw los from the top of thst measurement and to any part of that imaginary cylinder.
Thats basically how it works in infinity, and it greatly smooths oit los ans removes argument.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Banville wrote: They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
Job done.
What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.
Flyers that go into Hover mode, like Valkyries and Vultures are effectively helicopters at that point. Helicopters don't really avail of cover. They're hovering a hundred feet above the battlefield.
jeff white wrote: Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators
Do snotlings and terminators the the same size base? If not why would they be the same size?
Yes, they used to have a larger size than terminatos. Snotlings were a swarm similar to scarabs, rippers or nurglings, all of which cause the same problem. Or ork buggies, which have huge bases compared to man taller models.
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 actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. 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.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Because it generates more new players?
This is so rubbish. Enough people have an issue with TLOS, and have stated a multitude of reasons. You're going to say its needed for new players ? Where are all these new players that have the many hundreds to get into this game but lack capability to understand abstracted LOS with size for model types that would make the game flow quicker ? This game costs more than ever before, with each army needing like 2, to 3 different books for just their faction plus faqs and erratas. If a new player can buy all of this, understand all of those, I'm fairly certain they can handle the complexity of height mechanics. They are more than likely also young adults at least. I've seen no new players for 40k in at least the past 5 years who are less than 18 years of age minimum as the core game is too pricey for younger kids. So as to mean they should have the ability to read and understand a slightly longer take on cover, that will ultimately make the game better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/16 02:43:37
Dakka Wolf wrote: Dividing them up by keywords could possibly work.
1. Infantry.
2. Swarm, Biker, Beast.
3. Vehicle, Chariot, Monstrous Creature
4. Titanic.
As an added note models that have a minimum move characteristic greater than zero count as Titanic.
Why is a swarm of Nurglings bigger than an Allarus Custodian?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I guess the issue is that it doesn't work both ways.
You've got a squad on a level of a CoD building, and every other wall panel has no window. The guys can shoot through the windows, the guys without windows cannot shoot --but-- when their unit is shot at, everyone, including the guys without windows, can die from incoming fire.
If I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly please let me know, but it seems as though cover only works one way, and not in the favour of the people in the cover.
Open does not obstruct at all (craters, lakes, rivers etc...)
Light obstructs but does not block. Small barrier walls, fences, light foilage. -1 to hit when tracing los through it.
Heavy blocks los. Thick forest or full building ruins.
2 pieces of light count as heavy.
When targetting vehicles and monsters you treat the first piece of light as open.
When targetting titanic or fliers treat all light as open and heavy as light.
Interveneing units count as light terrain for establishing los. Guess what, characters just gained protection without needing convoluted special rules.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I guess the issue is that it doesn't work both ways.
You've got a squad on a level of a CoD building, and every other wall panel has no window. The guys can shoot through the windows, the guys without windows cannot shoot --but-- when their unit is shot at, everyone, including the guys without windows, can die from incoming fire.
If I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly please let me know, but it seems as though cover only works one way, and not in the favour of the people in the cover.
Yes this is the issue.
And about LoS I am anti extra abstraction and pro default to reslism. So called TLoS works great with reasonable restrictions. Fictional cones andvheight stats are all abstractions that destroy immersion and put added distance between the view on the tabletop and the way the game works.
The game needs to allow for infantry to take cover as in prior editions and to do so i would like to see a return to the use of counters including overwatch the way that it used to be done. Sure. Slower game. Less killy. More strategic. More realistic. And because of this ultimately easier to play imho...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/16 07:01:38
Dakka Wolf wrote: Dividing them up by keywords could possibly work.
1. Infantry.
2. Swarm, Biker, Beast.
3. Vehicle, Chariot, Monstrous Creature
4. Titanic.
As an added note models that have a minimum move characteristic greater than zero count as Titanic.
Why is a swarm of Nurglings bigger than an Allarus Custodian?
They won't be - each unit would have a size stat, so the swarm would be height 1, humans/marines height 2, etc. This height stat is how tall they are in inches. I'd recommend checking out the height rules used in malifaux, they're great and would easily work in 40k. And using them would not only make the game quicker and smoother, it would also free up creativity for modellers so they don't get penalised for their awesome conversion of a Tyranid warrior standing on a destroyed vehicle roaring at the sky. Win win!
Looking for fun articles on painting, tactics and wargaming? Are you after a new regular blog to follow? Are you a bit bored with nothing better to do?
If the answer to any of the above is 'well, I guess' you could probably do worse than read my blog! Regular wargaming posts, painting and discussions
JohnnyHell wrote: Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.
This seems right to me...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/16 07:03:28
You dont of course put the height value strictly to a base size. That would be a stupid implemention. You do however start with it as a general guideline and then if you find out that there are only a handfull exceptions you make 25mm count as height 2, 32mm as 3, 40mm as 4 or what ever. And then you give the few extreme outliers like nurgling swarms or maybe just swarms in general a new Keyword called "small" or something and treat it as height 1. Exact implemention may vary but its not difficult at all to handle.
Warmachine made it work well when I played that and it works really well for me in KoW too. In my KoW army everything that isnt a monster or riding a horse is height 2, cavalry 3 and monsters above that but I dont own any yet so dont even have to bother.
My friends Ogre army is a more mixed army but its kinda the same. The goblins on foot is height 2. Goblins riders and ogres on foot all are height 3. Ogre chariots height 4 and his giant is height 6. Its super intuitiv and is the easiest stat of them all to learn since what it looks like is what it is 99% of the time.
The issue with codifying heights of terrain is that terrain isn't uniform, unless the only rules for terrain involve only Official™ Citadel™ Branded™ Scenery™ Kits™ (which I'm sure GW would love).
People can make just about anything as terrain, from a spare box to a carefully constructed and painted table of hand-built and sculpted terrain.
By abstrating terrain height you're making the terrain itself less important.
Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).
This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.
Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.
Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.
You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.
I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else
Because it generates more new players?
This is so rubbish. Enough people have an issue with TLOS, and have stated a multitude of reasons. You're going to say its needed for new players ? Where are all these new players that have the many hundreds to get into this game but lack capability to understand abstracted LOS with size for model types that would make the game flow quicker ? This game costs more than ever before, with each army needing like 2, to 3 different books for just their faction plus faqs and erratas. If a new player can buy all of this, understand all of those, I'm fairly certain they can handle the complexity of height mechanics. They are more than likely also young adults at least. I've seen no new players for 40k in at least the past 5 years who are less than 18 years of age minimum as the core game is too pricey for younger kids. So as to mean they should have the ability to read and understand a slightly longer take on cover, that will ultimately make the game better.
Yes, I'm sure I must be imagining all of those potential new players GW has already lost when we used to go over the old wounding mechanic, or the WS comparison mechanic and their eyes started glazing over. I'm sure it's just me and my very specific and special community where such mechanics were clearly boring to a new player because they took away from the "fun" (rolling dice).
Frankly all of those things you claim a new player "needs" to play the game are the actual rubbish here. Outside of a codex, models and dice a new player needs very little. New players don't NEED FAQ answers because there is a literal rule in the BRB and free Core Rule pdf that explains how to manage any rule irregularities. Similarly a new player doesn't NEED Vigilus, a supplement or Psychic Awakening to play the game.
You might like more complex rules regarding LOS, but you're likely not the majority of the potential market or the core demographic that GW are now trying to appeal towards.
E - the benefit of cover (+1 save) is the reward of enjoying cover. Though another unit can shoot said unit and in theory kill them all regardless of LOS of all model in the unit, they have to get through a cover save. Presumably the opposing unit is not enjoying cover since it has no problem tracing LOS from all of its models to the unit in cover? So this is a disadvantage?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/16 13:01:04
E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Gadzilla666 wrote: There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
There should be a -1 for guns shooting things they can't see at all.
God damn missile pods ignoring cover and now with AP1 shooting Rubrics in cover they can't see...
Gadzilla666 wrote: There should at minimum be a -1 when firing at a unit obscured by terrain. It's harder to hit what's harder to see. Anyone whose ever fired a fething gun knows that.
There should be a -1 for guns shooting things they can't see at all.
God damn missile pods ignoring cover and now with AP1 shooting Rubrics in cover they can't see...
*grumble grumble grumble*
Artillery should require a "spotter" in order to fire at full ballistic skill. Some model in your army should be able to see the target.
Banville wrote: They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.
Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.
This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.
A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.
A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)
Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.
Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.
Job done.
What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.
Flyers that go into Hover mode, like Valkyries and Vultures are effectively helicopters at that point. Helicopters don't really avail of cover. They're hovering a hundred feet above the battlefield.
Unless it's Airwolf.
I miss 80's TV.
That's exactly how Apaches operate. Pops up from behind a hill, does a quick radar scan of the battlefield and hides again. It can then ripple fire its Hellfire missiles from behind cover.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Are you asking me this question?
Looks like it since there's a ? at the end.
Funny, give me a sec to sit down before my sides split while I take in this comedic gem.
I don't know who 'E' is so I'm going to assume it's for a poster who's tag at least begins with the letter.
the_scotsman wrote: E, are you saying it isnt an extremely common occurrence in your games for a unit to draw LOS through terrain to a unit that then doesnt even get cover because its not physically on the terrain?
Are you asking me this question?
Looks like it since there's a ? at the end.
Funny, give me a sec to sit down before my sides split while I take in this comedic gem.
I don't know who 'E' is so I'm going to assume it's for a poster who's tag at least begins with the letter.
Maybe it's in response to your edit, which you tagged 'E'? Maybe it's referring to the latter bit of your username? Either way, I would say context clues are enough to know it's responding to you- You said the benefit of cover (as it relates to LOS) is the +1 to your save, but the_scotsman is pointing out that you get no cover benefit if line of sight is 90% obscured by an intervening piece of terrain but you are not actually occupying a piece of cover.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/17 04:14:33
The more I read in this thread, the more I get the impressions that the whole problem is how little benefit cover provides compared to being completely out of sight.
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 actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. 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.
Jidmah wrote: The more I read in this thread, the more I get the impressions that the whole problem is how little benefit cover provides compared to being completely out of sight.
Which is only really an issue with TLOS. You can say things like "if 50% of the model is behind cover than..." but then people argue about what constitutes 50%. I had resin tyranid ADL walls that were made out of nid like spikes. Well spikes have high peeks and deep divots and as a result my warriors were not 50% covered and thus most of the wall did nothing for the units that were trying to use them (this was in 7th).
Well ALOS doesn't give a gak what you can see. It says that you are tracing LoS over x object so y effect comes into play. Done. Easy. No debate possible.
What makes for better gameplay?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/17 09:04:50
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
As I pointed out earlier, I think that an abstract solution for cover like the one you suggest would be vastly superior to any rule that leaves room for disagreement.
The only thing that I disagree on is that cover should provide -1 to hit, as this mechanic is extremely biased towards units with high BS and re-rolls.
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 actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. 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.
nervous sweating 
