Switch Theme:

40k 9th edition, : App released page 413  [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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't see that TLOS is no longer a thing. Just that we have this additional thing in addition to TLOS that is the obscuring keyword.

In fact in the rules for hills they specifically say that TLOS is still a thing.
   
Made in no
Rogue Grot Kannon Gunna






yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.




Mine was a suggestion not an assumption but, given how much you seems on the defensive about 20 lines of preview, I don't see much room for discussion and I will leave it at that.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Therion wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Therion wrote:
Regarding vehicles vs. infantry... did you guys notice all the 50% hidden rules are gone, so if a tank is behind an obstacle, it's getting cover, no matter what's the size of the tank or the obstacle.

The rule said obstacles only give cover to beasts, infantry, and swarms. So vehicles can't get cover from them.

My bad. I didn't actually mean obstacles at all. My point was regarding terrain that does give cover to vehicles, whatever that is, the size is irrelevant, since we don't play with line of sight anymore. I think the best way to understand terrain is like a poster above described: Everyone can always see everything, unless an exception comes into play. You get cover saves if some gak is on the way. It's essentially 2D.

Unless your a LoW at which point it just screws you seven ways from Sunday with invisible incoming fire etc while doing diddly for you but stop you moving.
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.



Am I missing something here, if both items have obscured keywords then the mek not the plane can see each other as the intervening terrain blocks it? If you don't then true los kicks in and they can see each other.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Emicrania wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.



Mine was a suggestion not an assumption but, given how much you seems on the defensive about 20 lines of preview, I don't see much room for discussion and I will leave it at that.


I wasn't being defensive. Just tongue-in-cheek returning your "do try" language. You can't really protest that I'm being defensive when I'm literally using the same words you did.

So, thank you for your kind suggestion, but the picture had already incorporated it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.



Am I missing something here, if both items have obscured keywords then the mek not the plane can see each other as the intervening terrain blocks it? If you don't then true los kicks in and they can see each other.


What you're missing is the exclusions of flyers (along with 18W+ models) from the obscured keyword.

In other words, obscured blocks the big mek, but it doesn't block the plane. So the big mek can shoot the plane, while the plane can't shoot the big mek.

I.e. if it has obscured, the big mek gets to draw TLOS to the plane because obscured doesn't protect the plane, but the plane doesn't get to draw TLOS to the big mek because the big mek gets the protection of obscured.

(In fact, RAW, the Big Mek can shoot at the plane even if it can't draw TLOS, because RAW the big mek can ignore the terrain piece with obscure entirely if the target is a flyer or 18W+ - but that seems like the sort of thing that probably isn't intended and will be getting FAQ'd, so I deliberately created the photo in such a way that this was not an issue)

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 20:48:46


 
   
Made in us
Haemonculi Flesh Apprentice






I have to say the more I think about these, the more I feel they over thought this a lot. They should have dropped TLOS and abstracted the whole process for either side. On the terrains foot print you can shoot out and be shot, behind it and neither is allowed can see past it like previous editions.

Now If I have two two ruins loaded with doors and windows with obscure, one 4.5" tall and one 5" tall because of the way I modeled them (maybe a manufactorum chimney on one) but otherwise identical. A model can be shot through the 4.5" tall ruin, but can't behind the 5" even if he's visible via TLOS.

It's as if the height restriction tied to wounds is some veiled way of clipping certain models like knights, but they should have just called them out as an exception. I mean, I thought bespoke rules only benefit was just that. You can specifically target certain models with rules. Instead they tried to be very none specific and we get absurd situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How on earth did that survive play testing?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 20:54:06


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Red Corsair wrote:
I have to say the more I think about these, the more I feel they over thought this a lot. They should have dropped TLOS and abstracted the whole process for either side. On the terrains foot print you can shoot out and be shot, behind it and neither is allowed can see past it like previous editions.

Now If I have two two ruins loaded with doors and windows with obscure, one 4.5" tall and one 5" tall because of the way I modeled them (maybe a manufactorum chimney on one) but otherwise identical. A model can be shot through the 4.5" tall ruin, but can't behind the 5" even if he's visible via TLOS.

It's as if the height restriction tied to wounds is some veiled way of clipping certain models like knights, but they should have just called them out as an exception. I mean, I thought bespoke rules only benefit was just that. You can specifically target certain models with rules. Instead they tried to be very none specific and we get absurd situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How on earth did that survive play testing?


Yes, it's a bit of a conceptual mess. TLOS for horizontal shooting in all cases, TLOS for vertical shooting in some cases, non-TLOS for vertical shooting in other cases - unless it actually is TLOS for vertical shooting in this case because your target is 18W+ or aircraft and then you get TLOS to them but they get non-TLOS to you...

What a headache. This is arguably worse than the old TLOS "I can see his ribbon! he's so dead!" That was stupid, but at least it was straightforward and the rule applied the same in every circumstance. Now we have to consult a flow chart to figure out whether we're using TLOS or not for this precise interaction, and even whether we're using TLOS for the horizontal part but not the vertical part. So it's "I can see his ribbon! he's so dead" if you can see the ribbon horizontally, but it's "I gotta pretend I can't see his whole upper torso!" if it's vertical - unless of course he has a hair ribbon that happens to far enough horizontally to take him outside the shadow, in which case, he's so dead again.

Also, what does taller than 5" mean? What if you have a terrain piece of variable heights - some of it is over 5", but some isn't. Can you draw TLOS vertically over a part of it that is less than 5", or does it block completely for the whole piece - so the little .5 inch tall bit of rubble on the side blocks a land raider? If not, and it's only pieces of the terrain model that are over 5" that you can't draw TLOS vertically over - we're going to need to be measuring every mm of the terrain piece to decide which bits are over 5" and which aren't?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:04:25


 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.



Mine was a suggestion not an assumption but, given how much you seems on the defensive about 20 lines of preview, I don't see much room for discussion and I will leave it at that.


I wasn't being defensive. Just tongue-in-cheek returning your "do try" language. You can't really protest that I'm being defensive when I'm literally using the same words you did.

So, thank you for your kind suggestion, but the picture had already incorporated it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 Emicrania wrote:

- The object in the middle must be 5" tall at least, do try to take a picture with an object 5" tall and see how much more intuitive it is.


The object in the middle is 5" tall. That's why I used it. Do try not to assume the person you're talking to doesn't know what they're doing.



Am I missing something here, if both items have obscured keywords then the mek not the plane can see each other as the intervening terrain blocks it? If you don't then true los kicks in and they can see each other.


What you're missing is the exclusions of flyers (along with 18W+ models) from the obscured keyword.

In other words, obscured blocks the big mek, but it doesn't block the plane. So the big mek can shoot the plane, while the plane can't shoot the big mek.

I.e. if it has obscured, the big mek gets to draw TLOS to the plane because obscured doesn't protect the plane, but the plane doesn't get to draw TLOS to the big mek because the big mek gets the protection of obscured.

(In fact, RAW, the Big Mek can shoot at the plane even if it can't draw TLOS, because RAW the big mek can ignore the terrain piece with obscure entirely if the target is a flyer or 18W+ - but that seems like the sort of thing that probably isn't intended and will be getting FAQ'd, so I deliberately created the photo in such a way that this was not an issue)


Yep missed flyers sorry, I'm actually ok with that though, it would be a bit weird to have to sit in the open on order to shoot a plane, firing a shot through the smoke of a collapsed building via heatseeking scope or w/e fits
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The issue is that it isn't reciprocal. The big mek can target the flyer, but the flyer can't target the big mek. It's hard to make sense of that. The point is that the flyer is up in the air, so you can see it no matter how tall the building is, right? But why is it up in the air when the big mek wants to fire at it but not when it wants to fire at the big mek?

Non-reciprocal LOS - where one model can shoot another model but that model can't shoot back - is a massive can of worms to be opening. The very limited non-reciprocal LOS we have in 8th - pretty much all from stratagems - is so powerful that whole lists are built around it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:12:28


 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue is that it isn't reciprocal. The big mek can target the flyer, but the flyer can't target the big mek. It's hard to make sense of that. The point is that the flyer is up in the air, so you can see it no matter how tall the building is, right? But why is it up in the air when the big mek wants to fire at it but not when it wants to fire at the big mek?

Non-reciprocal LOS - where one model can shoot another model but that model can't shoot back - is a massive can of worms to be opening.


Ork gunner hundreds of meters in the air won't spot a single fella hiding in rubble through a cloud of smoke dust and fire, the ork has an easier tim looking up and seeing a plane. The imagery makes sense in a cinematic way.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue is that it isn't reciprocal. The big mek can target the flyer, but the flyer can't target the big mek. It's hard to make sense of that. The point is that the flyer is up in the air, so you can see it no matter how tall the building is, right? But why is it up in the air when the big mek wants to fire at it but not when it wants to fire at the big mek?

Non-reciprocal LOS - where one model can shoot another model but that model can't shoot back - is a massive can of worms to be opening.


Ork gunner hundreds of meters in the air won't spot a single fella hiding in rubble through a cloud of smoke dust and fire, the ork has an easier tim looking up and seeing a plane. The imagery makes sense in a cinematic way.


Ok, but why does the big mek suddenly become targetable if he's in the rubble instead of behind it? Because that's what the rule says. Move that big mek 1mm inside the ruin, and now the plane can shoot him. Move him back 1mm outside the ruin, and now he's invisible. Why does being outside a ruin provide better LOS blocking than being inside it?
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

I think at this point I might have to stop reading the previews as I seem to come away with more anxiety than excitement, even understanding that I haven't seen the 9th rulebook in its entirety. Previewing rules piecemeal is not really an effective marketing strategy, imo. I would, instead, have liked to see one entire part of the rules previewed (like the entire shooting phase) and then someone said, "and there are more changes like this coming soon!"

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Well i guess the cover rules will be the nail for my cultists.

Time to perma shelf my R&H infantry Part and buy more tanks i guess....
Rip light infantry , you'll be missed.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

yukishiro1 wrote:
 Red Corsair wrote:
I have to say the more I think about these, the more I feel they over thought this a lot. They should have dropped TLOS and abstracted the whole process for either side. On the terrains foot print you can shoot out and be shot, behind it and neither is allowed can see past it like previous editions.

Now If I have two two ruins loaded with doors and windows with obscure, one 4.5" tall and one 5" tall because of the way I modeled them (maybe a manufactorum chimney on one) but otherwise identical. A model can be shot through the 4.5" tall ruin, but can't behind the 5" even if he's visible via TLOS.

It's as if the height restriction tied to wounds is some veiled way of clipping certain models like knights, but they should have just called them out as an exception. I mean, I thought bespoke rules only benefit was just that. You can specifically target certain models with rules. Instead they tried to be very none specific and we get absurd situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How on earth did that survive play testing?


Yes, it's a bit of a conceptual mess. TLOS for horizontal shooting in all cases, TLOS for vertical shooting in some cases, non-TLOS for vertical shooting in other cases - unless it actually is TLOS for vertical shooting in this case because your target is 18W+ or aircraft and then you get TLOS to them but they get non-TLOS to you...

What a headache. This is arguably worse than the old TLOS "I can see his ribbon! he's so dead!" That was stupid, but at least it was straightforward and the rule applied the same in every circumstance. Now we have to consult a flow chart to figure out whether we're using TLOS or not for this precise interaction, and even whether we're using TLOS for the horizontal part but not the vertical part. So it's "I can see his ribbon! he's so dead" if you can see the ribbon horizontally, but it's "I gotta pretend I can't see his whole upper torso!" if it's vertical - unless of course he has a hair ribbon that happens to far enough horizontally to take him outside the shadow, in which case, he's so dead again.

Also, what does taller than 5" mean? What if you have a terrain piece of variable heights - some of it is over 5", but some isn't. Can you draw TLOS vertically over a part of it that is less than 5", or does it block completely for the whole piece - so the little .5 inch tall bit of rubble on the side blocks a land raider? If not, and it's only pieces of the terrain model that are over 5" that you can't draw TLOS vertically over - we're going to need to be measuring every mm of the terrain piece to decide which bits are over 5" and which aren't?



The rule clearly specifies that you measure the volume of a piece of terrain from its highest point, so you don't need to measure individual sections.

The gist of things here is that they wanted to make a distinction between larger pieces that would likely block los to most common models and smaller pieces that wouldn't. They decided this arbitrary point might as well match the terrain they're currently putting out, which makes as much sense as any number and prevents clashes between "official" terrain and the rules. Likewise, the 18W cutoff is what they're defining as a "large" model that they felt was big enough to not benefit from that abstraction (titans and aircraft are going to have a harder time crouching behind 40k scale rubble, after all).

We'll have to see what the rest of the los rules are, as for all we know they've switched that to btb measures (hulls for things without) with "banner-targeting tlos" being left behind. I wouldn't count on its total demise, though, as people seem quite attached to the "idea" of tlos rather than a more abstract system, regardless of the messy consequences.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




There has to be a break point somewhere, and the edge of the building is where they put it.

To be honest for flyers it's going to almost never be an issue, they have such great movement that the reciprocal firing really isn't an issue is it?

If you have placed your flyer in a spot that it can't shoot something, but it can be shot you have really messed up

I really like the cinematic of it. I'm imagining like in films etc where ground troops are hiding from the big nasty and taking pot shots at it.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




yukishiro1 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue is that it isn't reciprocal. The big mek can target the flyer, but the flyer can't target the big mek. It's hard to make sense of that. The point is that the flyer is up in the air, so you can see it no matter how tall the building is, right? But why is it up in the air when the big mek wants to fire at it but not when it wants to fire at the big mek?

Non-reciprocal LOS - where one model can shoot another model but that model can't shoot back - is a massive can of worms to be opening.


Ork gunner hundreds of meters in the air won't spot a single fella hiding in rubble through a cloud of smoke dust and fire, the ork has an easier tim looking up and seeing a plane. The imagery makes sense in a cinematic way.


Ok, but why does the big mek suddenly become targetable if he's in the rubble instead of behind it? Because that's what the rule says. Move that big mek 1mm inside the ruin, and now the plane can shoot him. Move him back 1mm outside the ruin, and now he's invisible. Why does being outside a ruin provide better LOS blocking than being inside it?


Because its the most common flaw in area terrain rules, regardless of game system and company. GW has done it before, Privateer Press has done it, as have others.
A lot of game designers are absolutely convinced that allowing attacks against units 'touching' terrain blocks some sort of super-sneaky exploit.

In this particular case, a non-reciprocal nerf against aircraft and effectively titans, superheavies and lords of war (of 18+ W) is the least egregious corner case they could have ended up with. (For flyers, I largely agree with Doohicky- if its an issue at all, its because the player made a poor move). But then I also don't think aircraft and the big stuff has any business being in 40k in the first place. The can redo Epic and bring AI and Titanicus into a more appropriate scale game.

I think its weirder that they used 5" high terrain and 18 W as the limiters for the clauses of obscured. They feel plucked out of a hat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:28:39


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
The issue is that it isn't reciprocal. The big mek can target the flyer, but the flyer can't target the big mek. It's hard to make sense of that. The point is that the flyer is up in the air, so you can see it no matter how tall the building is, right? But why is it up in the air when the big mek wants to fire at it but not when it wants to fire at the big mek?

Non-reciprocal LOS - where one model can shoot another model but that model can't shoot back - is a massive can of worms to be opening.


Ork gunner hundreds of meters in the air won't spot a single fella hiding in rubble through a cloud of smoke dust and fire, the ork has an easier tim looking up and seeing a plane. The imagery makes sense in a cinematic way.


Okay a more dumb version of the issue of having a get out clause based on wounds.

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

An Armiger Knight can shoot a Baneblade through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the Baneblade) but the Vaneblade can't shoot the Armiger (even if it could actually see the Armiger).

GW done goofed unless they have dropped a huge part of the rules to fix the above absurdity out of the preview.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 puma713 wrote:
I think at this point I might have to stop reading the previews as I seem to come away with more anxiety than excitement, even understanding that I haven't seen the 9th rulebook in its entirety. Previewing rules piecemeal is not really an effective marketing strategy, imo. I would, instead, have liked to see one entire part of the rules previewed (like the entire shooting phase) and then someone said, "and there are more changes like this coming soon!"


The 2020 marketing playbook says that all attention is good attention, and that the object of marketing is to generate "interactions" on social media that raise the profile of what you're trying to market, whether those interactions are positive or not.

I agree it's terrible for actually giving people a good idea of what the rules will be, but that's not the point, the point is to generate responses.

I'm totally self-aware that I'm feeding into this, btw, before anyone calls me on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Trimarius wrote:


The rule clearly specifies that you measure the volume of a piece of terrain from its highest point, so you don't need to measure individual sections.


Good catch. So we do have the situation where a .5 inch pile of rubble on the side of a ruin blocks LOS to a land raider, because a part of the ruin 10 inches to the right of that is taller than 5" (or you say it doesn't have obscuring, and then the bit that is 5" tall doesn't block anything if it has a tiny window).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:32:22


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ice_can wrote:
Okay a more dumb version of the issue of having a get out clause based on wounds.

A Repulsor can shoot a sparton through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the sparton) but the spartan can't shoot the Repulsor (even if it could actually see the Repulsor).

An Armiger Knight can shoot a Baneblade through said 5 inch high obsuring terrain (even if it can not actually see the Baneblade) but the Vaneblade can't shoot the Armiger (even if it could actually see the Armiger).

GW done goofed unless they have dropped a huge part of the rules to fix the above absurdity out of the preview.


What's absurd about it? The abstraction?

I can maybe see the argument that it should be tied to a codeword (say... titantic) rather than a specific number of wounds but by and large it works the same.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:


Ok, but why does the big mek suddenly become targetable if he's in the rubble instead of behind it? Because that's what the rule says. Move that big mek 1mm inside the ruin, and now the plane can shoot him. Move him back 1mm outside the ruin, and now he's invisible. Why does being outside a ruin provide better LOS blocking than being inside it?


Because its the most common flaw in area terrain rules, regardless of game system and company. GW has done it before, Privateer Press has done it, as have others.
A lot of game designers are absolutely convinced that allowing attacks against units 'touching' terrain blocks some sort of super-sneaky exploit.


But the perplexing thing here is that ITC did this right, and they proved it doesn't create any sort of exploit or game problem. ITC's "first floor blocks LOS" rule works great. Nobody has issues with it. It creates good gameplay, and it's easy to apply. They proved there is no reason to be afraid about this. GW clearly paid a lot of attention to ITC in crafting 9th - the missions are clearly copied - so why do you think they decided they needed this particular piece of nonsense, when it so obviously contradicts basic intuitions about how physical space works, and when it also has such negative gameplay results?

I'm starting to think that maybe the developers really do think that the problem with 8th as it was played competitively at tournaments was that melee was too strong and stuff needed to die faster to shooting, which is an incredible take on how competitive 8th edition actually worked.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:39:46


 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






yukishiro1 wrote:
But the perplexing thing here is that ITC did this right, and they proved it doesn't create any sort of exploit or game problem. ITC's "first floor blocks LOS" rule works great. Nobody has issues with it.

A lot of people had a problem with it. ITC houserules mean that a soldier peeking out of first floor window cannot shoot at the enemy nor can be shot at. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, it turned many ruins into bizarre unassaultable bunkers. GW rule is way more sensible.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 21:42:55


   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

yukishiro1 wrote:
But the perplexing thing here is that ITC did this right, and they proved it doesn't create any sort of exploit or game problem. ITC's "first floor blocks LOS" rule works great. Nobody has issues with it. It creates good gameplay, and it's easy to apply. They proved there is no reason to be afraid about this. GW clearly paid a lot of attention to ITC in crafting 9th - the missions are clearly copied - so why do you think they decided they needed this particular piece of nonsense, when it so obviously contradicts basic intuitions about how physical space works?

The magic black box never made any sense. There's no reason why a 40k army wouldn't just bring the ruins down on top of whoever's hiding in them and call it a day.

Honestly, cover should degrade rapidly the moment shooting starts given the sheer power of 40k weaponry. That ruin seems safe now, but once an assault cannon tears into it you should be looking for new cover asap. The whole hide in the big obvious piece of terrain goes against established military thinking where they advise you to avoid sheltering in an obvious and isolated area such as a stand of trees. They advise you to hide in a small depression in the ground, along the tall grass growing next to a fence, etc. once the engagement starts then you move into suppress and flank and only hug hard cover if you've messed something up.
   
Made in at
Not as Good as a Minion





Austria

Voss wrote:

Because its the most common flaw in area terrain rules, regardless of game system and company .

not really
LOS rules are always a tricky thing but I have rarily seen something similar like that outside of a GW game

From what we have seen now there are either some important parts of the rules missing, or those will make more trouble during games than all the house rules used during 8th

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 puma713 wrote:
I think at this point I might have to stop reading the previews as I seem to come away with more anxiety than excitement, even understanding that I haven't seen the 9th rulebook in its entirety. Previewing rules piecemeal is not really an effective marketing strategy, imo. I would, instead, have liked to see one entire part of the rules previewed (like the entire shooting phase) and then someone said, "and there are more changes like this coming soon!"

I might just do the same. A lot of my anxiety is coming from the lack of context and information to correlate what we're being shown. I'll check back either when they start doing major previews, for the box set preview on Saturday, and I'll probably wait until the contents are leaked before I make any judgement. Seems the most fair way to asses it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Crimson wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
But the perplexing thing here is that ITC did this right, and they proved it doesn't create any sort of exploit or game problem. ITC's "first floor blocks LOS" rule works great. Nobody has issues with it.

A lot of people had a problem with it. ITC houserules mean that a soldier peeking out of first floor window cannot shoot at the enemy nor can be shot at. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, it turned many ruins into bizarre unassaultable bunkers. GW rule is way more sensible.




But yet if he's standing at the corner, and there are two big windows for him to see through, he can't see through them, and that makes more sense? Step into the ruin - anybody can see you. Step out of the ruin - nobody can see you? You think this does make sense?

I don't see how the LOS has any impact on whether something is assaultable or not, either. It is completely irrelevant.
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

yukishiro1 wrote:
But yet if he's standing at the corner, and there are two big windows for him to see through, he can't see through them, and that makes more sense? Step into the ruin - anybody can see you. Step out of the ruin - nobody can see you? You think this does make sense?

I don't see how the LOS has any impact on whether something is assaultable or not, either. It is completely irrelevant.

How often can you see clear through one window of a house and out another when you're out and about in your neighborhood? There's almost always going to be curtains or blinds in the way or even something like a wall or bookcase in the way that doesn't prevent people inside from seeing out or you from seeing them but does stop somebody from seeing through. Ruins in 40k aren't just solid walls and empty window frames, they'd be smoking, filled with dust blacken shards of lingering glass, and you'd need to keep your head on a swivel so you can't just linger on any window you see to make sure there isn't an enemy there.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






yukishiro1 wrote:

But yet if he's standing at the corner, and there are two big windows for him to see through, he can't see through them, and that makes more sense? Step into the ruin - anybody can see you. Step out of the ruin - nobody can see you? You think this does make sense?

Yes, it makes sense that if you you're standing near a window you can shoot from it and be shot at return. It makes way less snese that you could shoot and be shot at through several windows and an entire building!

I don't see how the LOS has any impact on whether something is assaultable or not, either. It is completely irrelevant.

ITC houserules in combination with the box terrain their tournaments often use creates a situation where unit in a ruin can neither be shot or assaulted, being pretty much invulnerable. This is utterly terrible game design and should have been blatantly obvious to them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:15:09


   
Made in fr
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






yukishiro1 wrote:
 puma713 wrote:
I think at this point I might have to stop reading the previews as I seem to come away with more anxiety than excitement, even understanding that I haven't seen the 9th rulebook in its entirety. Previewing rules piecemeal is not really an effective marketing strategy, imo. I would, instead, have liked to see one entire part of the rules previewed (like the entire shooting phase) and then someone said, "and there are more changes like this coming soon!"


The 2020 marketing playbook says that all attention is good attention, and that the object of marketing is to generate "interactions" on social media that raise the profile of what you're trying to market, whether those interactions are positive or not.

I agree it's terrible for actually giving people a good idea of what the rules will be, but that's not the point, the point is to generate responses.

I'm totally self-aware that I'm feeding into this, btw, before anyone calls me on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Trimarius wrote:


The rule clearly specifies that you measure the volume of a piece of terrain from its highest point, so you don't need to measure individual sections.


Good catch. So we do have the situation where a .5 inch pile of rubble on the side of a ruin blocks LOS to a land raider, because a part of the ruin 10 inches to the right of that is taller than 5" (or you say it doesn't have obscuring, and then the bit that is 5" tall doesn't block anything if it has a tiny window).


Feeding into this would be if you didn’t represent 30% of the posts in some (most ?) pages of this thread. I would say you are shovelling metric tons into it

Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran




yukishiro1 wrote:
But yet if he's standing at the corner, and there are two big windows for him to see through, he can't see through them, and that makes more sense? Step into the ruin - anybody can see you. Step out of the ruin - nobody can see you? You think this does make sense?

I don't see how the LOS has any impact on whether something is assaultable or not, either. It is completely irrelevant.


yeah but in the ruin you'll get cover, outside you wont.

still those rules are fethin idiotic and convoluted as hell... just say obscure trait means you cant see through (but you can still see above and around ....and for god sake forget the 5" crap) plus titanic models and flyers can always be seen.


BTW... yes i never understood why a terminator would want to hug every wall and bush it sees, where my orkboyz treat terrain as it would be filled with angry bees.......

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:18:59


 
   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut





UK

 Galas wrote:
So by the new obscuration rules this two miniatures can't see each other?


Spoiler:


The single best post in all 146 pages of this thread

 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: