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.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
Not defending the mechanic, but you could imagine that heavier armor protects you from spalling debris that's being blasted around as the cover you are behind/in/under is getting blasted to bits.
Sure. And from an armor penetration perspective, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe the cover slows down a bullet to the point where it'll still kill you if you're not wearing any armor, but won't penetrate body armor. I get that.
But the current cover system doesn't model:
-Being harder to see, and therefore engage, because you are literally behind an object which blocks line of sight and obscures your exact position
-A barrier stopping a round entirely.
Maybe Marines take cover so that anything that blows through the intervening obstacle is less likely to penetrate their power armor, but that's certainly not why a Guardsman or Cultist would. They're more interested in not getting shot to begin with- having that nice chunk of concrete eat the bullet instead, or stay hidden and occasionally pop up to take a shot.
I'd have been happy with a simple -1 to hit in addition to the +1 save.
At this point I am going to hold judgment until I get the full rules and get to play a few games. 9th really is seeming to me to be a pretty significant change from 8th. Kind of like 4th to 5th. Not a complete redo, but I think 9th is going to have a much different playing feel. Anyone know when it actually is coming out?
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Racerguy180 wrote: There is a huge difference between a Guardsman and an Intercessor. as such, there should be a huge difference in how beneficial cover is to the respective infantry.
The increase to durability should be proportional to their base durability, but it isn't. Something like a FNP save would provide a flat, consistent durability bonus. A Guardsman with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, and an Intercessor with a 5+ FNP would be 50% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
Instead, a Guardsman in cover is 33% harder to kill than a Guardsman not in cover, while an Intercessor in cover is 100% harder to kill than an Intercessor not in cover.
That just doesn't make sense.
Not defending the mechanic, but you could imagine that heavier armor protects you from spalling debris that's being blasted around as the cover you are behind/in/under is getting blasted to bits.
Sure. And from an armor penetration perspective, there's a reasonable case to be made that maybe the cover slows down a bullet to the point where it'll still kill you if you're not wearing any armor, but won't penetrate body armor. I get that.
But the current cover system doesn't model:
-Being harder to see, and therefore engage, because you are literally behind an object which blocks line of sight and obscures your exact position
-A barrier stopping a round entirely.
Maybe Marines take cover so that anything that blows through the intervening obstacle is less likely to penetrate their power armor, but that's certainly not why a Guardsman or Cultist would. They're more interested in not getting shot to begin with- having that nice chunk of concrete eat the bullet instead, or stay hidden and occasionally pop up to take a shot.
I'd have been happy with a simple -1 to hit in addition to the +1 save.
Wellll. . . . . there is still a bonus to defense even if it's not a -1 to hit. That can still function to cover the case of a round being stopped or being harder to see. It's all lumped in to the same single modifier.
But sure, a -1 to hit would have been another way to go about it (a la 2nd Ed.) However, you'd also see skewed numbers from that, too. Orks would hit half as often against models in cover, and Marines would only see their effectiveness drop by 25% (before calculating rerolls. I think the benefit to having it be a modifier to the save is that you can use higher power weapons to blast through it, whereas a -1 to hit would affect all weapons the same way. The save-mod gives the attacker more decision making power. It also caps out at the low end, too.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Well, except that you can shoot the knight even if you can't see it, and that the knight can't shoot you even if it can see you. Ironically, giving a terrain piece the obscuring keyword as written guarantees it will NEVER block LOS for a knight, whereas if you DON'T give it obscuring, it might, if it's big enough. GG GW, that makes sense!
On the first point, no, you're mixing up what is horizontal and what is vertical. What you're describing is still vertical LOS. And rather silly itself: it means that a .5 inch tall pile of rubble on the side of the building blocks LOS to the land raider, even if you have real TLOS, as long as some part of the building is more than 5" and it has obscuring, even if the 5" part of the building is way on the other side of the building; that's drawing vertical LOS, because it goes over the terrain piece.
On the other hand, if the land raider has a ribbon that extends .1mm past that pile of rubble to the left or right, such that you can draw a line to any tiny portion of the model that doesn't pass vertically over the terrain piece, you can blow it off the table. That is horizontal LOS, because you're drawing LOS around/ to the side of the terrain piece. Similarly, that land raider can also use its ribbon to blow you off the table, as long as the ribbon is horizontally peeking around the corner rather than vertically peeking over the corner.
So we're keeping the ribbon targeting from 8th for horizontal, but ditching it for vertical, but only for some terrain pieces, and only for some models.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:22:56
The question is, why? Why should someone's vertical ribbon sticking up in the air be ignored, but someone's horizontal ribbon sticking out to the side be a good opportunity to blow them to kingdom come? It seems like splitting the baby in a way that means that it doesn't make sense no mater how you look at it.
TLOS makes a certain kind of sense. It leads to silly results with modeling, but at least it's consistent, and it's easy to apply.
Ignoring TLOS also makes a certain kind of sense. It can also lead to silly results, but it's also consistent.
Now we have a bizare hybrid system where sometimes one model is using TLOS to the other while the other cannot use TLOS back, and where both models may be using TLOS differently horizontally and vertically.
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. What do we do? Pretend the terrain is wider than it is? That doesn't make sense, because a lot more other stuff occupies the horizontal space on the table than does the vertical space.
Should we instead target only the base? Ok, when we can't see the base what do we do? Draw a column. Great - how tall is that column? What happens when I need to put a stick next to the base when you can't see it to determine the column? Am I holding that stick at the proper angle?
Alternatively, now, what I see is what I shoot unless i'm passing through a sufficiently tall piece of terrain. That terrain now gives me an unambiguous place to put large, but not too large models without worrying about visibility - provided I mind my arms. Were you able to move your units enough to see part of me? Great - you flanked me. I'm sure it wasn't your whole army that did so and my risk is still a ton lower.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Well, except that you can shoot the knight even if you can't see it, and that the knight can't shoot you even if it can see you. Ironically, giving a terrain piece the obscuring keyword as written guarantees it will NEVER block LOS for a knight, whereas if you DON'T give it obscuring, it might, if it's big enough. GG GW, that makes sense!
On the first point, no, you're mixing up what is horizontal and what is vertical. What you're describing is still vertical LOS. And rather silly itself: it means that a .5 inch tall pile of rubble on the side of the building blocks LOS to the land raider, even if you have real TLOS, as long as some part of the building is more than 5" and it has obscuring, even if the 5" part of the building is way on the other side of the building; that's drawing vertical LOS, because it goes over the terrain piece.
On the other hand, if the land raider has a ribbon that extends .1mm past that pile of rubble to the left or right, such that you can draw a line to any tiny portion of the model that doesn't pass vertically over the terrain piece, you can blow it off the table. That is horizontal LOS, because you're drawing LOS around/ to the side of the terrain piece. Similarly, that land raider can also use its ribbon to blow you off the table, as long as the ribbon is horizontally peeking around the corner rather than vertically peeking over the corner.
So we're keeping the ribbon targeting from 8th for horizontal, but ditching it for vertical, but only for some terrain pieces, and only for some models.
Because you literally have to draw the line somewhere. So make it simple.
And they gave you an out for the Obscuring. . . which is. . . don't declare it as Obscuring. Ta daaa!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:24:59
xeen wrote: At this point I am going to hold judgment until I get the full rules and get to play a few games. 9th really is seeming to me to be a pretty significant change from 8th. Kind of like 4th to 5th. Not a complete redo, but I think 9th is going to have a much different playing feel. Anyone know when it actually is coming out?
Hmmm. I think its going to be significant if you never touched ITC. Otherwise I think its going to be as if regular 40k and ITC had a baby, and produced something kind of like you'd expect.
I don't think we know for sure - but precedent would suggest up for preorders in 2-3 weeks time, actual release two weeks later (so mid/late July). Give or take a week either side.
The issues with GW's Covid backlog mean it might take longer - but I wouldn't have thought they'd want to spin this out for 3 months.
Because you have to draw the line somewhere. What do we do? Pretend the terrain is wider than it is? That doesn't make sense, because a lot more other stuff occupies the horizontal space on the table than does the vertical space.
Should we instead target only the base? Ok, when we can't see the base what do we do? Draw a column. Great - how tall is that column? What happens when I need to put a stick next to the base when you can't see it to determine the column? Am I holding that stick at the proper angle?
Alternatively, now, what I see is what I shoot unless i'm passing through a sufficiently tall piece of terrain. That terrain now gives me an unambiguous place to put large, but not too large models without worrying about visibility - provided I mind my arms. Were you able to move your units enough to see part of me? Great - you flanked me. I'm sure it wasn't your whole army that did so and my risk is still a ton lower.
Drawing a line somewhere isn't an argument for drawing a line anywhere.
If we're going to ditch TLOS, I would say we should simply ditch TLOS completely. Measure LOS for everything from base to base, by drawing that line from one base to the other. If the line passes over any terrain, it blocks LOS, whether you have an arm hanging off the end or not, as long as that terrain has the keyword for blocking. It shouldn't matter whether it's an arm hanging off the side or a head hanging off the top - it certainly shouldn't be the case that the head hanging off the top is safe, but the arm hanging off the side makes you vulnerable. For stuff without bases, you could either put it on bases (this makes the most sense), or come up with some rule about what to do in that situation. But 90% of stuff does have bases.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
I don't like a hybrid system that is TLOS for some situations and some models and some dimensions but not TLOS for other situations and other dimensions and other models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Because you literally have to draw the line somewhere. So make it simple.
But this isn't simple. 8th was simple: if you can see it - no matter what part you can see - you can shoot.
Now, it's: if you can see it, you can shoot it. unless there's an obscuring piece in the way. then, you have to go down a flowchart - is the model INSIDE the piece, or is it OUTSIDE? If inside, TLOS. If outside, TLOS horizontally, non-true LOS vertically. But wait, is either model a flyer or above 18W? Then it's back to full TLOS only for that model when it wants to draw LOS, but still horizontal TLOS but vertical non-true LOS when you want to draw LOS to that model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:38:01
I'm not complaining about drawing the vertical line at all. I'm complaining about drawing the vertical line one way and the horizontal line a different way.
If they wanted to move everything to the non-TLOS vertical line approach, I'm totally fine with that. I would actually prefer it to 8th edition TLOS! But what I like least of all is a hybrid system that is part one and part the other.
ITC ruins weren't actually a modification of TLOS, they were just a "counts as" rule. It's quite different. The ITC ruin rule was just that the base level counts as being solid, even if it isn't. It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't. You could have accomplished the same thing by just throwing away all the ruins with windows modeled and using solid walls instead. It was a "change the piece" rule, not a "change the rule" rule.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/11 22:59:34
Right now you have two big L-shaped ruins in the middle of a standard tournament board. These both totally block LOS - whether you're inside them or on the far side of them.
New GW rules: being inside doesn't block LOS any more. If you want to block LOS, you have to be on the far side of the terrain piece instead.
This is a massive change, unless we simply decide that all ruins have no dimensions and that being 1mm on the far side of the wall means you're on the far side of the terrain piece, not inside it.
It is possible to not place the keyword `area terrain` on a L shaped piece of terrain that does not have a 'base'. Now, the model is not inside the terrain. This appears to be a tweak of older editions of 40K terrain where we had defined 'areas` to various terrain, such as woods and ruins. I would imagine FLG will release an update to the ITC once 9th edition is released which will address terrain recommendations.
No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby.
yukishiro1 wrote: It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't.
That's the same thing. That is literally changing TLOS into something else.
I'm not sure it's worth arguing about, but it isn't the same thing.
What GW is doing here with obscure is moving to non-true LOS. It isn't saying "imagine this building is a different shape or appearance" it's saying "this blocks LOS in ways that have nothing to do with its appearance, whether the actual appearance on the tabletop or the theoretical appearance in the 40k world." When you're drawing the LOS line and deciding you can't shoot at the land raider because it's blocked by a .5 inch bit of rubble on the side of the ruin with the obscure trait, you're not saying "I'm going to imagine this .5 inch bit of rubble is actually an infinitely high pillar in the world of 40k, and I would like to model it that way, but I just don't have any infinitely high terrain pieces." You're saying "I'm adopting a way of looking at LOS that doesn't depend on how the model actually looks, either in practice or in theory. The piece of rubble isn't any higher in the imaginary game world either; it just blocks LOS for gameplay reasons even though it isn't big enough to block it physically, even in the imaginary game world."
The ITC rule, by contrast, is literally just a cheaper way of throwing away ruins with windows and replacing them with ruins without windows. This is a "counts as" modification of TLOS, not going outside TLOS per se. It's the same as treating a conversion as having the dimensions of the official model - that's not abrogating TLOS, it's modifying your model so you can use TLOS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/11 23:46:46
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
yukishiro1 wrote: It didn't change how you drew LOS from TLOS to something else, it changed the terrain piece itself to be solid even if it wasn't.
That's the same thing. That is literally changing TLOS into something else.
I'm not sure it's worth arguing about, but it isn't the same thing.
What GW is doing here with obscure is moving to non-true LOS. It isn't saying "imagine this building is a different shape or appearance" it's saying "this blocks LOS in ways that have nothing to do with its appearance, whether the actual appearance on the tabletop or the theoretical appearance in the 40k world." When you're drawing the LOS line and deciding you can't shoot at the land raider because it's blocked by a .5 inch bit of rubble on the side of the ruin with the obscure trait, you're not saying "I'm going to imagine this .5 inch bit of rubble is actually an infinitely high pillar in the world of 40k, and I would like to model it that way, but I just don't have any infinitely high terrain pieces." You're saying "I'm adopting a way of looking at LOS that doesn't depend on how the model actually looks, either in practice or in theory. The piece of rubble isn't any higher in the imaginary game world either; it just blocks LOS for gameplay reasons even though it isn't big enough to block it physically, even in the imaginary game world."
As the player, you get to define where those barriers begin and end. You can bring them tightly to the walls of ruins, or you can have it encompass the base that the ruins are standing on. The problem you're having in this example can be entirely mitigated at your discretion. It is not a new thing that some pieces of terrain will be more intuitive or more abstracted than the representation of it. Often I have rearranged my own terrain collection and alternated favored pieces for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion. These are very solve-able problems. Call the walls of the building on the Ruin base the extent of Obscuration, and call the Barrels on the base next to it Soft Cover. The problem is solved. As mentioned above, giant pieces of solid terrain do not have to be officially Obscuring, and can block LOS naturally, mitigating the Knight/Airplane examples. Big corner pieces can be chosen to block LOS as-is or Obscuring, again, up to your discretion. And as for the Keeper of Secrets, I've always felt the re-done models were, while spectacular pieces, waaay to big for gaming purposes, making them pretty awkward. But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
I for one have been asking for this change since. . . well. . . 5th edition, basically. Primarily because of forests, but also because successfully hiding larger models in an environment where you can just shoot through everything exacerbates the issues with shooting lethality, and lowers the value of maneuvering. This is a good change.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 00:13:11
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
Not all infantry, bikes, beasts, vehicles, and titans are created equally. An Ork Buggy is certainly no bike and it definitely is no LRBT.
Thing the about 5" is that most everything can't see over it. 4" is pretty easily seen over by a knight, so an LRBT 30" away where a knight draws a line through a 4" wall that literally blocks none of the LRBT just seems really silly.
Insectum7 wrote: So pivot the model at the end of your movement to try and conceal it as best you can. This isn't rocket science.
Nobody's asking how to play the game with this weird hybrid TLOS-for-horizontal-but-not-for-vertical-except-oh-wait-sometimes-for-vertical-too-but-not-reciprocally.
It's not a hybrid system in this case, because it's not TLOS along the horizontal either. The horizontal silhouette is not used, just a straight line from the edge of the terrain piece upward.
And the reasoning around big-a** models is sound. It's a big-a** model that is most likely still visible and targetable. Nor do planes just conveniently hover behind the silhouette of a building while the enemy fire. If you want to hide your Knight or plane, you need a legit, gigantic piece of scenery to do it.
Except the rules as writen(previewed) allow you to shoot said knight even if it is totally impossibel for yiu to draw LoS to it at all aslong as the tereain has the obscured rule.
Paradoxically the Knight can never shoot your models at less than 16 wounds even if they can be seen through said terrain.
Ahh, I suppose the first part of that is true (for now). The second part I don't think is paradoxical once we acknowledge the abstraction.
On the flip side to all of it, people have been complaining about the inclusion of superheavies and flyers in the game for years. This is a distinct and specific nerf to those units. Rejoice!
Yeah because we should rejoice that we are nerfing codex's that hit 40% win ratio as part of soup. Whike buffing Marines the 65% win ratio faction.
Also those people complaining about superheavies and flyers have a game tailer made for them it's called killteam, it's got more in common the the 2nd/3rd edition vibe they want.
So they can stop trying to have valid codex's nerfed into unplayable trash to have them soft banned from the game.
Do you have inside knowledge as to what all the new point values are?
at this point if it's upwards in any direction they'll suck and given every overcosted weapon they have is likeky to pick up the blast keyword which Stu was very adminet are getting "significant points increases, for their improved versatility" I'm certainly not hopeful that actually any of the proposed changes actually help anyone outside of marines primarily, Custodes maybe.
Marines haven't been 65% winrate since the second round of nerfs came out. Also, tau, Eldar, SoB, and Crons benefit as much or more from these changes as marines do. Crons especially.
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
yukishiro1 wrote: But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
Thank you for so elegantly stating the core issues with the LOS and cover rules.
You could then have different terrain keywords for blocking infantry/bikers/beasts and for blocking vehicles/monsters. Maybe even a third one for titantic. In other words, 2" tall fence could be "blocks los: infantry/bikers/beasts." This would mean that your tank can fire over it into another tank, but infantry cannot fire over it into other infantry, nor can they fire over it into a tank, nor can a tank fire over it into them. A 4" wall could be blocks los: vehicles and monsters. So a knight could shoot over it at another knight, but not at a tank, nor could a tank shoot at the knight. Climbing up onto a wall or ruin would give you an ability to ignore blocks:los keywords less than or equal to the size of the rule that pertains to the terrain piece you have scaled.
Not all infantry, bikes, beasts, vehicles, and titans are created equally. An Ork Buggy is certainly no bike and it definitely is no LRBT.
Thing the about 5" is that most everything can't see over it. 4" is pretty easily seen over by a knight, so an LRBT 30" away where a knight draws a line through a 4" wall that literally blocks none of the LRBT just seems really silly.
And that's the argument against non-true LOS. It's a fine argument. There are merits to both positions.
What I find trouble seeing the merits of is this strange hybrid system they have in 9th that is half TLOS and half not true LOS.
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
I'm totally fine with that because the table is horizontal, and meneuvers are conducted horizontally, and again, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
What I find trouble seeing the merits of is this strange hybrid system they have in 9th that is half TLOS and half not true LOS.
I think it should be thought of thusly - it is the same system as before. Now you just have a small subset of terrain that operates a little differently. Call it smoke from the smoldering ruins, whatever.
Previously in many games (ITC, some GW) we could not see into the first floor as a way to bandaid terrain, but this caused its own problems. Now buildings / ruins are back to "normal", but we also got this rule to replace the need for tournaments to place these...things...
Insectum7 wrote: But again, why would a flying Hive Tyrant be unable to take cover behind a ruin? Or do we just assume it's not an intelligent and dynamic creature?
But that's the whole point. To use your language, the 9th edition rules still assume he's not an intelligent and dynamic creature horizontally, but that he is an intelligent and dynamic creature vertically. If he lets a stray wing tip go past the line of the terrain horizontally, you can still blow him off the table using TLOS. But if he lets a stray head go over the top of the parapet, we pretend he didn't do that, as long as the parapet is 5" or taller. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Whether you think a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent or dynamic creature or not, surely not one person in the entire world thinks he is intelligent and dynamic vertically, but not horizontally?
I'm totally fine with that because the table is horizontal, and meneuvers are conducted horizontally, and again, you gotta draw the line somewhere.
You do have to draw the line somewhere. But that isn't an argument for drawing it any particular place. You tried to use the logic that a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent and dynamic creature to explain why the vertical abstraction is good. It isn't logically consistent to say that his intelligence and dynamism matters only on the vertical plane, but not the horizontal plane, because "we have to draw the line somewhere." Why not draw the line at the vertical plane too, and say that if he can't pull in a wing tip, he can't crouch either?
Illogical results aren't necessarily bad BTW. It may be totally fine that the LOS rules result in the idea that a hive tyrant can duck but cannot pull in his wings.
But what isn't convincing is to try to use a particular argument (he can crouch) to defend one aspect of the rules, while rejecting that exact same argument (he can pull in a wing tip) when it comes to a different aspect of the rules. Based on what I'm hearing you say, the reason you think the vertical abstraction is good isn't that Hive Tyrants can crouch, because you don't think it matters on the horizontal end that Hive Tyrants can't pull in their wings. The real reason is something else (which is totally fine).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/12 02:18:31
yukishiro1 wrote: You do have to draw the line somewhere. But that isn't an argument for drawing it any particular place. You tried to use the logic that a Hive Tyrant is an intelligent and dynamic creature to explain why the vertical abstraction is good. It isn't logically consistent to say that his intelligence and dynamism matters only on the vertical plane, but not the horizontal plane, because "we have to draw the line somewhere." Why not draw the line at the vertical plane too, and say that if he can't pull in a wing tip, he can't crouch either?
It seems to me that what Insectum7 is saying is that the following is fine for blocking LOS completely to the Hive Tyrant (circled in red):
... but the HT in this pic (again, circled in red) is completely fair game as far as shooting goes:
I think this discussion needs to wait until we get the actual rules for how to draw LoS. The rules preview don't give any indication other than drawing a line between two models.
If it's from "any point on a model to any point on the target model" like it is currently, then this is a problem.
If it's something more sensible, like "from the center of the model's base/hull, to the center of the target model's base/hull" then this becomes an entirely different conversation.
I don't have a whole lot of faith, but I HAVE to believe that the rules team has reacted to the whole "you can shoot the antennae of an otherwise obscured vehicle" outcry that's been around since the launch of 8th somehow.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/12 02:34:36
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
