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.
I dont see why they just dont defer t 50% obscured for the purposes of horizontal. It has worked in 8th to give vehicles and monsters cover.. I.E. be in cover AND be 50% obscured. Made sense if a little bit counter intuitive. makes more sense in this proposed paradigm...
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
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).
You, the owning player can rotate the model to try and get advantage, and the opposing player can counter-move in their turn to try and get the shot. Neither of you can freely modify the model or the LOS along the vertical plane. AND, you still have to draw the line somewhere AND we haven't seen all the rules yet.
So take a deep breath, and wait and see. I for one am done with the conversation, for now.
Argive wrote: I dont see why they just dont defer t 50% obscured for the purposes of horizontal. It has worked in 8th to give vehicles and monsters cover.. I.E. be in cover AND be 50% obscured. Made sense if a little bit counter intuitive. makes more sense in this proposed paradigm...
Because that creates a giant zone where you can't see units at all. And then we just shift the goal posts. What is 50%? What if "this little itty bitty extra thing is poking out past 50%"? Can I shoot you then? Hmmm? HMMMMMM??!?!
McGibs wrote: 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 is true. If they abandon TLOS - whether with base to base targeting, or targeting from the "central mass" of the model, or whatever else - then the fact that the obscure rule doesn't follow TLOS becomes less of an issue.
I'm not a big fan of central mass / 50% / whatever rules because I think they lead to needless arguments, whereas base-to-base LOS is objective and easy to decide. But either way, it'd certainly be better than retaining TLOS except for obscure terrain.
If you're daemons (or harlequins), now you actively don't want to be in cover, because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot (assuming the cover has obscure).
Additionally, by being in cover in melee, you benefit the enemy you're fighting, while getting no benefit yourself.
So it's actually worse than useless to be in cover for these armies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 04:42:47
I'm amused by how all the griping about not having enough LOS block in 8e has been completely flipped on its head in this thread because GW tried to give us more LOS block.
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
AnomanderRake wrote: I'm amused by how all the griping about not having enough LOS block in 8e has been completely flipped on its head in this thread because GW tried to give us more LOS block.
If you think that's why there's griping, then you haven't been reading the thread all that carefully.
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
Apparently you would, but you definitely wouldn't want to fire your battlecannons into the area right behind that ruin that are glowing and have snarling noises coming out. That's impossible.
But if we're going to start suggesting that LOS is based not on LOS but whether you know somebody is there, that'd be a real change in the way the game works! "I can't see you now, but I saw you move in there last turn, so I can still shoot you because I know you must be there!"
That can be 10th edition. "I'm sure my troops show your harlequins are in that ruin! I can hear the maniacal laughter! Fire up the volcano cannon!"
"Nuh uh, these are dreaming shadow harlequins, so they don't speak or make any sound at all. There's no way you'd know they are there. CHECKMATE, brah!"
yukishiro1 wrote: because if you're in the cover according to these silly new rules, you can be shot; if you're behind the terrain that would give cover, you can't be shot
Yeah, we wouldn't possibly want to fire our battlecannons into that ruin with the glowing windows and snarling noises coming from it, now would we?
Apparently you would, but you definitely wouldn't want to fire your battlecannons into the area right behind that ruin that are glowing and have snarling noises coming out. That's impossible.
But if we're going to start suggesting that LOS is based not on LOS but whether you know somebody is there, that'd be a real change in the way the game works! "I can't see you now, but I saw you move in there last turn, so I can still shoot you because I know you must be there!"
It works like this:
Do you think models occupying a ruin should be able to shoot out of a ruin? (the answer is yes)
Then. . . do you want to allow the units that are being shot at by the occupying troops to shoot back? (the answer is also yes)
Do you want ruins to still provide lots of LOS blocking so that units have to move to engage things and you can hide big things like tanks? (the answer, again, is yes)
Do you want to keep it binary so that there isn't any fiddly measuring of model distances to and from the edge of a ruin (yes)
Being able to shoot in and out of a ruin, regardless of whether that ruin has "windows" and whatnot speeds the game up tremendously. It's just "Area Terrain", and it works.
The issue lies in how LOS actually works, and whether this this 5"+ ruin = infinity high dead zone is really how it's meant to be played.
Do you think models occupying a ruin should be able to shoot out of a ruin? (the answer is yes)
Then. . . do you want to allow the units that are being shot at by the occupying troops to shoot back? (the answer is also yes)
Do you want ruins to still provide lots of LOS blocking so that units have to move to engage things and you can hide big things like tanks? (the answer, again, is yes)
Do you want to keep it binary so that there isn't any fiddly measuring of model distances to and from the edge of a ruin (yes)
That's why it is the way it is.
That's one list of answers.
Mine would be: if the ruin is solid enough to block LOS, I don't think you should be able to shoot into or out of it unless the models are physically on the edge of the ruin, i.e. looking out. You can plausibly shoot from a window or an edge; you can't shoot out from the middle of the building.
If the answer to the last question for you is that it's too "fiddly" to allow models near the windows to shoot out without allowing everyone to shoot out, I'd much rather have models not able to shoot out at all.
I'd much rather have a binary "no, you can't shoot from inside something that blocks LOS to things behind it" than a binary "yes, you can shoot from inside something that blocks LOS to things behind it." Why should be assume that the front wall is always porous, even if it's solid, but the back wall is always solid, even if it doesn't exist at all? That seems pretty weird.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 05:25:07
If the ruin is "solid enough", just count it as TLOS, call it a day, and leave Obscuring for dilapidated structure frames and forests. Not everything has to be Obscuring.
Oh, ok. So when you said "do you think models should be able to shoot from a ruin," you only meant ruins full of holes?
That makes more sense.
Though then you're back to the weird issue of solid terrain blocking less LOS than terrain full of holes, because the solid terrain doesn't block above it, but the terrain full of holes does. I.e. the problem of the Hive Tyrant that can hide behind a ruin full of holes, but can't hide behind a ruin of the exact same height that isn't full of holes.
It seems kinda weird that they didn't break obscuring into two different things: (1) does this block line of sight at the actual height it's modeled? and then (2) does it block line of sight as if it was much taller than it actually is?
It's weird they combined the two into a single keyword. If they were split off, you wouldn't have that problem. You could just give obscuring to everything that actually does obscure and to everything you want to obscure, and then give the thing for infinite vertical height to whatever you wanted too. You wouldn't have to pick from one of two odd results.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 05:38:13
If there's another keyword that makes something block LOS at the dimensions it's modeled, whether or not it actually does - without this funky vertical stuff - i.e. the ITC rule - I will happily eat my hat and admit that this was all a big red herring.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 05:47:05
Guys it's just measuring LoS from overhead. It's worked great in a number of other games because it's easy to explain, and easy to check. It's going to speed the games up, and if it creates occasional oddities, just remember it's replacing unchargeable units on barrels, and ITC magic boxes.
As for the wounds thing, ideally units would have a size stat, similar to Kings of war, and that would determine what can hide behind which bit of terrain. We don't though, so they are using wound count as a stand in for size. Not ideal, but far from the weirdest abstraction we use.
We adopt a little abstraction to make the game more balanced and enjoyable, and 9th ed isn't the first edition to do it. Remember firing arcs on vehicles, no longer a thing, which made vehicles much better in 8th ed then they were in 7th ed.
Are you really going to miss bending over, moving your face as close to the model as possible, and squinting to see if you can see part of a model? I've had LoS questions in quite a few games, they always break the flow, and and a few times have involved a TO which is ultra lame.
You want to use true LoS, do you man, no one is going to tell you how to play with your models. For tournaments and most pickups, a quick and easy way to unequivocally determine LoS is very desirable, even if it comes with a few quirks.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
In AoS there is a spell which creates the equivalent of 9th 40k 5" high obscuring terrain element. To check the LoS around it, AoS uses base to base measurement. Expect that to come here too.
Also, I think that people have weird ideas about what a ruin is
You can easily see that in ruins, the only possible concept of "inside" is when you are on the second floor or close to the windows, which means that you can get shot and that you can shoot.
Pretty much any terrain element where you can get inside, has so far been described by other rules. The fact that ITC attached a "ruin" label to pretty much any terrain element, doesn't mean that they are ruins for canonic 40k.
The obscuring keyword is something that will appear mostly on linear elements, like ruins.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's not forget also that 9th gave us a new toy which could be more important than what we are discussing.
Obstacles give cover bonuses just by being in the way, that is HUGE!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/12 06:40:22
Cover doesn't help much when your being slammed by waves of ap2 weapon fire. Being unhitable on the other hand is very nice, especialy if you can fire from outside of LoS.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: Cover doesn't help much when your being slammed by waves of ap2 weapon fire. Being unhitable on the other hand is very nice, especialy if you can fire from outside of LoS.
Cover is always important.
Even on my lowly 6+ saves pestered by -1 AP fire, cover increased durability by 20%. If people really think that 20% isn't a factor, then they should leave Lts at home, because they are doing nothing for you.
It's better than nothing but low armored dudes but a flat 5+ save that isn't affected by AP would have been the best choice. It represents the chance to hit the terrain instead of the model. Adding +1 to the save doesn't make much sense lorewise and favors units that are already tough gamewise.
yeah and it matters if you have a 200model army, because then saving every 6th model matters. If I have the chance to save every 5th or 6th model out of a 5 man squad , then I am not saving up that much.
Lts are good, because they buff 40+ intercessors. Few people would take them if they were to buff a squad of 5 regular dudes. the 5 dudes would have to come with hvy weapons or something, and even then the rule about never taking singels kicks in, so you are buffing a whole formation of 10-15 models, and then it is also worth to add a chaplain or an ancient with a banner etc.
My dudes were running around with portable cover all 8th ed, I can tell you that it did not help them that much.
Now an orc or an IG conscript suddenly being 33% more resilient, that is another thing. But neither orcs nor IG are the main army played in w40k. it is marines, that is why I wrote that it doesn't help that much.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Blackie wrote: It's better than nothing but low armored dudes but a flat 5+ save that isn't affected by AP would have been the best choice. It represents the chance to hit the terrain instead of the model. Adding +1 to the save doesn't make much sense lorewise and favors units that are already tough gamewise.
It assumes that the covering element is something equivalent to a light armor save, to which we can agree or disagree. This means that you can hit the terrain element, but if you were firing with a plasma gun I will just push trough 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.
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.
Marines for 2020 once you take out all the marine vrs marine scores avarage win ratio for Codex Spacemarine supliments is 62%
They still are over powered and nothing in the rules previews for 9th indicate a Marine nerf if anything GW still seem to be on Marines need buffs charge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/12 09:51:50
Eldar- 4436 pts
