Switch Theme:

The Densest Most Beautiful Cover, So Dense  [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 ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





If models are removed as they die, rather than en masse at the end of shooting, and shots are resolved one at a time, being able to see all of one model's base only negates the bonus until that model dies.

This resolves the BS about "I can see one dude, so all the ones I can't see will all die too."

That's kind of a drag, because I like speed rolling. But I hate distributing shots to models in cover based on rolls made against those without it more than I love speed rolling, so I guess it's goodbye speed rolling.

Kinda need the rest of the rules to see how that one works out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 00:25:16


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Toronto

Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 00:15:37


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Vilehydra wrote:
Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.
I think you're mixing up "complicated" and "complexity". The former is the one you want to avoid.

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

 
   
Made in us
Wicked Ghast




 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.


because there will always be that one person who will argue the thinnest line possible can avoid the penalty. It's just there to provide a rule from which to do this.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





It seems to me that the simplest way to determine cover is to say that a model is either obscured or not based on drawing a line.

If a unit has some models obscured and some not, targeting the unit forces the attacker to split fire between obscured and unobscured models.

If los is obscured by solid terrain neither side can see.
If inside terrain obscuring is ignored.

The game already lets you split fire why not use it as a way to simplify attacks against partially obscured units?


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/06/24 00:44:55


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Nazrak wrote:
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?


I think its (theoretically) to cut down on potential arguments in rare corner case scenarios where the line is just on the edge of a minis base or terrain feature, and then the argument becomes "its really close, I think it touches the line" on one side, and the other side countering with "the line is infinitessimally thin, the line doesn't touch it" on the other.

Yes, I have seen people argue that exact point.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.


I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.

I mean, that's why legalese is so dense, right? It has to be extremely precise when presiding in matters of life or death, or businesses worth millions. But this is a toy soldier game. Just provide easily-read rules, clarify the intent (ie actually provide RAI in the rules- lots of companies do this, I don't know why GW doesn't), and then it should be obvious if someone's trying to game the system in an unintended way.

And, like, not to toot my own horn too much, but I proposed a rewrite on the first page that I think is pretty compact and intuitive- is there actually any semantic nuance to the original rules that I'm missing, such that my version isn't a valid substitute?

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Vilehydra wrote:
There is a difference between complexity and depth that's relevant to the discussion here.

Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.
Some players are willing to pay more than others, but it is still a cost.

Depth encompasses the meaningful strategies and tactics that arise out of the complexity. Continuing the analogy, this is what the player is buying with that complexity.
More depth is better, but one still has to be aware of the complexity cost that extra depth requires.

I like these Terrain rules because they add depth (which everyone agreed the game sorely needed) and on the macro rules level terrain rules are generally an elegant way to get good depth with little complexity.
However the rule itself are written more complex then they need to be. As others have pointed out, there are easier ways to write the rule in such a away that it still satisfies the same conditions.
This would mean that a new player - one that has to start learning all the rules from scratch - has to pay just that much less complexity for the exact same depth. In other words, its a straight upgrade because nothing is lost.

The steps so far have shown a notable improvement in a general understanding of game design, but the fact that the Dense Cover rule isn't well written is a valid and (surprisingly, coming from this forum) constructive criticism



Nicely written post - can't say I disagree. I do hope the typo isn't in the book. *sigh*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.


You'd be surprised. There's always TFG that takes a "point" to mean something bigger or a "line" to mean a width of their discretion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 01:08:01


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".
That's exactly what I said.

Ok not exactly...

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

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.


   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.


Sure, but that difference isn't critical to the topic at hand.

I prefer depth vs complexity as opposed to complexity vs complication because of the more distinct wording.
I guess depth vs complication would be the best to describe them
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Nazrak wrote:
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?

In previous editions where they haven't specified, they've wound up having to include it in the FAQ for those who need the thickness of a line explained to them.

Although my brain hurts at them using both metric and imperial measurements in the one rules entry...

 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Toronto

Although my brain hurts at them using both metric and imperial measurements in the one rules entry...


"draw an imaginary line 1/36th of an inch wide" doesn't have the same ring to it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 03:34:35


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.


Blast weapons!



I guess it depends which end of the points stick they'll get or other rules they get to break that we don't know about yet.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.


Blast weapons!



I guess it depends which end of the points stick they'll get or other rules they get to break that we don't know about yet.

Yeah, I know. I was just wondering if there were any rumours or conjecture on it like we've had on hordes. Knights will probably benefit from being able to attack things on upper levels of terrain, but that doesn't do anything for super heavy tanks. Maybe some kind of "hull down" rule that lets them use cover if they don't move?

Btw, you're welcome for me setting up that punch line for you.
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






catbarf wrote:
 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.


I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.

I mean, that's why legalese is so dense, right? It has to be extremely precise when presiding in matters of life or death, or businesses worth millions. But this is a toy soldier game. Just provide easily-read rules, clarify the intent (ie actually provide RAI in the rules- lots of companies do this, I don't know why GW doesn't), and then it should be obvious if someone's trying to game the system in an unintended way.

And, like, not to toot my own horn too much, but I proposed a rewrite on the first page that I think is pretty compact and intuitive- is there actually any semantic nuance to the original rules that I'm missing, such that my version isn't a valid substitute?


hey plastic toy solidiers is serious business to some people

Look, I dont like defending GW but in this case it really seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Its a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than alternative at the cost of having to read a few sentences twice? Yes. YMMV.

McGibs wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.


I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 04:13:59


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


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 ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When the first talked about terrain traits they talked about how something like the Sector Mechanicus terrain should make it harder to hit you, as the railings and whatnot aren't really the kinds of things that can take incoming shots like a big slab of concrete. This explains this 'dense terrain' rule, something you'd apply to this rather than this.



Could the Citadel™ LasPointer™ be close to release?



Yes. And again yes. Laser pointers should be part of the augmented table top along with apps that take pictures and deploy blast templates from ones own as well as perhaps mission based or narrative based forces or factors. Say, turn two the app says take a foto of the table top from directly above. It then adds blasst templates and says these areas have been impacted by an orbital strike from a passing ork cruiser which dropped these scrap bombz on you just for the lulz...

No arguing over scatter dice now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 04:17:46


 
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut





 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.


This is because a few editions ago there was a massive issue with one of the Necron beam weapons. The original rule said 'draw a line from this weapon' which to some people meant a band the same physical width of the weapon itself. It had to be FAQ'd. This was at a time when GW FAQs were like hen's teeth. Ever since then the 1mm thing has become standard.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Writing of the rule aside, I'm super happy this is a rule and I will specifically make some terrain to use it, such as forests and ruins with extra lichen underbrush and rubble. It should be pretty easy to hide gaunts in what I'm thinking.

Also, I mostly play with gentlemen who will happily counts-as with terrain.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 jeff white wrote:
No arguing over scatter dice now.
Instead replaced with arguments over camera placement and people not holding the laser pointer "the right way".
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 catbarf wrote:
 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.


I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.


They have bulletpointed rules and they've stated that they're accompanied by illustrations. The longwinded versions are preemptive FAQs to help when presented with edge-cases or when wallopers want to be gamey and argue about what 'obscured' is.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ok but they could do the same in a less painful way of writing.

It's amazing how when they mess things up over and over its because they write relaxed rules that make sense to them. Then when they write the rules labyrinth, starring David Bowie , for Dense terrain they are making these locked down amazing rules to fight " that guy " .

People love to defend GW as if they are a helpless child being attacked by the mean internet peoples again. They could write the rules with more clarity and less labor so reading it doesn't feel like a gaming version of rules torture. The fact they need to also bullet point them and point that out just hints they realize reading them sucks.

Clarity is good but it would be nice if the written rules would be clear and feel good to read, with bullet points and additional pictures. Not, reading these rules sucks, so it's very good they come with bullet points and pictures. They should be happy additions not a saving grace.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




I don't know seems like a normal way of writing to me. All rules and regulations here are like that. Guess western people aren't used to official language

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Argive wrote:

Look, I dont like defending GW but in this case it really seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Its a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than alternative at the cost of having to read a few sentences twice? Yes. YMMV.

They're only 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' if the extremes are the only possible options available to them. And that's the problem with GW... They're fairly consistently unable to find the middle ground. When something is a problem, they seem to more often than not push it right through to the opposite extreme.



I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 insaniak wrote:


I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.


Wasn't that the one that didn't work because it was attached to a tape measure and shaped like a skull (because of course it was) so you could never actually line the laser up properly?

I'm really struggling to understand why GW has taken the approach it has with their rules writing and formatting. It seems like there are several concepts that are common to all, or at least most, terrain pieces. Things like defining height by the tallest point, defining when a terrain piece is occupied or obstructing an attack, defining what a line is and so on. It would be much better if these things were defined in one place in the rules and then referred to in the rules text. That way you're building on a set of core concepts and reducing the wordiness of the rules without losing any information. As others have said, it feels like the rules are written backwards.

I'm pretty sure that after a few games all we'll need are the bullet points but the presentation of the rules so far feels really clunky.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 08:06:09


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
I don't know seems like a normal way of writing to me. All rules and regulations here are like that. Guess western people aren't used to official language


Well here, we don't write rules for games in such a way as to make it an annoying experience, usually anyways. There is a very big difference between normal writing and legal writing. This game is far from balanced enough for legal writing and instead it's a supposed to be a fun past time. Notice how when you read a book it isn't written like a legal brief or a summons. You can understand the writing and find it cumbersome and terrible at the same time. To add this is supposed to be something good and not checking out the local stance for noise levels at a given time of day and what is or isn't allowable and what exceptions can and can't be enjoyed there in.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/24 08:08:38


 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





If they'd given us the bulletpoints at the same time i reckon it wouldn't have been such an issue.

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.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: