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.

It seems like an easy fix to me... make it so you can only shoot models that you can see.
So you can only see one marine from a 5 man unit? He's the only guy getting killed, 'cos the rest are hidden... so the player of the unit being fired at must remove models from among the visible targets. Or does this create other issues that I am not seeing? 'cos whatever they are they can't be as bad as allowing shooting around corners.

I think its important to remember that positions of models is just an abstraction of a constantly moving and chaotic battlefield.

In a real battle, you don't get to move all your forces around without getting shot and then once you finish moving only then does the other army open fire.

I'm not saying the current system can't be improved, I'm just saying that making an enjoyable and balanced game should be the priority over realism when it comes to this stuff, and realism is already out the window as a premise!

Yes, it creates the precise problem of rhino sniping. That's a bad thing


You have a choice to make - hide out of los or shoot

 Stux wrote:
I think its important to remember that positions of models is just an abstraction of a constantly moving and chaotic battlefield.

In a real battle, you don't get to move all your forces around without getting shot and then once you finish moving only then does the other army open fire.

Fair enough, I take your point. It's just that you have draw the line somewhere right? and make a decision about who can shoot what and when.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it creates the precise problem of rhino sniping. That's a bad thing


You have a choice to make - hide out of los or shoot

What's rhino sniping? forgive my ignorance

 Slinky wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 solkan wrote:


- If only one model in the unit needs line of sight to fire, then you can use a Bolter marine walking around a corner to allow a las cannon marine to fire through walls.

Yes. The las cannon marine can also be killed through walls by enemy fire. So it would only be fair if he can shoot through walls.

Agreed, it does seem unfair, and it's the sort of thing that can ruin someone's fun playing the game...

Then I want to be able to fire at your squads as they move from cover to cover as it seems unfair that I can't shoot at models that are clearly out in the open and that ruins my fun playing the game...

 PaddyMick wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it creates the precise problem of rhino sniping. That's a bad thing

You have a choice to make - hide out of los or shoot

What's rhino sniping? forgive my ignorance

It means you can use two rhino's or other LOS blocking vehicles to snipe out models from units since you can use the rhino's to block LoS to other models that are less important.

You would be able to snipe Sgt's heavy and special weapons etc...

So that is not good at all.

That's not the same thing, though - I am talking about how a new player might perceive things. The picture of the Kroot above shows it nicely - One of them can shoot out, but they can all be shot.

Obviously a game has abstractions, this one just seems extreme.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it creates the precise problem of rhino sniping. That's a bad thing

You have a choice to make - hide out of los or shoot

What's rhino sniping? forgive my ignorance

It means you can use two rhino's or other LOS blocking vehicles to snipe out models from units since you can use the rhino's to block LoS to other models that are less important.

You would be able to snipe Sgt's heavy and special weapons etc...

So that is not good at all.

Ok thanks, I think I get the problem then. You use your own models to block LOS to models you don't want to shoot, in order to get a bead on some tastier targets. I've seen people do this, with terrain, to be able to fire at the unit they want to. I guess there are always unintended consequences to any rule like this. You've given me something to think about anyway, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...and apologies to the original poster for taking the thread off topic slightly

IMO the best solution would be to allow a player to allocate units to any model in a unit, but once there are no more models in range/LoS, the attack is cancelled.
Slightly more complicated but it resolves the situation.

Personally, I hate this rule. I had a particularly annoying experience once, a tank hidden like the Kroot in that image shooting my own squad, also hidden like the Kroot.
It was pretty inconsequential, I think only two models died. But it spoilt the first half of the game for me because it left such a bitter taste.

Just keeping LoS to the core of the model is much better imo, but that's too loose for a tournament setting so GW can't do it for 40k.

They could keep LOS to the core of the model, but then they would have to define the core of the model. This is increasingly complex as many models are not your basic human shape allowing for easy definition.

Even with the basic human shape, what is the core?

Torso?

Head?

Limbs? First section (upper arm and thigh) or both (also forearm and calf)?

Feet and hands? Including Toes and Fingers?

It is just easier to say, "any part of the model" and go home.

Assigning base-based volumes, per Warmachine. It'll involve some faff (looking at you, my beloved raiders/ravagers), but ends up in a much cleaner experience

Catulle wrote:
Assigning base-based volumes, per Warmachine. It'll involve some faff (looking at you, my beloved raiders/ravagers), but ends up in a much cleaner experience

Its certainly a contender for least worst solution. Would require all models to have bases, or we're back to defining hulls of walkers and such hah

 PaddyMick wrote:
It seems like an easy fix to me... make it so you can only shoot models that you can see.
So you can only see one marine from a 5 man unit? He's the only guy getting killed, 'cos the rest are hidden... so the player of the unit being fired at must remove models from among the visible targets. Or does this create other issues that I am not seeing? 'cos whatever they are they can't be as bad as allowing shooting around corners.

40k had that rule before.

Guess what happened? People parked rhino's etc so that 1mm line between them laser pointed the target model...Bye bye sergeant with special weapon, bye bye lascannon from squad. Positioning became mess due to having to ensure this isn't possible.

I agree, a return to rules that allow "rhino sniping" would be a bad idea.

I don't particularly mind the current LOS/targeting rules, but they are a bit unintuitive when looking at the situations outlined by the OP. Provided both players are fully aware of the rules, this usually isn't a problem, but it can definitely lead to unpleasant "gotcha" moments when learning the rules.

Personally I'd prefer to see a move away form individual models for LOS and have a unit based system. I think the current scale of a 1500-2000pt + game of 40k is too large for skirmish style targeting rules where positioning of individual models matters.

As I understand it, 40k apocalypse did this, and I think it works much better. I also prefer that system's method for resolving damage at the end of the turn, but that is getting off-topic.

Maybe all the “rules should be” should go to an appropriate forum. This one’s for discussing what the rules are, and that has been covered.

Yes it's good to know what the rules actually are, 'cos learning 9th, coming from 2nd, is hardy har hard. This discussion definately deepened my understanding of why the rule is like it is.

To the original poster: I can sympathise, the rules now are dense legalese with a competative bent. I remember when they used to mix in fluff and pics with the rules section, can you imagine?

I will now be investing in some 2nd ed models that are easier to hide