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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.

+1. The whole smaller tables to fit on kitchen tables deal was just an aftermarket spin that made people happy and it became an urban legend that was the explanation for why.

I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.

Id imagine its the other thing too though. Why does the internet make everything so binary

Dai wrote:
I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.

If they wanted to bring more people in, I would think having the rules as freely-downloadable PDFs would do far more for that than reducing table size.

An end to 'Matched Play'.

There are other problems with 9th edition that need to be addressed for sure. Until they stop trying to force a failed system to work, those issues won't even be looked at. Eliminate the separation of players, start holding 40k Tournaments again. When they start doing that, then we might finally see some improvements to the game. 9th will remain the worst edition released to date until 'Matched Play' gets removed. None of that crap should carry over to 10th in order for it to have a chance a being successful.

Other posters have some good Ideas as well here are mine included
- Eliminate the Terrain rules. I understand the intent here, but if players don't take the time to define each piece of terrain before the game starts, the interpretation of what they are assumed to be causes problems during the game.
- The current Command Point system is out of control. AoS is showing the beginning of a great system for CP/Stratagems, and I really hope they adopt that over.
- Too many 're-rolls' sources available. Lethality is an issue in 9th, but the amount of re-rolls available to skew the curve has overcorrected the problem.
- I'm okay with the current AP system, but would like to see it reworked somehow. We're seeing a repeat of the Invul save bloat from earlier editions. Even a -1AP reduction across the board would improve the game.
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
- Bring back all the missing rules that have been removed:
Infiltrate, Player Placed Objectives, Mysterious Objectives, Allies, Night Fight, Random Game Length, Maelstrom (The WD doesn't count), etc.

Dai wrote:
I doubt that, i find it perfectly plausible that big evil.capitalists see people being able to play anywhere as something thatll bring more people in, ie people with no space at home for a large table.

Id imagine its the other thing too though. Why does the internet make everything so binary

Feel free to doubt. I was working very closely in another game (Conquest) that tried moving to the GW standard and they tried also pushing that it was to accommodate kitchen tables, but was told verbatim by the marketing / sales guy in North America that it was because of the box sizes. The kitchen table spin was just that. Spin that people enjoyed and made them feel better. The real reason had nothing to do with that though.

Not that it matters what the real reason is. GW could say the real reason is that their head of marketing took a bad crap that day and decided through peering at his aftermath in the toilet that it spoke to him that smaller tables were just something he liked, and the gw crowd would have nodded their collective heads as they worked to strip their LGS' full size tables and replace them with the smaller boards. The real reason doesn't matter.

I've worked in or around the game industry, both video game and tabletop, for many years and have seen marketing spins dozens of times. Mostly unless you just didn't get your product (failed kickstarters etc) people don't care and any side-effects that are good are easily touted as the intent because it makes people feel good.

For anyone who really believes that the change in board size was to accomodate smaller kitchen tables (and even the people here who tried to peddle the "The average kitchen table is ackchyually..." nonsense) and not just because of box size, may we remind you of another GW release from a few years back:

Games Workshop, the Porsche of Miniature Companies wrote:The Citadel Finecast miniatures are all made from a unique resin formula. For us as hobbyists, this is great news. The resin is easy to work with and quick to cut off the sprue, making assembling a miniature easier than it has ever been. Not only that, but it’s incredibly light too, which means pinning wings and other heavy components will be a thing of the past. So, quick and durable, that’s a good start. But of course, one of the main reasons for this change to resin was quality. One thing you’ll notice immediately when you pick them up is the exceptionally sharp detail on the model, which can only be described as staggering.

There was more than just that, but given how long ago it was I'm finding it hard to find the entire release.

But no. I'm sure it's because of kitchen table size.

For 10th I'd like to see Rick Priestly be hired as project manager and be given complete control to re-invent the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.

You're both wrong. But you're also both right.

Any corporation or entity that does anything for just ONE reason is doomed to die.

In order for anything to be worth doing, you need more than one reason.

The conversation probably went something like this:

Hey, our stuff is really expensive, and some people can't afford 2k armies. Maybe we should make different game sizes so that we can sell stuff to both poor nerds and rich nerds.

Yeah, that's a good idea, because it will also allow us to sell to people who don't live near stores, because smaller games will be easier to play at home.

Okay, so what should make the size of the boards for each size of game?

Well, what's the biggest board we can fit in a box?

22 X 30

Okay, so if we make the table sizes multiples of that, does that work?

(Much back and forth about why there are 4 sizes of game but only 3 sizes of boards)

What about people who have been playing on 6 x 4 tables for 30 years.

Well, if we just say it's a recommended size and not an actual rule, they can't complain, right?

Have you met the Internet?

Okay, so they're going to complain no matter what, but at least WE know we've explicitly given them permission to do whatever the hell they want- even in Matched Play. I'm sure most of them will be smart enough to figure it out.

I must ask again: Have you met the Internet?

PenitentJake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
They only put a minimum board size down so people could play on smaller tables.

No they didn't. They put down a minimum because that's the size of the boards they sell, which in turn are only the size they are because that's what fits inside their standard boxes and they didn't want to have to redesign the size/shape of the boxes they ship products in (they do that with the Necro tiles as the one exception). It had nothing to do with "smaller tables" and everything to do with making their products the standard.

You're both wrong. But you're also both right.

Any corporation or entity that does anything for just ONE reason is doomed to die.

In order for anything to be worth doing, you need more than one reason.

The conversation probably went something like this:

Hey, our stuff is really expensive, and some people can't afford 2k armies. Maybe we should make different game sizes so that we can sell stuff to both poor nerds and rich nerds.

Yeah, that's a good idea, because it will also allow us to sell to people who don't live near stores, because smaller games will be easier to play at home.

Okay, so what should make the size of the boards for each size of game?

Well, what's the biggest board we can fit in a box?

22 X 30

Okay, so if we make the table sizes multiples of that, does that work?

(Much back and forth about why there are 4 sizes of game but only 3 sizes of boards)

What about people who have been playing on 6 x 4 tables for 30 years.

Well, if we just say it's a recommended size and not an actual rule, they can't complain, right?

Have you met the Internet?

Okay, so they're going to complain no matter what, but at least WE know we've explicitly given them permission to do whatever the hell they want- even in Matched Play. I'm sure most of them will be smart enough to figure it out.

I must ask again: Have you met the Internet?

That's the most likely situation though instead of "internet" I assume they said "Americans" based on how they reacted to the US tournament meta in the past.

I'm afraid of Americans
I'm afraid of the world

Nothing of what Jake posted contradicts what I said. The boards are the way they are because of box size. Anything else related to them was done after that fact (ie. how many would make up the various size of games). If GW had stuck with their (super-fething-expensive) 4x4 mats, of which they sold 1-2 of them, then the "min size" would be 4x4, with the next one up being 8x4.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nothing of what Jake posted contradicts what I said. The boards are the way they are because of box size. Anything else related to them was done after that fact (ie. how many would make up the various size of games). If GW had stuck with their (super-fething-expensive) 4x4 mats, of which they sold 1-2 of them, then the "min size" would be 4x4, with the next one up being 8x4.

They didn't say you were wrong, just that it wasn't the only logic involved, same for me. It's almost as if multiple things can be involved in the decision making process.

But they didn't make the decision to use those boards because they wanted to reduce tables sizes or because of game size. Those boards already existed (again, due to box constraints) and then they worked out how to use them with the game.

 Mezmorki wrote:
A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.

People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.

The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... oops... I mean army list building.

Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.

There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.

So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But they didn't make the decision to use those boards because they wanted to reduce tables sizes or because of game size. Those boards already existed (again, due to box constraints) and then they worked out how to use them with the game.

Meh, believe what you want. Honestly I think it's more likely the dev team wanted to change the board size and then where saddled with using the boards by the higher ups later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RegularGuy wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
A lot of this discussion is just needing to accept that the nature of the game has shifted. It's NOT about position and maneuver from a proper "wargame" sense anymore. It's about having a more predictable environment in which to execute a pre-determined combo-strategy, and hoping you combo-strategy works better than the one your opponent has.

People talk about 40K becoming more card-game or CCG (e.g. Magic) like. It really is when you think about. The combo's and synergies of stacking all the layered rules in a codex, managing your CP pool and use of stratagems to power up "cards" (i.e. units) with a high degree of predictability.

The greater desire for predictability comes through in so many ways - overkill damage output, the ability to micro-direct attacks and fully optimize shooting on a model-by-model basis, stratagems to mitigate die rolls, traits/auras/doctrines to stack odds in your favor, the smaller board + faster movements + longer ranges, the symmetrical board (and increasingly terrain) layouts. It's ALL about creating a more predictable environment in which to test player "skill". The skill being tested is in deck construction.... oops... I mean army list building.

Sure, at a high level when both players have fully tuned and competitive deck/army there's a margin for skillful play and might be some decisions that victory will hinge on. But in all other situations, either one deck/army is going to just counter and wipe the floor with the other, or else whatever un-mitigated luck is left will determine the result.

There just isn't enough core rule depth and mission designs to make a good game from a position and maneuver standpoint.

So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?

40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.

Yes, technically. A unit that failed a morale check would make an involuntary move toward its own board edge, and have to test to regroup. If enemy units were positioned nearby, it could not attempt to regroup, so it was possible to break a unit and escort it off the board by several successive failures to regroup. If there were an enemy unit directly in the path of this involuntarily move, the broken unit would be destroyed.

Sometimes this could be done to very tough units that would be hard to destroy by conventional means, and even marines were slightly susceptible. Due to circumstances of the actual units’ abilities, and to the turn and missions structures, this was not that common though.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Yes, technically. A unit that failed a morale check would make an involuntary move toward its own board edge, and have to test to regroup. If enemy units were positioned nearby, it could not attempt to regroup, so it was possible to break a unit and escort it off the board by several successive failures to regroup. If there were an enemy unit directly in the path of this involuntarily move, the broken unit would be destroyed.

Sometimes this could be done to very tough units that would be hard to destroy by conventional means, and even marines were slightly susceptible. Due to circumstances of the actual units’ abilities, and to the turn and missions structures, this was not that common though.

Honestly I forgot about that mostly because units would often get cut down if they tried running from combat, or took extra wounds for being fearless. I can think of a couple of instances where I saw it matter, but the units were near the board edge so just left the game the moment they broke.

So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?

5th edition was really the beginning of the end for classic wargaming tropes. Once 5th edition expired into 6th, the whole push for the magic the gathering CCG style combo gaming that is 40k and AOS today began. 5th edition started seeing things like the nob biker army shennanigans or the infamous busted grey knights codex due to the paladin wound allocation garbage, but that was more bad mechanics than it was synergy / CCG combo spams. (they were horrifyingly bad negative play experiences if you weren't min/maxing - I think I'd put them in my top 3 worst 40k experiences of my 40k experience from 3rd edition on to 8th when I finally had to get off the GW train and throw my armies in the garbage)

Now 40k has always had the problem where positioning was largely not as important. Even back in 3rd edition days we had overcharged rhinos alpha striking Blood Angels down your throat on turn 1... and the whole "you can move wherever you want however you want with no facings" has been a thing since the early days which nullifies movement requirements somewhat. That being said vehicles had facings and some scenarios required you to position yourself better than others. Planet bowling ball was very popular though and cover and terrain were after thoughts, particularly because tournament standards didn't use a lot of terrain - and that bled over into casual games and pick up games as well. Not having a lot of terrain ... you didn't need to move as much as you just needed to be in a place where you could see to shoot and without a lot of terrain you could mostly see just fine for a good portion of your guys on the table.

It was roughly the beginning of the 2010s decade that saw both warhammer and 40k begin to move toward combo based CCG play, and in (roughly) 2015 the gates were thrown wide open to begin what we have today in both systems (and in 2015 warhammer was destroyed and replaced with Age of Combo Spam whose design traits largely also seep into 40k in many places... at least very very similar)

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Meh, believe what you want.

Don't have to. Auticus in this thread already confirmed it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly I think it's more likely the dev team wanted to change the board size and then where saddled with using the boards by the higher ups later.

I don't think they wanted to change anything, but had to to make use of the products they were already making.

Regardless,
The board sizes might stay.

Personally, as I run Combat Patrol and Incursion games, explicitly due to the smaller board size. It fits my tiny apartment. While I'd love to play Strike Force games, and really use my collection,that would mean going to the FLGS as an immunocompromised person, so I'm stuck running solo games.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:

So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?

40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.

There were numerous ways in which positioning play was heightened, particularly in 3rd-4th.

1. Weapon ranges were altogether shorter, so ranged lethality of infantry was often just 12" (as opposed to the Bolt Rifle Rapid firing at 30" today). This lends itself to requiring force concentration.

2. In 4th, a Leadership test was required to shoot at not-the-closest target, therefore a rudimentary screening/distraction mechanic.

3. Blasts and templates were a thing. Tight clumps of models became a very risky situation, but this in turn played off the shorter range of lethality. Do you clump your troops together so everyone is in range? Or do you spread out to mitigate the potential damage from blasts and templates?

4. There actually was a Crossfire rule, where if you've surrounded an enemy unit that is attempting to fall back, essentially denying them their fall-back-corridor, they are wiped out.

5. Bigger boards, better terrain rules.

6. Charges were (generally) limited to 6", which meant a couple things. A: You could predictably position your self outside of an opposing units charge range (13"), which was very useful at times. B: You could maneuver your unit to engage in a sort of "half-charge", where you only reliably only throw a model or two of your unit into an assault in order to perform a sort of "holding action", ensuring (or dramatically increasing the probability) that combat took more than a single round to resolve. This was an excellent way of avoiding enemy fire during their turn, and hoping you cleared their unit in the opponents assault phase, opening up your own unit to act again in your turn.

7. Consolidation/Sweeping Advance from one assault to the next could occasionally be extremely dramatic, and there was no voluntary Fall Back. Spacing your units appropriately when expecting assaults could be critical at times. But again, this could interfere with your force concentration.

8. Dedicated anti-tank weapons were required to engage decent tanks armor. If you don't have the tools available to you where they're needed, then you're SOL.

There's probably some other stuff, but that's what I got off the top of my head.

 Akar wrote:

...
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
...

I separated this out as it reminded me of something. In a different game (AT-43) the to wound chart was somewhat similar to the old wound chart.
If the attack S was +/-1 to target T it was 4+ to wound.
But there was a possibility to auto wound and no wound at all possible, if I remember correctly S 7+ higher then target T then auto wound, and other way around no wound possible.
If now GW would finally fully utilize the numeric values not only for S and W we could be in for something.

There will always be a break of point and with the significant no of MEQ type units the S3/4/5 will be the basic breaking point. And any change to the wound chart would need a detailed look at the S and T values.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

It isn't my game, believe me if it was things would work differently! We have to share our game with our opponent. If I arrange a pick up game, turn up to the local game store and say "hey, how about we throw away this mat and play on a full 6x4?" they're gonna say "no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard size". Now we're at an impasse.

I know what you mean, I hate this mentality too. In my case I constantly ask for playing 1500 points games, which IMHO is the best format, but most of the times I get the same :"no thanks, I'd rather play on the standard format" even when I ask people days before playing.

For me, as usual, Auticus HBMC, Insectum and Mezmorki say what need said. Regularguy, I agree about that post too…

As for vehicles, yeah, I remember coming back into third and getting rhino rushed by a game tester cited in the front of the rulebook actually, frogging dooosh imho for playing that way, after years earlier being super into second and I remember using turn templates to move vehicles at some point, losing forward movement for every 45degrees or something like that. Far superior game play compared with third imho…

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:

So this post speaks to me. Not that I begrudge people their enjoyment of the current play/competitions. Were earlier editions more like other classical table top war games with disposition, maneuver and concentration of forces being bigger factors than combined effecrs of Army traits, warlord traits, relics, and specific unit synergies being the focus?

40k's only real bonus for positioning was TLOS from buildings and getting into favorable positions against vehicles. Honestly it never quite got the importance of positioning down as much as WFB did. If crossfire becomes a universal mechanic it could help add something to positioning, but that still doesn't fix how unimportant verticality is to 9th ed.

There were numerous ways in which positioning play was heightened, particularly in 3rd-4th.

.
.
..

I'd echo all of that. Morale and fall back moves, vehicle armor facings, reserves + outflanking, cover system, fixed charge distances, larger section, etc, all emphasized position and maneuver more.

We also (and still do) play with a lot of terrain I think by most peoples standards. Usually about half the board can be covered by area terrain and that makes a difference.

I also think the mission designs, especially 4th edition, created more varied situations where the tempo of the game would be different, which would prompt you to advance your forces differently from game to game. Now the matched play missions are just all rushing into objective points.

Slipspace wrote:

60"x44" is fine if you reduce movement and range to more sane levels again.

Well go back the Halycon days of 2nd ed and heavy weapons typically covered the entire table (exceptions for stuff like MM that is you were shot with turn 0 the oppo had cheated when setting up), but there were a lot of other restrictions. Shorter ranges in return for less rules to remember I guess is a fair trade.

There of course movement for typical infantry was 4" if shooting, 8" if charging or not shooting.
With the two sides starting 24" apart.

 Fwlshadowalker wrote:

 Akar wrote:

...
- A review of the current 'To-wound' table should be done. The current one is just stupid. The difference between S4-S5 is huge, but there doesn't appear to be any significant advantage from S5-S7. There are few situations where the roll is going to make an impact on the game.
...

I separated this out as it reminded me of something. In a different game (AT-43) the to wound chart was somewhat similar to the old wound chart.
If the attack S was +/-1 to target T it was 4+ to wound.
But there was a possibility to auto wound and no wound at all possible, if I remember correctly S 7+ higher then target T then auto wound, and other way around no wound possible.
If now GW would finally fully utilize the numeric values not only for S and W we could be in for something.

There will always be a break of point and with the significant no of MEQ type units the S3/4/5 will be the basic breaking point. And any change to the wound chart would need a detailed look at the S and T values.

this is more or less the standard in wargames for comparative charts
X VS Y equal = 4+
+1 = 5+
+2 = 6+
+3 = not possible or 6+/halve the attacks/dice
+4 = not possible
-1 = 3+
-2 = 2+
-3 = auto success or re-rolled failed

the same chart can be used for Strength VS Toughness, Balistic Skill VS Dodge, Weapon Skill VS Weapon Skill etc.

the main problem was that GW changed the chart, therefore changing the breaking points, but not changing the stats for the units

if you limit the stats from 1-10, the "standard" unit, aka tactical marines, should have S5/T5, add in Initiative an as a dodge value (as opposing to WS/BS) and we would be on to something again with out needing special rules for the no toughness but hard to hit units etc.

I'd love to get rid of true LoS. It's silly that because you can see a tip of a banner the model is exposed to fire. GW should take a page from warmahordes and use base size = volume. If you have X base size then you can be seen if LoS can be drawn to a spot on Y volume. This will never happen since with TLoS GW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I'd love to get rid of true LoS. It's silly that because you can see a tip of a banner the model is exposed to fire. GW should take a page from warmahordes and use base size = volume. If you have X base size then you can be seen if LoS can be drawn to a spot on Y volume. This will never happen since with TLoS GW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.

WMH, Infinity, Malifaux and probably many more use some for of "volume LoS" and its soo much more enjoyable. lets modelers have more freedom and removes any concept of modeling for advantage

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
This will never happen since with TLoS GW can change the position of a figure without changing its base size and, in effect, make you purchase the new figure since it has a different silhouette than the older one.

As much as I love a good tinfoil hatted GW bashing, this ain't it. GW never has enforced such a thing, nor has the community. The community lets you pose minis however you like unless it's quite far out of the norm.
They use TLoS because they want the game to be simple and easy. This is also why they say any part of a model is fair game. Older editions of 40k used to say discount extraneous parts like banners and weapons - but GW did away with that.

One problem with silhouettes is that 40k miniatures vary significantly in size and stature. Not helped that base sizes exist purely to hold up whatever dynamic base and scenic items the design studio comes up with - you have power armoured guys sat on everything from 32mm to 60mm bases, and that's not even counting legacy 25mm bases.
They also use a huge plethora of bases, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 60mm, 90mm just off the top of my head, plus various ovals. Any template set accounting for the range of base diameters and heights would be an army in it's own right!
Ovals present yet another problem problem - how does your template account for the angle the mini is viewed from?

All the games that use templates are far more restrained. They might have maybe 6 different sizes across the different widths and heights. That's manageable. 40k would not be.
Star Wars Legion has a standard size template for infantry (which are all essentially human sized), but then says you're on your own when it comes to anything else, using the same "any part of the model is fair game to shoot" that GW does.

Killteam perhaps has a more appropriate system for LoS. In order to target someone you need LoS to any part of their miniature. But cover is determined by "top down/2D" lines drawn to the base of the target. If any intersect cover under certain conditions, they get cover. It's simple enough to manage (a laser-line really helps though) and you don't have to worry too much about hugely varying model sizes.
It'll require some robust terrain rules to account for height advantage and such though, that's easily done. Killteam's system works well, but is limited very much to the Killteam "environment" itself. But many historicals have a similar system that work well under the same principle. They normally say something like "models on elevated terrain ignore any terrain lower than themselves, provided it's not within 6 inches of the target" or something. Again, that concretely defines what you can see over without every needing to use TLoS.