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.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW 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.
I challenge this statement. Have you never heard the phrase "modelling for advantage"? Many places that I have played will disqualify a model from play if the silhouette is radically different from the "official" model. You can not take, say, a Wraith Knight (normally standing) and model him in a prone position and not expect someone to say that that is modelling for advantage and ask that it be removed from the table.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
A lot of good and interesting stuff here, thought I didn't have time to read it all so I apologize if I'm repeating anything. My main thing would be a general restricting of how a match functions.
If the boards are not redesigned, then at the very least there should be no way to complete a charge on turn 1 (except perhaps with infiltrated units, but that can be more easily kept in check by carefully monitoring what units can do that and even then, you have to win the roll off or be charged yourself). If the boards aren't getting bigger, units need to be slower. To keep shooting and melee balanced, they'd also have to reduce the lethally of shooting and perhaps add the 6th turn back in. I currently have a melee unit that has a 7" pregame move and a 12" standard move. Most boards start players 24" apart so it's really easy to get off a turn one charge when you can re-roll if need be.
Re-work of secondary objectives. While I like the concept, it doesn't feel as adaptive as it should be. I know for me, I pick at least two of the same every time because they are what my army is good at, and only between a couple other for the third. I think removing the mission secondary was actually the wrong way to go, I think that each mission should have it's own secondary that would function more as a kind of tie breaker if the game is close (and it would be the only secondary). If it would have been somewhere near a tie, the secondary objective should be the deciding factor, that kind of thing.
This would perhaps only be more in "casual" play, but more effects for unique missions, similar to the Open Play twist cards, but more carefully balanced as currently some just really hamper certain armies. Perhaps a duel effect system? For example, if you have something like a swamp that reduced movement, it could also prevent fall backs so that when melee units finally do close, they are more effective. Something like that, both thematic and balanced.
If stratagems are here to stay, then some way to make you not just want to use only the best ones over and over. Maybe something like each strat can only be used once or something?
More Crusade support.
Some kind of height advantage system like in KT. There should be some kind of benefit for going up into tall buildings.
Leave 9th for a while before going into 10th and do a power scale reset. Things are getting pretty crazy with how strong some units are getting and it can only scale so high before the game system itself can't reasonable be cranked up any higher (some might argue that we've already passed the reasonable part). Give everyone some time with their shiny new codices for a year, handle updates with FAQ's and errata, then just downgrade everything for 10th and keep a better handle on the power creep going forward.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
Not sure about Tau, but there was a Catachan sniper that was prone like this. One of my favourite old school metal models TBH, when I was young I always wondered why they didn't do more of this. I know better now. XD
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/23 15:32:39
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW 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.
I challenge this statement. Have you never heard the phrase "modelling for advantage"? Many places that I have played will disqualify a model from play if the silhouette is radically different from the "official" model. You can not take, say, a Wraith Knight (normally standing) and model him in a prone position and not expect someone to say that that is modelling for advantage and ask that it be removed from the table.
IIRC there is/was a prone model amongst the Tau fire warriors. People used to place him behind one of their transports so that he could gain the advantage of cover and shoot from under the vehicle. That was later held to be an illegal position to occupy.
To be fair, I think there's a bit of a distinction between "no modelling for advantage" and "Only the most recent silhouette is legal". The former is something someone would likely go out of their way to do (remodelling/kitbashing, getting extras of the prone model in a unit from eBay/bits sellers/extra kits, etc.), whereas the latter would fall under more of a grandfathering in of a previously legal build.
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.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/23 16:08:34
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.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
We've been over this.
I have six different reasons why I chose the shirt that I wore today.
If you want to pretend that any company anywhere makes any decision based on only one factor- especially a decision that involves a significant investment of company resources- fine; I can't help you.
The Internet is full of soundbites, oversimplifications, opinions and conspiracies.
Very rarely is anything ever as simple as we try and make it when we are posting in a forum. It confuses me that folks can't or won't accept a point of view that INCLUDES their opinion if it also includes other ideas. Not enough for some people to be right unless they can assert that everyone else is wrong.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Leo_the_Rat wrote: This will never happen since with TLoSGW 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.
Whats wrong with the old system?
All infantry is size 2, tanks and monsters are size 3. A hill is size 2 so infantry can hide behind a hill but a tank can't.
Can you physically see the model without drawing a line over terrain of equal size or bigger? gz you can shoot.
It also is considered "a barrier to entry" because it makes the game more fiddly and harder for some players, who enjoy just being able to basically shoot whatever they want.
the original system had the problem that a size 3 model, on top of a size 2 hill, was still hidden behind another size 3 model not on the hill because there was a maximum size of 3
and you would need to put the size on the datasheet of the models because of how random keywords or base sizes are
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/23 20:41:04
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Or just allow some catagories of bases to silhouettes. For example 20-25mm are S1, 28-32 S2, 40 S3, etc..For ovals and other shapes you can just make different outlines or volume cylinders. There's nothing to say that each base has to be a different size in terms of height and/or width.
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.
Even the dinning table rationalization is complete bs. The standard width of a dinning table is 39" which is 5" shy of the 44" 'minimum' used for Strikefore sized games. Their decision literally was predicated upon their standardized packaging. Furthermore, GW's "minimum" statement is more based on the fact that each fold-out board has an awkward dimension and has less to do with older, larger battlefield sizes. Each fold-out board is actually 30" x 22.4" and not an even 22". The whole thing is super scummy.
We've been over this.
I have six different reasons why I chose the shirt that I wore today.
If you want to pretend that any company anywhere makes any decision based on only one factor- especially a decision that involves a significant investment of company resources- fine; I can't help you.
The Internet is full of soundbites, oversimplifications, opinions and conspiracies.
Very rarely is anything ever as simple as we try and make it when we are posting in a forum. It confuses me that folks can't or won't accept a point of view that INCLUDES their opinion if it also includes other ideas. Not enough for some people to be right unless they can assert that everyone else is wrong.
Are you intentionally chasing the irony here, or am I missing something?
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.
Thank you for reading that. I didn't mean to debate which system was better although I prefer the older one. Each edition has had some variation of a 'Let's try this' rule. While I didn't see the need to even adjust the old wound table, they did try it. Before 10th comes out, I just feel they really need to look at this. It's easier in it's current state, but I feel it's one step away from AoS where there is a flat roll to Wound. I don't believe this mechanic is working in either game. I hope they find a replacement, or go back to something that works.
Current Armies
40k: 15k of Unplayable Necrons
(I miss 7th!)
30k: Imperial Fists
(project for 2025)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or use keywords. The tools already exist in the game to make this work.
Exactly. We don't need to worry about base sizes or adding a specific size stat to models. We already have keywords designating units as Infantry, Monsters, Titanic and so on. You can easily leverage that to have a functional LoS system based on rough model size.
tneva82 wrote: Well would still need new keywords being added to units for that.
Would we? Which units would need keywords added? I think the last major unit type that didn't have a keyword was Tau suits, and that's been fixed in the new Codex.
Infantry is a broad category covering everything from Gretchin to Raveners. That might require some further stratification/reclassification to make things a bit more organic.
But even so, why would needing to add a few extra keywords be a bad thing or a downside?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Infantry is a broad category covering everything from Gretchin to Raveners. That might require some further stratification/reclassification to make things a bit more organic.
But even so, why would needing to add a few extra keywords be a bad thing or a downside?
yeah, adding keywords that actually mean something would be useful IMO.
(more than gak like chariots that have zero rules associated with them)
The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
I think the easiest rule would be to use TLoS, with maybe 3 stipulations.
- anything outside the base/hull is not eligible for LoS.
- Anything above the head or turret top is not eligible for LoS - Some units may have special rules defining where the limits are if it's unclear.
- Suggest that where models are modelled crouching/prone, they be substituted for equivalent standing models if relevant.
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
We kind of already do that with the way Obscuring and other keywords work. The only really relevant number for terrain is if it's 5" in height. You could easily key a lot of interaction off that existing standard without having to change anything.
Ultimately, if your complaint is you might have to spend a few minutes prior to a game going over some basic terrain rules in order to improve the way the game functions, I don't think that's too compelling a counter.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
kirotheavenger wrote: The problem with relying too much on size keywords is you need to go through every piece of terrain before the game and define what size everything is.
That's a PITA, so you rarely bother. Which then bites you in the arse during the game when both players assumed slightly differently and now that difference is a big deal (eg you have LoS to slaughter me or you don't).
I think the easiest rule would be to use TLoS, with maybe 3 stipulations.
- anything outside the base/hull is not eligible for LoS.
- Anything above the head or turret top is not eligible for LoS - Some units may have special rules defining where the limits are if it's unclear.
- Suggest that where models are modelled crouching/prone, they be substituted for equivalent standing models if relevant.
That's a pretty reasonable approach to TLOS that addresses my gripes with it. It's things like outstretched arms making a unit targetable, crouching heavy weapon teams unable to see over chest high walls, stuff where the posing has a substantial impact on what the unit can do in-game that really frustrate me.
And the idea of resolving ambiguity in the rules seems like a no-brainer. Same with stating base sizes on the datasheet. It's weird how GW seems to write rules as if they have no idea what the unit is actually going to look like- that makes sense for a company producing just rules, but with the lengths GW goes to in order to ensure their rules match building their kits exactly as instructed, there's really no excuse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/25 13:33:10
Well they constantly point out that they are a miniatures company that you can play a game with rather than a gaming company that makes miniatures. And it shows in their ability to write rules for their games.
