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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
IIRC if a unit was partially in cover the attacker could choose to allow cover saves and be eligible to kill any model, or say they're focusing on the exposed models which would disallow cover saves but hits couldn't be allocated to the part of the unit that was in cover (same way as you couldn't hit a model that wasn't visible to at least one attacker, so no wiping out a whole unit because one guy's elbow was sticking out from behind a wall)

Yeah, that was a 5th edition thing. It worked very well, and the whole focused fire on the exposed element of a unit, did help feel like units were ordered.

5th did this right, but then allowed wound allocation schnanigans, think Ork Nob bikers were the worst at exploiting this rule.

I miss the 4th edition rule that models in a unit could only be killled by weapons that could reach them, so models at the front of a unit died first. None of this, kill 10 models and 10 at the back hiding around a corner suddenly fall down.

 stonehorse wrote:
GW have a long history of radically changing their design philosophy less than half way through an edition. So, while it may start off very well, somewhere along the way, they will mess it up... because if they were ever to sell a fully balanced, and well designed game, how could they sell/promote the next edition?

They don't change the philosophy. It just becomes gradually revealed. The problem is how consistently they can maintain the changes, which has been poor, but improving.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'll settle for terrain rules where you can't target something that's completely behind a building except for the tip of a spike on the end of a wing...

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

Yeah. GW tried to fix the various gamy issues those rules caused with other gamy solutions.

Don't want to force players to carefully pick the order of weapons they fire and/or carefully place their models to control the damage on the enemy unit, so let any model in the unit die.

Don't want to allow players to only pull from the far side of the unit, so force the closet models to take the hits and die.

Don't want to allow characters to tank attacks for units with careful placement, so pull characters out of units entirely.

And the cycle continues because no system is without issues. Remember that this all started with Rhino scoping. That's using vehicles to control which models in an enemy unit your attacking models could see, thus allowing you to assassinate squad leaders and special weapon models for you newer players back when you could only kill models you could see.

In terms of immersion, closest models dying made the most sense at least. I understand why many people don't like that though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
In terms of immersion, closest models dying made the most sense at least. I understand why many people don't like that though.

As an At-43 player, I was already used to it personally. And that was a system where range was determined by where in your unit your Unit Leader/Officer was, so model placement in a unit mattered much more than 40K.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

Then you have a toxic scene.
You simply talk to your opponent, hey I want this model to be hidden here. Can your model draw LOS? Yeah, ok, I’ll move him back a little, how about this? Perfect.

 bullyboy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

Then you have a toxic scene.
You simply talk to your opponent, hey I want this model to be hidden here. Can your model draw LOS? Yeah, ok, I’ll move him back a little, how about this? Perfect.

OR you should just place them correctly to begin with.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

Then you have a toxic scene.
You simply talk to your opponent, hey I want this model to be hidden here. Can your model draw LOS? Yeah, ok, I’ll move him back a little, how about this? Perfect.

OR you should just place them correctly to begin with.

It requires your opponents help to determine if they can see line of sight or not to the model.

In the end its a model being moved legally into a legal position. It just requires your opponent to attempt to draw line of sight to ensure that you have moved it into the desired location.

Since its an open information game and line of sight can be drawn at any time, there's nothing illegal in the step at all. It's just the same as moving into a specific position to, say, ensure that you are outside of charge distance from an enemy unit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

Then you have a toxic scene.
You simply talk to your opponent, hey I want this model to be hidden here. Can your model draw LOS? Yeah, ok, I’ll move him back a little, how about this? Perfect.

OR you should just place them correctly to begin with.

In those older editions, you weren’t allowed to pre-measure.

 Overread wrote:
It just requires your opponent to attempt to draw line of sight to ensure that you have moved it into the desired location.

It seems to require your opponent to concede that their models are not able to obtain LOS in their next movement phase

To which the reaction locally would be "move your damn models, and then I'll move my models, and then we'll see if I have line of sight, why the heck would I forfeit line of sight a turn ahead"

I know this is getting off topic, but do people really play in such a way where they don't provide any communication?

So what happens? I ask you if you can draw los to my model - do you just shrug? Do you really want me to spend time walking around the table, looking at all the angles?

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask "My plan is to be behind this cover, can you draw los?"

From this weeks preorder preview

Coverage of the new edition of Warhammer 40,000 continues this week on Warhammer Community, with a new look at a familiar face from the stunning cinematic trailer, transport and terrain rules, and more

Terrain rules will be very interesting

Domandi wrote:
I know this is getting off topic, but do people really play in such a way where they don't provide any communication?

So what happens? I ask you if you can draw los to my model - do you just shrug? Do you really want me to spend time walking around the table, looking at all the angles?

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask "My plan is to be behind this cover, can you draw los?"

Again, the question isn't "can you draw LOS", it's "are you able to move in such as way as to obtain LOS next turn" which is a far less reasonable demand.

You know how far models move so you can plot on a table areas you should be safe from. Not going to be perfect in all cases but is doable.

 Platuan4th wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
In terms of immersion, closest models dying made the most sense at least. I understand why many people don't like that though.

As an At-43 player, I was already used to it personally. And that was a system where range was determined by where in your unit your Unit Leader/Officer was, so model placement in a unit mattered much more than 40K.

Both AT-43 and Starship Troopers the Miniatures game got mass combat sci-fi gaming right. Some of the rules they had were amazing and sadly relegated to history.

Would absolutely love it if GW were to adopt wone of those rules in an edition of 40k.

Domandi wrote:
I know this is getting off topic, but do people really play in such a way where they don't provide any communication?

So what happens? I ask you if you can draw los to my model - do you just shrug? Do you really want me to spend time walking around the table, looking at all the angles?

Wouldn't it just be easier to ask "My plan is to be behind this cover, can you draw los?"

Yep, I've had some really ugly games involving any competitive or even some casual environments: I still clearly remember one game where I as a teen didn't communicate my intent to move to a legal spot that I moved to, which led to my adult opponent misplaying an ambush and even though he admitted I was in the right it was an ongoing source of tension for, like, way longer than it should have been.

Clear communication is necessary when it comes to subjective things like LOS; hopefully the next edition will help.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Reroll wounds are always going to be less dice rolling than reroll to hit.

Unless it's for flamers😁

 whembly wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

That's nice, merely intending for your models to count as hidden wouldn't get you very far in my scene.

Then you have a toxic scene.
You simply talk to your opponent, hey I want this model to be hidden here. Can your model draw LOS? Yeah, ok, I’ll move him back a little, how about this? Perfect.

OR you should just place them correctly to begin with.

In those older editions, you weren’t allowed to pre-measure.

And that's fine

See, I don’t agree with your opponent lending a hand there. There’s nothing wrong with strolling to their side of the board to get an idea of what their LoS might be, and going from there.

But actively asking them to help you out just doesn’t sit right with me,

Nothing I’d be a phallus about though, just something I’d politely decline, as I don’t think it’s very sporting to ask me to help you in that way.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
See, I don’t agree with your opponent lending a hand there. There’s nothing wrong with strolling to their side of the board to get an idea of what their LoS might be, and going from there.

But actively asking them to help you out just doesn’t sit right with me,

Nothing I’d be a phallus about though, just something I’d politely decline, as I don’t think it’s very sporting to ask me to help you in that way.

Its a hella lot quicker to just say - can you see this - or this is out of sight right? than constanlty walking back and forth.

It achives exactly the same result with the added bonus that both players agree on it - rather than - spend ages dping that and then the other player goes nope in their turn and....arguments begin

It also detracts from arguments. You may stroll round and think no LOS, but your opponent looks and thinks he can see a corner. Now, with intent in the open, you shut that down.
I’ve played other games (FOW), and had people ask me about LoS, and I’ll tell them to just move the model back a fraction so I couldn’t see it if they voiced their intent.
Heck, I do that in 40K too. Was your intent to be within 3” of that objective? Ok, you’ll need to move the model a fraction closer, etc.

People seem to be pretty bad at reading tonight.

It's not about asking your opponent if they have LOS right now, it's about asking them to concede that they cannot move in such a way as to gain LOS in their next movement phase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

The fact that this is considered a valid target in the first place is proof of bad LOS rules.

I can't help but think that the abstraction of line of sight in Boarding Actions is an indicator of where 10th might be going.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Overread wrote:
It just requires your opponent to attempt to draw line of sight to ensure that you have moved it into the desired location.

It seems to require your opponent to concede that their models are not able to obtain LOS in their next movement phase

To which the reaction locally would be "move your damn models, and then I'll move my models, and then we'll see if I have line of sight, why the heck would I forfeit line of sight a turn ahead"

Yea I think I've not stated this well.

What I'm saying is I try and anticipate where they'll move and place accordingly and I communicate where I can to make sure there aren't accidental misunderstandings.

There's no "Well you said you couldn't see it so you cant".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I can't help but think that the abstraction of line of sight in Boarding Actions is an indicator of where 10th might be going.

I have not seen those. Does someone have them handy?

Can't seem to find it on waha.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
People seem to be pretty bad at reading tonight.

It's not about asking your opponent if they have LOS right now, it's about asking them to concede that they cannot move in such a way as to gain LOS in their next movement phase.

That’s still super iffy to me, as it relies on “best guess” and indeed good faith. What if I move and it turns out I can in fact see the model in question? Is the expectation I just pretend I can’t? Would my opponent accuse me of cheating because I can take the shot?

For me? Position your model as you wish (within the rules of course!) and take your chances. Maybe I will be able to see it, maybe I won’t. Welcome to risk/reward. Asking me in advance to essentially agree to forgo a potentially juicy target before either of us can truly know it is indeed a valid target is beyond the pale for me.

And on the other hand, what if, having agreed you’d be out of LoS in that location, I end up taking my shot from elsewhere, because I know Avenue A wouldn’t work? Where does it stop? For me, it stops with you simply positioning your model (within the rules of course!) and taking your damned chances, just like everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
It also detracts from arguments. You may stroll round and think no LOS, but your opponent looks and thinks he can see a corner. Now, with intent in the open, you shut that down.
I’ve played other games (FOW), and had people ask me about LoS, and I’ll tell them to just move the model back a fraction so I couldn’t see it if they voiced their intent.
Heck, I do that in 40K too. Was your intent to be within 3” of that objective? Ok, you’ll need to move the model a fraction closer, etc.

Intent doesn’t equate to outcome.

Your intent is get your model out of LoS. Don’t ask me to agree before my own turn it will be. That’s not fair, that’s not sporting.

Apologies, I’m not as stressy about this as it may appear. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to ask your opponent to help you in that way.

Now there is a middle ground, re HBMC’s piccie. Let’s assume the sticky out bit is the tip of a cloak. Strictly speaking, I do have LoS to that model. But, if the model can be reasonably rotated in place to get that bit behind cover? I’m game - in my turn. Because as much as I’m opposed to my opponent essentially asking me to agree to not have LoS because they don’t want me shooting that model, their attempts to hide it failing due to Dramatically Billowing Cloak doesn’t feel sporting to me. As long as the model itself isn’t moving location, and is just being rotated in place? I’d be good with that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
I can't help but think that the abstraction of line of sight in Boarding Actions is an indicator of where 10th might be going.

I have not seen those. Does someone have them handy?

Can't seem to find it on waha.

The short version is that you can't see 'through' a model (like between their legs) or 'around' a model (like under a raised arm, or something). Line of sight is base-to-base; if two models' bases are touching, you can't see between them.

 stonehorse wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

It's astounding that they already had a near perfect system and dropped it.

Aye, can not for the life of me understand the push for True Line of Sight rules with static models. Makes dynamic models an issue, which game design shouldn't impact... but hey, GW.

TLOS has always been GW's standard because it's more immersive for the players. The fact that it causes issues with dynamic or 'creatively posed' models (see the endless arguments in years gone by over hypothetical kneeling Wraithlords) was never really seen as enough of a reason to move away from it, because GW have never intended the game to be played with strict adherence to the rules... we're supposed to just wing it when the rules are wonky.

Whether or not that's a bad thing is going to come down to personal preference... but ultimately it's why every edition of 40K so far has used True LOS for the core of its LOS system, just varying how area terrain and shooting through units has worked over the editions. Even the more structured height category system in 4th was only applied to area terrain and shooting through ongoing close combats. The rest of the time it used TLOS, like every other edition.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
In terms of immersion, closest models dying made the most sense at least. I understand why many people don't like that though.

In terms of immersion, treating the models as static objects rather than a unit of troops in motion, resulting in closest models always dying and special/heavy weapons and characters being buried at the back of the unit to prolong their lifespan never made sense. It was a convention purely intended to make gameplay faster by removing choice from casualty removal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As often as you repeat this mantra - not once in any of my games did I have trouble communicating my intentions and having my opponent verify their visibility so that I knew my model was concealed. And, yes, that means accounting for their movement phase.

The fact that this is considered a valid target in the first place is proof of bad LOS rules.

There must have been some sort of resolution error on that pic because otherwise that is easily the worst, stupidest image you could have possibly used to try and prove your point.

1. The thing is floating on it's own in space. It's not even behind the building. You're literally just saying something small shouldn't be target-able.
2. Even if it was a normal size model, it's still super far out of the building footprint, so it would be very much visible.
3. That building is like 60% windows and open doors by volume. It's be hard to hide ANYTHING behind it without using significantly abstracted LoS rules. You could drive a deadnought through those LOS lanes.

I'm assuming there's some sort of formatting issue and I'm seeing a different image than you are because otherwise, that's the 40k equivalent of posting an out of focus picture of a bear in a tree half a mile away and claiming it proves bigfoot walks among us.