Thoughts on edition churn after 5 years back in the hobby

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.

**Grimtuff**

Sim-Life wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah fake heights don't work.

You mean GW have never gotten them to work. It works fine in other games.

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

**Overread**

Yeah GW has this huge casual vs competitive gulf. They kind of want to make competitive rules but they also don't want to turn casual people away.

It doesn't help that in most other games the base sizes have remained fixed for years whilst GW they vary and these days sometimes seem to vary almost at random. Plus as noted sometimes they vary at random between different kits including the same model at the same time and its not simply a case of old stock having to work its way out of the sales chain.

AoS almost looked hopeful as GW started a base size chart, but they've not updated it in over a year now; meanwhile 40K is just an sheer mess.

No one likes rebasing, but if GW gave clear guidelines it would just create one moment of pain instead of this drip fed issue they have now

**The_Real_Chris**

Karol wrote:

In my place and my part of Poland, 8th when it came out was huge.

Massive uptake of 40k with 8th. Players from 2nd ed coming back.

All stopped playing in 9th. Early disruption from Covid, then a morass or rules and updates. Some are trying 10th, too early to say if they will stick with it. But nowhere near as many as came to try 8th again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf wrote:

But as far as the rules themselves, my issue with 40K's terrain rules is that the game is too big for it to work. You need a ton of LOS-blocking terrain to have interesting maneuver rather than raw target prioritization, but then trying to move a tank (let alone a superheavy) around becomes nigh-impossible. A 2000pt army takes up too much space to comfortably exist on a 60x44" board.

Yes, a lot of people don't seem to realise that upping base sizes, model numbers and shrinking board sizes just kills meaningful manoeuvre tactics. One reason that I am disheartened by the Epic reboot, seems to follow GWs design instincts and go back to armies smashing into each other like 2nd ed Epic.

You would have to work hard to tell me shrinking the distance armies start at, shrinking the deployment zones, all while having a greater footprint of stuff to deploy is good for any game other than maybe a cardgame...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kodos wrote:
it is that simple, the IP reached a point were placing an icon prints money

why should they invest anything else or even care
not like GW ever cared on the previous stuff but changed everything on the fly for new releases, because it is models first background later

It is amazing that for something which is in theory an IP protecting strategy they bin it so fast and easily. Look at the fiasco around Primaris and all the establish fluff for other chapters and scouts etc. Now it is all slowly being released will they simply go back tot he old ideas and pretend none of this ever happened? How long will we be at war with Eastasia?

**Crablezworth**

Overread wrote:
Yeah GW has this huge casual vs competitive gulf. They kind of want to make competitive rules but they also don't want to turn casual people away.

It doesn't help that in most other games the base sizes have remained fixed for years whilst GW they vary and these days sometimes seem to vary almost at random. Plus as noted sometimes they vary at random between different kits including the same model at the same time and its not simply a case of old stock having to work its way out of the sales chain.

AoS almost looked hopeful as GW started a base size chart, but they've not updated it in over a year now; meanwhile 40K is just an sheer mess.

No one likes rebasing, but if GW gave clear guidelines it would just create one moment of pain instead of this drip fed issue they have now

It's the same stuff that births concepts like trying to account for one building their model incorrectly, example skimmers and flight stands GW "remove the model from the flight stand and place it on the table as a wreck... oh you glued your flight stand in? Cool, lets just pretend you didn't"

Which always seemed weird for a game very much about the details in terms of wysiwyg on weapons/wargear. Like in 30k people insisting their drop pod with a place for a flight stand just doesn't need one, because reasons.

I don't even know how any company can attempt to even make rules without at least having fairly locked down standards. And constantly wanting both ways is self defeating on gw's offerings.

**vipoid**

Grimtuff wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah fake heights don't work.

You mean GW have never gotten them to work. It works fine in other games.

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

GW could potentially get around this somewhat with keywords. Not ideal, but at least you wouldn't end up with a SoB Hospitaller having the same hitbox as a Dreadnought.

Though, even then, I'm not sure what you'd do with things like the Raider and Wave Serpent (which substantially overspill their rspective bases).

**LunarSol**

vipoid wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah fake heights don't work.

You mean GW have never gotten them to work. It works fine in other games.

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

GW could potentially get around this somewhat with keywords. Not ideal, but at least you wouldn't end up with a SoB Hospitaller having the same hitbox as a Dreadnought.

Though, even then, I'm not sure what you'd do with things like the Raider and Wave Serpent (which substantially overspill their rspective bases).

You make the model height a stat on each datasheet having nothing to do with base size. Tying height to base size doesn't work when you have vehicles taking up more horizontal space than giants.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_blackfang wrote:

Which is more or less how 40k 4th edition worked but then they went with full TLOS instead

TLOS is intuitive. Everyone knows what can see what, even if no one can put it into words.

Of course, no one can actually agree what can see what; they're just certain they know.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Spoiler:

vict0988 wrote:
That Land Raider it isn't fully covered from most angles regardless and many munitions won't need a straight shot to have a chance of destroying the enemy and please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that thing provide cover for the Land Raider this edition?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think shooting from antenna is a result of several points:
1. rules lawyers that couldn't accept the old rule of "things sticking out from the main body don't count"
2. GW writers not having a better idea than the old or the new
3. GW trying to make the rules more approachable and with less room for interpretation
4. GW trying to keep the game relatively clean from other gaming tools but dice and range rulers. No tokens (hence no activation mechanic), no silouettes, no templates

In our games we also houseruled it to the old version. Even the designer's commentary from 8th hinted at the old rule, but I guess it was their last attempt to say: If you have reasonable opponents you don't actually shoot at or from antenna and find a common ground, but well... we're getting many mails.

I have no obligation to play by your stupid house rule that makes the game one big debate about what counts and what doesn't count as part of the model, just forge the narrative and move on. Have you tried to politely bring it up before the game? In the handful of games where people have done it I've accepted, but don't call me a rules lawyer because I won't accept you bringing in house rules in the middle of the game to favour you, if I notice you haven't shot something that can see me with its antenna I'll point it out as well. You're only really a rules lawyer when the rules only apply when it benefits you. A classic scenario is in Yugioh when you let your opponent make an illegal move and instead of immediately correcting your opponent you wait long enough that the game gets tangled and then you call a judge and say the initial thing was illegal, now by the letter of the rules your opponent gets a game loss because he did not follow the rules and it has become impossible to reset the game state back to before the cheating occurred. Or you will take advantage of your opponent not knowing their antenna are part of the model and a representation of the model's combat output and input and can therefore be shot at or with, let it move into a position where it can be shot, ignore your opponent not shooting with it because they think it cannot shoot and then shoot it to bits in your following turn. That's being a rules lawyer, but if you point out when it is moved into that position that you can see it then you are not a rules lawyer, you are just playing the game by the rules.

You sound pretty offended by a rule that, IIRC worked at least from 5-7th edition 40K and since 21years for lotr which some consider to be GWs best game. You just talk to each other. "Can you see me if I go here?" "Well, there's the tip of his sword... I wouldn't count that." "Okay."

**Gnarlly**

LOTR has “in the way” tests; apples to oranges. Count me as one who preferred 4th edition’s terrain and targeting rules over what we have now and since.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Gnarlly wrote:
LOTR has “in the way” tests; apples to oranges. Count me as one who preferred 4th edition’s terrain and targeting rules over what we have now and since.

We were talking line of sight, not cover.
Lotr rulebook says: if you can only see a banner, wings, a tail, weapons or something comparable a model is not within line of sight.

**tneva82**

Overread wrote:

AoS almost looked hopeful as GW started a base size chart, but they've not updated it in over a year now; meanwhile 40K is just an sheer mess.

No one likes rebasing, but if GW gave clear guidelines it would just create one moment of pain instead of this drip fed issue they have now

Fyi in aos base size is now where points are.

So yeah separate article hasn't been updated as info been moved to new place.

And now it's actually rule rather than recommendation.

**Overread**

Ahh nice I'd not noticed that change. That's very encouraging indeed!

Now just to hope that one day the Double Turn migrates to Open and leaves Matched Play

**vipoid**

LunarSol wrote:

You make the model height a stat on each datasheet having nothing to do with base size. Tying height to base size doesn't work when you have vehicles taking up more horizontal space than giants.

Height, sure. But what about a model's width?

**insaniak**

lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, this is how the games i mentioned earlier function and it makes the game flow much faster.

Malifaux in particular since you assign height to terrain so lets say we translated it to 40k we would have :

Grots : Height 1
Guardsmen : Height 2
Space marine : Height 3
Rhino : Height 4
Boxnaught : Height 5

and

Crates : Height 1
Barricades : Height 2
First floor building : Height 3
second floor building :Height 6

then any model that has a height smaller than the intervening terrain is out of LoS

Which is more or less how 40k 4th edition worked but then they went with full TLOS instead

4th ed had 3 height bands, but so far as terrain was concerned they only applied to area terrain. The height bands were used to determine if models could see over intervening area terrain or close combats. The rest of the time, 4th used true LOS... So a model shooting over, say, a stack of crates used TLOS just like in every other edition.

**Unit1126PLL**

insaniak wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, this is how the games i mentioned earlier function and it makes the game flow much faster.

Malifaux in particular since you assign height to terrain so lets say we translated it to 40k we would have :

Grots : Height 1
Guardsmen : Height 2
Space marine : Height 3
Rhino : Height 4
Boxnaught : Height 5

and

Crates : Height 1
Barricades : Height 2
First floor building : Height 3
second floor building :Height 6

then any model that has a height smaller than the intervening terrain is out of LoS

Which is more or less how 40k 4th edition worked but then they went with full TLOS instead

4th ed had 3 height bands, but so far as terrain was concerned they only applied to area terrain. The height bands were used to determine if models could see over intervening area terrain or close combats. The rest of the time, 4th used true LOS... So a model shooting over, say, a stack of crates used TLOS just like in every other edition.

The thing is, area terrain was the majority of terrain on the board. A stack of crates was usually on (though not affixed) to a base with another few crates to make a "storage area" for example, that was area terrain.

Scatter terrain wasn't expected to do much, precisely because of TLOS and primarily served as tank obstacles.

**insaniak**

I suspect that was rather situational, depending on individual groups' terrain collections. Most of the boards I saw during 4th edition contained just as many hills and complete buildings (which weren't area terrain) as ruins and forests (which were). And scatter terrain was as useful as you made it to be... my collection included a lot of it, in various different sizes to block LOS for different models.

**vict0988**

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You sound pretty offended by a rule that, IIRC worked at least from 5-7th edition 40K and since 21years for lotr which some consider to be GWs best game. You just talk to each other. "Can you see me if I go here?" "Well, there's the tip of his sword... I wouldn't count that." "Okay."

I've had people ragequit a game because I did not agree with them on a rule, once in a game we looked something up we still disagreed and I said I'd play it his way but did not agree that was official, he said if I was going to be impossible he wouldn't play me, agreeing on what the rules are is really important. I did not play 4th, I can pretend that's the perfect solution, 5th wasn't. House rules are cool, but like with proxies and conversions bring it up as soon as possible, don't deploy a Rhino with "Assault Marines" inside and then disembark Spacehulk Genestealers on 25MM bases turn 2 without prior notice, you are breaking the social contract by even trying to do it instead of doing it while we are discussing what mission to play.

insaniak wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:

Spoiler:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

yeah, this is how the games i mentioned earlier function and it makes the game flow much faster.

Malifaux in particular since you assign height to terrain so lets say we translated it to 40k we would have :

Grots : Height 1
Guardsmen : Height 2
Space marine : Height 3
Rhino : Height 4
Boxnaught : Height 5

and

Crates : Height 1
Barricades : Height 2
First floor building : Height 3
second floor building :Height 6

then any model that has a height smaller than the intervening terrain is out of LoS

Which is more or less how 40k 4th edition worked but then they went with full TLOS instead

4th ed had 3 height bands, but so far as terrain was concerned they only applied to area terrain. The height bands were used to determine if models could see over intervening area terrain or close combats. The rest of the time, 4th used true LOS... So a model shooting over, say, a stack of crates used TLOS just like in every other edition.

So that "problematic" Land Raider image would still be problematic in 4th, darn.

**insaniak**

vict0988 wrote:

So that "problematic" Land Raider image would still be problematic in 4th, darn.

Yes, and no.

In 4th ed that land raider wouldn't have been able to shoot, as LOS was from the weapon mount, and the terrain is blocking it.

I can't remember for sure, but have a vague recollection that the ruling to ignore antennas and the like was added in an FAQ, and that you could initially target a model so long as you could see any part of it... Fairly sure the Turn Signals on A Land Raider web comic's 'Hit him right in the heraldry' bit came from that era.

If it was a forest instead of a big rock, then the land raider would be both concealed and unable to shoot, as both vehicle and terrain are size 3.

**catbarf**

vict0988 wrote:
I view it abstractly the soldier isn't posing in battle but the model abstractly shows the space the model takes up.

And yet a model that comes from GW modeled in a prone position cannot see over some two-foot-tall sandbags, helpless to stand up, forever locked into hugging the dirt no matter how nonsensical it is in context.

While the Sergeant forever frozen into a pose with his sword outstretched becomes unable to hide behind cover and renders his entire squad vulnerable to attack, yet his nearly identical compatriot in a more timid pose is free to take advantage of terrain.

TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

**Sgt. Cortez**

vict0988 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You sound pretty offended by a rule that, IIRC worked at least from 5-7th edition 40K and since 21years for lotr which some consider to be GWs best game. You just talk to each other. "Can you see me if I go here?" "Well, there's the tip of his sword... I wouldn't count that." "Okay."

I've had people ragequit a game because I did not agree with them on a rule, once in a game we looked something up we still disagreed and I said I'd play it his way but did not agree that was official, he said if I was going to be impossible he wouldn't play me, agreeing on what the rules are is really important. I did not play 4th, I can pretend that's the perfect solution, 5th wasn't. House rules are cool, but like with proxies and conversions bring it up as soon as possible, don't deploy a Rhino with "Assault Marines" inside and then disembark Spacehulk Genestealers on 25MM bases turn 2 without prior notice, you are breaking the social contract by even trying to do it instead of doing it while we are discussing what mission to play.

I mean, it's pretty easy, in 5th to 7th and lotr I am right in saying with only the tip visible you are not in los, since 8th you are right in saying you are visible.

You seem to automatically assume TFG behaviour when someone uses houserules which is a different discussion altogether.

**vict0988**

catbarf wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
I view it abstractly the soldier isn't posing in battle but the model abstractly shows the space the model takes up.

And yet a model that comes from GW modeled in a prone position cannot see over some two-foot-tall sandbags, helpless to stand up, forever locked into hugging the dirt no matter how nonsensical it is in context.

While the Sergeant forever frozen into a pose with his sword outstretched becomes unable to hide behind cover and renders his entire squad vulnerable to attack, yet his nearly identical compatriot in a more timid pose is free to take advantage of terrain.

TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

You're right LOS should be more abstract. Ignoring antennae and figuring out how much of a model is 25% or 50% is cursed rules writing that led me to have worse play experiences. You can almost always draw LOS in 8th-10th, not having to go down to draw LOS from guns or eyes has improved the game for me. I get why you don't like it, I don't see how I'd be convinced to change my mind though. I'd agree the game should be changed to the preference of most people, so if most people wanted to go back, but it wouldn't change my preference.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
You sound pretty offended by a rule that, IIRC worked at least from 5-7th edition 40K and since 21years for lotr which some consider to be GWs best game. You just talk to each other. "Can you see me if I go here?" "Well, there's the tip of his sword... I wouldn't count that." "Okay."

I've had people ragequit a game because I did not agree with them on a rule, once in a game we looked something up we still disagreed and I said I'd play it his way but did not agree that was official, he said if I was going to be impossible he wouldn't play me, agreeing on what the rules are is really important. I did not play 4th, I can pretend that's the perfect solution, 5th wasn't. House rules are cool, but like with proxies and conversions bring it up as soon as possible, don't deploy a Rhino with "Assault Marines" inside and then disembark Spacehulk Genestealers on 25MM bases turn 2 without prior notice, you are breaking the social contract by even trying to do it instead of doing it while we are discussing what mission to play.

I mean, it's pretty easy, in 5th to 7th and lotr I am right in saying with only the tip visible you are not in los, since 8th you are right in saying you are visible.

You seem to automatically assume TFG behaviour when someone uses houserules which is a different discussion altogether.

What is TFG behaviour is trying to sneak in a house rule turn 2 because I moved to get vision on TFG's model and TFG didn't think to ask me whether I'd be able to see the sword of TFG's model after moving. I will often offer to let my opponents nudge their model or rearrange their squad to get the Sergeant's sword out of LOS or to to get the special weapon instead of a regular guy into range. I have said that I think house rules are cool, I also think proxies, having limited time for a game and unpainted minis are cool, but bring that gak up before the game. Now maybe you think take-backsies are trash and ruin your game, fair enough as long as you don't accept any of my offers to take back things and don't expect any future offers I won't be miffed you don't extend any to me.

**insaniak**

vict0988 wrote:

What is TFG behaviour is trying to sneak in a house rule turn 2 because I moved to get vision on TFG's model and TFG didn't think to ask me whether I'd be able to see the sword of TFG's model after moving. I will often offer to let my opponents nudge their model or rearrange their squad to get the Sergeant's sword out of LOS or to to get the special weapon instead of a regular guy into range. I have said that I think house rules are cool, I also think proxies, having limited time for a game and unpainted minis are cool, but bring that gak up before the game. Now maybe you think take-backsies are trash and ruin your game, fair enough as long as you don't accept any of my offers to take back things and don't expect any future offers I won't be miffed you don't extend any to me.

That's all well and good, but unless the fate of the world is at stake, it's also worth considering that your opponent is perhaps not trying to 'sneak a house rule in' but simply didn't think to mention it before hand as everyone else they play with plays it the same way as they're trying to.

**kodos**

vict0988 wrote:
What is TFG behaviour is trying to sneak in a house rule turn 2 because I moved to get vision on TFG's model and TFG didn't think to ask me whether I'd be able to see the sword of TFG's model after moving. I will often offer to let my opponents nudge their model or rearrange their squad to get the Sergeant's sword out of LOS or to to get the special weapon instead of a regular guy into range. I have said that I think house rules are cool, I also think proxies, having limited time for a game and unpainted minis are cool, but bring that gak up before the game. Now maybe you think take-backsies are trash and ruin your game, fair enough as long as you don't accept any of my offers to take back things and don't expect any future offers I won't be miffed you don't extend any to me.

but that is neither a problem of house rules, nor TOLS and not even 40k
that is a problem of you and your opponent not clearing up which rules are used prior the game, which would be single question as "rules as written with the latest FAQ/Errata?"

that GW writing rules and than designing models/terrain that does not work with said rules has nothing to do with you not talking to your opponent prior the game

**Apple fox**

That’s also a big issue with them just up and changing the games ideas on how things should be.
So you end up with a very literal way of interacting with the rules, since from edition to edition the intent can completely flip with no commentary to why they even think it’s better changed.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

For reference and bringing material:

Bolt action line of sight:

Draw from the models eyes
Ignore friendlies (not vehicules)
Infantry is seen if torsos or head is visible.
Armour is visible if hull or turret is visible. Everything else counts, in both cases.

If only details outstrecthing or "peripherical part" are visible "we assume troopers cannot see amongst the din, smoke and dust of battle".

that's true line of sight, but pretty straight forward I think.

**lord_blackfang**

Grimtuff wrote:

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

I'm confused on why fixed base sizes are necessary for abstract model height to function.

**Maréchal des Logis Walter**

For people who never played 4th/have forgotten/ haven't got the rulebook of back then, so you kind of know:

Reading 4th edition LoS rules right now, I'd summarize saying that it is TLoS until:

units of different sizes are aligned. In that case, which can be seen depends on their respective sizes.

Units are in area terrain (as opposed to scatter terrain). Then, how deep in it they are and height categories are is taken into account. If minis are as tall as said area terrain, there's no seeing through, unless target is taller than terrain.

Units are behind terrain features. Then depends on height categories the mini and the terrain feature

monstruous creatures, tanks and immobilised antigrav vehicules, wrecks, block LoS anyway.

Heights categories:

1: small targets special rules

2 others

3 monstruous creatures, vehicules.

Terrain: to be agreed with the opponent before game starts. Can be any of the three categories.

There's still one or two details but that's most of it.

**Dudeface**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

I'm confused on why fixed base sizes are necessary for abstract model height to function.

Because the abstract model height is tied to base size. So if you model on a larger than normal base for diorama reasons or whatever you're now able to see over stuff etc.

Note: it could be a keyword but that'd get messy quickly.

**Sgt. Cortez**

Spoiler:

This. There are pretty widespread houserules in most 40k editions. In 6th/7th you had a houserule to redraw maelstrom cards that were impossible to use with your army, as well as the whole package of ITC houserules.
8th edition had the "rule of 3" which, at the time, actually was a "suggestion of 2/3/4 for organized play" and no part of the rules at all. 9th edition (bit of a stretch) had the houserule that noone actually used the expanded terrain rules that came in a book quite at the start of the edition. Going by a goonhammer poll 9th also brought the discussion which of the seasons rules to use, if any.

As Insaniak says, these are things you declare/ discuss before the game. "Btw we still use the older way of Los, because the new rules suck. I don’t want to punish you by using my plague Marines from 3rd edition that are much smaller and I don’t want to punish me for having modelled wings for a jumppack 10 years ago."

**kodos**

Apple fox wrote:
That’s also a big issue with them just up and changing the games ideas on how things should be.
So you end up with a very literal way of interacting with the rules, since from edition to edition the intent can completely flip with no commentary to why they even think it’s better changed.

isn't that the main advantage of 40k, that everyone plays it and everyone is on the same level of never actually reading the rules but just playing what they think the rules are (and/or houserules) because with the constant change no one keeps track of what the current rules actually are

**vipoid**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:

The reason they work in other games, that everyone seems to be casually skipping over is because those other games have defined and locked-in base sizes (or have what base they are considered to be on, like with some units in Warmachine like the Covenant of Menoth for example) baked into their stats. 40k does not, no matter what people might claim, currently there are no "legal base sizes" in 40k, and there's a whole wealth of historical models on bases of all shapes and sizes.

If they wanted to do anything with the "fake height" thing they need to absolutely 100% codify what bases things go on, and GW is too woolly for that with the size currently being "Whatever the model fits and looks cool on", even with inconsistencies amongst the same units (Lord of Contagion for example).

I'm confused on why fixed base sizes are necessary for abstract model height to function.

Because you don't just need a model's abstracted height, you need its abstracted volume.

For other games, you can assume that a model takes up a cylindrical area, with the boundaries being defined by the area of its base. However, that doesn't work for 40k because base sizes are all over the place.