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.

 dreadblade wrote:
This seems to have descended into an in depth discussion about one specific game mechanic.

It has but it remains linked to the critic that GW apparently can't seem to make clear cut rules and instead rewrites them while not learning from past attempts, since they regularly change stuff for various reasons.

Well I think i'll defend it like that

Case in points. Fate points were a problem in 9th. They got fixed in 9th. Someone at GW decided, that alongside all the positive changes eldar got on top of the stuff they had in 9th, they should also have a buffed up version of fate points. GW is like the kid who wants to take out potatoes from hot ash every day, and gets burned by them daily.

 vipoid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I'll agree that the percentage version was a terrible idea, but much prefer the 5th edition approach to LOS than having models defined as a cylinder of specific height by the rules. If you're not using the model for LOS, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to be a very expensive token, as you can play just as effectively with just the base with 'Marine' written on it in sharpie, and that seems a shame.

That's an interesting point, though I'd argue it creates issues of its own because it implies that models are locked forever in their current poses.

A model that's crouching or prone can never stand up to shoot over a wall, and a leaping model just floats around in the air, never able to crouch or take cover.


Also, on a more practical level, am I the only one who finds the whole 'model's eye view' to be a pain in the arse? I've lost count of how many times a model has had terrain, models, or other such behind it - meaning the only way to get down to the right level is to move a chunk of the board out of the way. Hardly what I'd consider an elegant system.

You were saying something about me embarrassing myself further and yet you can't be asked to bend over to see if model has los

You know magic the gathering is much less physically demanding, that's just a thought now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Throwing up your hands and just accepting that an entire Heavy Weapons Squad, built as intended, is incapable of seeing over a waist-high wall isn't 'pragmatism'.

That's not a reason to keep designing models laying in a prone position, though.

The rules, and the game, got worse so people could do silly dynamic poses on giant scenic bases while somehow expecting to benefit from a chest high wall for cover at the same time. I'm saying you can't have it both ways, design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

Interesting opinion coming from a HH player, where the "antenna, wings weapons, etc" don't count for LOS rule exists and functions just fine.

Only went to HH to avoid 8th edition, and sadly 2nd edition HH is worse than 1.0


A classic but could honestly apply to 10th:


https://hard-drive.net/hd/tabletop-games/warhammer-40000-tournament-just-eight-guys-throwing-cash-at-each-other/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Repost&fbclid=IwAR0qcXkeF9i-80efrCVI7JtgZcVnEN_QNKPfy8bmMMNf9_v6NRqedI5vnko

Karol wrote:
Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

And under such a system it doesn't matter if your cannones is kneeling in prayer, standing on huge stairs or run of the mill standing on a regular base. Because all versions will have the size X and checking if something is visible or not takes seconds.

Because your 26mm tall cannoness is definitely taller than the 35mm tall pile of rubble. It's a different form of abstraction and is just as liable to stupid implementation as tlos is. It might make gameplay smoother but might be less intuitive or visually clear.

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

And under such a system it doesn't matter if your cannones is kneeling in prayer, standing on huge stairs or run of the mill standing on a regular base. Because all versions will have the size X and checking if something is visible or not takes seconds.

Because your 26mm tall cannoness is definitely taller than the 35mm tall pile of rubble. It's a different form of abstraction and is just as liable to stupid implementation as tlos is. It might make gameplay smoother but might be less intuitive or visually clear.

That in any sane system would just be considered taller than a normal 28mm model. We can discuss these issues, and so many games do with that fine, just fine.

And it’s not like TLOS deals with it, just subverts it. If you put a rock under a mini for cool hobby reasons, it’s now taller than that tall pile of rubble.
And becomes a it’s fine when GW does it issue. Since GW does that, if you use those minis in a converted model that uses 100% GW parts, you then need to ask where the line is anyway.

But this also comes down to GW basically ignoring so many issues with consistency and discussing why they hold and use current systems. The pay could discuss what they consider there ideas, and offer rulings that attach to rules to further clarify.

But over the years often they have just been snarky, even when they do something kinda dumb.
There culture is a issue, that they themselves created.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
It has but it remains linked to the critic that GW apparently can't seem to make clear cut rules and instead rewrites them while not learning from past attempts, since they regularly change stuff for various reasons.

Well I think i'll defend it like that

As you should.

If GW had followed normal game design and development procedures, not only would there be clearer rules, but decades of precedent for what to do in hard cases.

Determining LOS is central to a miniatures game. It is also one of the advantages of playing with miniatures over a mapsheet because things like elevation, corners, etc. are readily apparent. Whether you are using a tape line or "model's eye view," the result is generally clear.

Yet GW has made this basic function highly problematic because they can't figure out how they want it to work. Should cover be easy to obtain or hard? How much protection does it offer?

The debate over figure posture is a result of this. If one was interested in tactical advantage (and the rules supported it), models in a kneeling position would have a clear advantage over those frozen in mid leap with their weapon raised to the heavens.

Then again, they might not if one can "see" from a wing tip or the tip of a power sword.

 vipoid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I'll agree that the percentage version was a terrible idea, but much prefer the 5th edition approach to LOS than having models defined as a cylinder of specific height by the rules. If you're not using the model for LOS, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to be a very expensive token, as you can play just as effectively with just the base with 'Marine' written on it in sharpie, and that seems a shame.

That's an interesting point, though I'd argue it creates issues of its own because it implies that models are locked forever in their current poses.

A model that's crouching or prone can never stand up to shoot over a wall, and a leaping model just floats around in the air, never able to crouch or take cover.


Also, on a more practical level, am I the only one who finds the whole 'model's eye view' to be a pain in the arse? I've lost count of how many times a model has had terrain, models, or other such behind it - meaning the only way to get down to the right level is to move a chunk of the board out of the way. Hardly what I'd consider an elegant system.

You know what solves this particular problem?
A paperclip bent straight & held next to the aiming point.

- removed

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

And under such a system it doesn't matter if your cannones is kneeling in prayer, standing on huge stairs or run of the mill standing on a regular base. Because all versions will have the size X and checking if something is visible or not takes seconds.

Because your 26mm tall cannoness is definitely taller than the 35mm tall pile of rubble. It's a different form of abstraction and is just as liable to stupid implementation as tlos is. It might make gameplay smoother but might be less intuitive or visually clear.

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases, all units have bases, aside for old marine and IG tanks. Every unit, terrain pice etc would have a size, the table layout are GW created anyway, so there would no problem with the "I would have to learn what x, y and z size is every time". Clear cut, no need for crazy rules like towering or problem creating windows, door or holes in walls. At the same time as long as the base is proper size it, again, doesn't matter how someone models their model. A Lictor with its scyth claws up isn't suddenly taller and more visible then one modeled to have them down. Huge gains in quality of game with no bad sides, aside for maybe those crazy for true LoS.

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

And under such a system it doesn't matter if your cannones is kneeling in prayer, standing on huge stairs or run of the mill standing on a regular base. Because all versions will have the size X and checking if something is visible or not takes seconds.

Because your 26mm tall cannoness is definitely taller than the 35mm tall pile of rubble. It's a different form of abstraction and is just as liable to stupid implementation as tlos is. It might make gameplay smoother but might be less intuitive or visually clear.

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases, all units have bases, aside for old marine and IG tanks. Every unit, terrain pice etc would have a size, the table layout are GW created anyway, so there would no problem with the "I would have to learn what x, y and z size is every time". Clear cut, no need for crazy rules like towering or problem creating windows, door or holes in walls. At the same time as long as the base is proper size it, again, doesn't matter how someone models their model. A Lictor with its scyth claws up isn't suddenly taller and more visible then one modeled to have them down. Huge gains in quality of game with no bad sides, aside for maybe those crazy for true LoS.

None of my terrain has a base as such, GW don't dictate my table layout, almost none of my terrain is GW made to GW dimensions.

So yes, everything has a base apart from vehicles, GW terrain outside of GW events, non-gw terrain as a rule of thumb and potentially every item of terrain you use/own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

I'd say that's normal as well, I think Karol has gotten lost inside a tournament hall and is yet to escape.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

Complete aside - do you apply a similar philosophy when it comes to model bases?

Obviously you can't leave them off entirely, but do you use transparent bases or leave them black to try and draw minimal attention to them?

Genuine question as the 'theme/colour' issue would seem to apply as much to models as to terrain. e.g. if you've decorated your models with green plants, it will look strange if the board instead resembles a desert, a barren ruin, a snowfield etc.

 vipoid wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

Complete aside - do you apply a similar philosophy when it comes to model bases?

Obviously you can't leave them off entirely, but do you use transparent bases or leave them black to try and draw minimal attention to them?

Genuine question as the 'theme/colour' issue would seem to apply as much to models as to terrain. e.g. if you've decorated your models with green plants, it will look strange if the board instead resembles a desert, a barren ruin, a snowfield etc.

Grey or brown generally.

Thing is most terrain can fully stand on its own without requiring a base. Furthermore many bits of terrain are already pretty large. Adding a base to them makes them even bigger and that means less space for terrain and less space to allow things like tanks, knights, mechs nad such to move through the board easily.

So if you start adding bases to big terrain features you quickly start cutting down on the amount of room on the table for terrain and models at the same time.

biggest issue with bases on terrain is what it does for the storage space required

 Crablezworth wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

Well if terrain doesn't have a base then instantly you are having problems with how the terrain blocks LoS, when is something on it or not on it. If w40k is suppose to be a good game, all terrain should have bases. Can't have half the "models" in the game work with bases and half without them. Otherwise we go back to the true LoS problems over and over again. And w40k is not a skirmish games with 10-15 models, where such a system can work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Thing is most terrain can fully stand on its own without requiring a base. Furthermore many bits of terrain are already pretty large. Adding a base to them makes them even bigger and that means less space for terrain and less space to allow things like tanks, knights, mechs nad such to move through the board easily.

So if you start adding bases to big terrain features you quickly start cutting down on the amount of room on the table for terrain and models at the same time.

well that is the problem of the store or, if someone participates in those, the event orgeniser. I really fail to see how this is somehow a limiting factor. If the stores run something else then w40k, they already need storage space. Even if it is other GW games. For non GW games very specific terrain and tables. Infinity on a w40k table ends VERY fast.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is most terrain can fully stand on its own without requiring a base. Furthermore many bits of terrain are already pretty large. Adding a base to them makes them even bigger and that means less space for terrain and less space to allow things like tanks, knights, mechs nad such to move through the board easily.

So if you start adding bases to big terrain features you quickly start cutting down on the amount of room on the table for terrain and models at the same time.

Counterpoint: having a base provides additional structural support, and so long as it mates with the underlying terrain, there's no issue.

There's also the option of using something like felt to delineate the boundary of the terrain. For example, if I want to create a forest, I put a couple of trees on a dark green bit of felt because actual tree models would make moving models next to impossible.

Miniatures are an abstraction, and bases can help clarify their bounds.

GW could and should have embraced this concept, as every other set of miniatures rules I've seen does.

Dudeface 811321 11585690 wrote:






I'd say that's normal as well, I think Karol has gotten lost inside a tournament hall and is yet to escape.

I played 8 tournament games in my life. all in 8th ed, all in a new player monthly event. I don't think it had a big impact on me.

None of my terrain has a base as such, GW don't dictate my table layout, almost none of my terrain is GW made to GW dimensions.

So yes, everything has a base apart from vehicles, GW terrain outside of GW events, non-gw terrain as a rule of thumb and potentially every item of terrain you use/own.

Then this is a clearly a you problem, and if you are running a store, then you should update the terrain so people can play the game properly. This is not a question of GW terrain or not, but quality of life. LoS issues make w40k horrible. Do I really have to remind people what Towering is doing to the game and why first floor of terrain is being played as blocking LoS, no matter what kind of doors/windows it has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint 811321 11585713 wrote:
Counterpoint: having a base provides additional structural support, and so long as it mates with the underlying terrain, there's no issue.

There's also the option of using something like felt to delineate the boundary of the terrain. For example, if I want to create a forest, I put a couple of trees on a dark green bit of felt because actual tree models would make moving models next to impossible.

Miniatures are an abstraction, and bases can help clarify their bounds.

GW could and should have embraced this concept, as every other set of miniatures rules I've seen does.

Yes, grey felt in an L or O shape to represent a forest patch. I really struggle to imagine that people are not playing like this. I mean if someone were to mount single trees, without a base, on the board then they don't break LoS. If they have a base then there is the problem of puting units in to the forest, check ranges to models in unit, and lets not even get in to what happens if a terrain pice with fixed trees happens to have a melee happen inside of it.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811321 11585690 wrote:

I'd say that's normal as well, I think Karol has gotten lost inside a tournament hall and is yet to escape.

I played 8 tournament games in my life. all in 8th ed, all in a new player monthly event. I don't think it had a big impact on me.

None of my terrain has a base as such, GW don't dictate my table layout, almost none of my terrain is GW made to GW dimensions.

So yes, everything has a base apart from vehicles, GW terrain outside of GW events, non-gw terrain as a rule of thumb and potentially every item of terrain you use/own.

Then this is a clearly a you problem, and if you are running a store, then you should update the terrain so people can play the game properly. This is not a question of GW terrain or not, but quality of life. LoS issues make w40k horrible. Do I really have to remind people what Towering is doing to the game and why first floor of terrain is being played as blocking LoS, no matter what kind of doors/windows it has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint 811321 11585713 wrote:
Counterpoint: having a base provides additional structural support, and so long as it mates with the underlying terrain, there's no issue.

There's also the option of using something like felt to delineate the boundary of the terrain. For example, if I want to create a forest, I put a couple of trees on a dark green bit of felt because actual tree models would make moving models next to impossible.

Miniatures are an abstraction, and bases can help clarify their bounds.

GW could and should have embraced this concept, as every other set of miniatures rules I've seen does.

Yes, grey felt in an L or O shape to represent a forest patch. I really struggle to imagine that people are not playing like this. I mean if someone were to mount single trees, without a base, on the board then they don't break LoS. If they have a base then there is the problem of puting units in to the forest, check ranges to models in unit, and lets not even get in to what happens if a terrain pice with fixed trees happens to have a melee happen inside of it.

I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong. The rules nor the products stipulate you must base terrain. It not running the game "properly" if you base your terrain, it's a personal choice and fwiw is not a normal or standard choice in a lot of circumstances. Most people buy a ruin, build a ruin, paint a ruin and play with the ruin. No base. It's as simple as "what do we consider the footprint, join the furthest 2 vertices to make an area or literally just if you're stood under a roof" etc. It's minimal work and a perfectly ordinary conversation to have pregame as you need to define what categories of terrain a lot of stuff is anyway.

I will say much of the terrain I am familiar with from way back in 4th had "bases" only in the loosest sense, i.e. there was a box of bases and a box of terrain pieces and you could put the terrain pieces ON the bases to make area terrain.

The only exception is ruins, some of which had bases and some of which didn't (but could then be placed on a base or could have a rectangular footprint yadda yadda just like now).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say much of the terrain I am familiar with from way back in 4th had "bases" only in the loosest sense, i.e. there was a box of bases and a box of terrain pieces and you could put the terrain pieces ON the bases to make area terrain.

The only exception is ruins, some of which had bases and some of which didn't (but could then be placed on a base or could have a rectangular footprint yadda yadda just like now).

Don't forget hills. In all my decades of minis gaming I've yet to see anyone base a hill....

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say much of the terrain I am familiar with from way back in 4th had "bases" only in the loosest sense, i.e. there was a box of bases and a box of terrain pieces and you could put the terrain pieces ON the bases to make area terrain.

The only exception is ruins, some of which had bases and some of which didn't (but could then be placed on a base or could have a rectangular footprint yadda yadda just like now).

Yes, there has to be something to hold it up/keep it from falling over. Other than hills and rock outcroppings, I have bases but they are unobtrusive (thin layer of cardboard or plastic) and so can either help mark the terrain, or simply be ignored if we're going purely off wall height, etc.

And it's funny that the exact same terrain works so differently between editions.

ccs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I will say much of the terrain I am familiar with from way back in 4th had "bases" only in the loosest sense, i.e. there was a box of bases and a box of terrain pieces and you could put the terrain pieces ON the bases to make area terrain.

The only exception is ruins, some of which had bases and some of which didn't (but could then be placed on a base or could have a rectangular footprint yadda yadda just like now).

Don't forget hills. In all my decades of minis gaming I've yet to see anyone base a hill....

A hill *is* a base. I have seen other terrain based on hills, haha!

WOW, did this get pendantic really fast...

Karol wrote:
Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

It totally can be, it already used to be and might be again, and you can bet a kidney that the same sycophants who claim it's impossible today will claim it's the only logical way to do it when GW says so.

 Crablezworth wrote:

No, you're right, 40k had to die so people could model riptides doing handstands without ramification.

are you trolling?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

The rules, and the game, got worse so people could do silly dynamic poses on giant scenic bases while somehow expecting to benefit from a chest high wall for cover at the same time. I'm saying you can't have it both ways, design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

oh ok, you ARE Trolling


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

Agree or disagree, this is a Mic-drop quote.

Well done.

no its not, its clearly just a quote made by someone whose entire wargaming experience comes from 40k and refuses to view alternate rulesets

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A hill *is* a base. I have seen other terrain based on hills, haha!

I've been known to use hills as bases for other hills.

And as others have pointed out, simply putting units in height classes irrespective of model size is a decades old rules mechanic.

Which GW will inevitably try to patent and then sue everyone else who uses it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why have Trule LoS at all ? Every terrain has bases

Maybe 5-10% of my terrain has bases, precisely so the majority of it can be used on any board/mat and isn't locked into the theme/colour its based on.

every terrain has a base if you just run an imaginary string around its edges


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:


Don't forget hills. In all my decades of minis gaming I've yet to see anyone base a hill....

the hill IS its own base....

Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Throwing up your hands and just accepting that an entire Heavy Weapons Squad, built as intended, is incapable of seeing over a waist-high wall isn't 'pragmatism'.

That's not a reason to keep designing models laying in a prone position, though.

The rules, and the game, got worse so people could do silly dynamic poses on giant scenic bases while somehow expecting to benefit from a chest high wall for cover at the same time. I'm saying you can't have it both ways, design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

You literally can have it both ways if you're willing to look at all outside the GW-sphere of game design, where this is a solved problem.

Infinity does it fine; you can build out your models however you want but as long as they're on the right base the pose literally doesn't matter, and even if a model is on a different base it's not hard to work out the correct LOS representation. The LOS implementation runs on a base size + height mechanic forming a three-dimensional silhouette. You get the ease of determination of TLOS while still keeping it divorced from the actual physical pose of the model. Plenty of other two-dimensional solutions also exist that work off of tracing between bases and then checking intervening terrain; or there are systems that use the physical models for the initial 'gut check' and then use more deterministic solutions to refine. All of these can build a functional wargame without expecting the models to be reduced to chess-like static figures.

This isn't an issue of pragmatism, or a hard pick-your-poison dilemma, it's just GW choosing crappy LOS mechanisms and, frankly, it sounds like you don't have much experience with anything else.

Which really touches on a fundamental problem with 40K's edition churn: That GW's designers seem to primarily either cannibalize mechanics from older editions or make up new mechanics wholesale, rather than examining ongoing trends and applying a lens of modern design standards to the game. For all the churn, the core of 40K is a very 80s-style design, with new ideas appended seemingly at random rather than contributing to a holistic vision.

How many models like this does infinity have?