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.

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

None, but that doesn't mean giving the the triumph a stat that says it has a height of 5" or whatever isnt possible...

And you can't tell me its impossible for you to abstract away the cherubs not being fixed in that specific spot in midair.

If the best 'gotcha' you can come up with is a model that Infinity would have no problem whatsoever handling, I think you're making my point for me.

Seriously, LOS is not a complex thing and there are plenty of ways to make it work without needing your army to look like boring static chess figures. Try some other games, broaden your horizons, don't white knight for GW just because they've never come up with a robust system themselves.

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

Spoiler:

I mean, Infinity aside, 40K shouldn't have any models like that either. It's a lovely display piece, but utterly ridiculous as a gaming model.

Somewhere along the line, GW stopped considering gaming practicality in favour of just making models that look cool and figuring out how to shoehorn them into the rules later. With the end result that 40K now includes a bunch of models that look cool but are impractical for gaming.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

Spoiler:

I mean, Infinity aside, 40K shouldn't have any models like that either. It's a lovely display piece, but utterly ridiculous as a gaming model.

Somewhere along the line, GW stopped considering gaming practicality in favour of just making models that look cool and figuring out how to shoehorn them into the rules later. With the end result that 40K now includes a bunch of models that look cool but are impractical for gaming.

It's a cool diorama but beyond impractical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Try some other games, broaden your horizons, don't white knight for GW just because they've never come up with a robust system themselves.

I'm baffled, fren.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

None, but that doesn't mean giving the the triumph a stat that says it has a height of 5" or whatever isnt possible...

And you can't tell me its impossible for you to abstract away the cherubs not being fixed in that specific spot in midair.

I'm saying that shouldn't be a model in a combined arms turn based wargame. What unit type even is that supposed to be? Conga-line?

Lovely display piece, tho.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

Spoiler:

I mean, Infinity aside, 40K shouldn't have any models like that either. It's a lovely display piece, but utterly ridiculous as a gaming model.

Somewhere along the line, GW stopped considering gaming practicality in favour of just making models that look cool and figuring out how to shoehorn them into the rules later. With the end result that 40K now includes a bunch of models that look cool but are impractical for gaming.

It's a cool diorama but beyond impractical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Try some other games, broaden your horizons, don't white knight for GW just because they've never come up with a robust system themselves.

I'm baffled, fren.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

None, but that doesn't mean giving the the triumph a stat that says it has a height of 5" or whatever isnt possible...

And you can't tell me its impossible for you to abstract away the cherubs not being fixed in that specific spot in midair.

I'm saying that shouldn't be a model in a combined arms turn based wargame. What unit type even is that supposed to be? Conga-line?

"Infantry, Character, Epic Hero" according to its card....

A forest with fixed trees? An idea as dumb as 3d sloping hills. I'm quite sure nobody has been making unplayable terrain like that for decades for any game.

So 40k is the only game with this kind of LoS rules
40k is also the only game were original LoS rules combined with original models is considered a problem

Yet people claim that handling it in any other that works well for any other game, won't work for 40k for reasons

Somehow the "GW can do nothing wrong and there is no other way of doing it" is very strong with some people here

 kodos wrote:
So 40k is the only game with this kind of LoS rules
40k is also the only game were original LoS rules combined with original models is considered a problem

Yet people claim that handling it in any other that works well for any other game, won't work for 40k for reasons

Somehow the "GW can do nothing wrong and there is no other way of doing it" is very strong with some people here

Has anyone directly said that GW does no wrong and there's no other way of doing it?

The model still has got one base and nothing stops you from saying right it's infantry on a big fat chair, height two. The infinity system as summarised above (I don't play infinity) doesn't seem to be impossible right there.

On the contrary, going for a more abstract height/width ratio can emcompass any strange model no matter how it looks actually. Seems harder on paper but if these are simply characteristics you'll get used to them and it'd seem normal.

However, say 11th edition 40k rolls out with that system. At the current rate, am I sure they won't decide for the sake of it to revert to some strange othrr mechanic all of a sudden in 12th? Am I certain they'll only restrain themselves to fixing the issues encountered and not revamp it all over again?

Dudeface wrote:

Has anyone directly said that GW does no wrong and there's no other way of doing it?

was there any other reason given why true line without height and base values (except for "as the model is sold) is necessary for 40k?

Maybe I have missed it but all the arguments why other rules won't work can be summed up as "gw said so"

 kodos wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Has anyone directly said that GW does no wrong and there's no other way of doing it?

was there any other reason given why true line without height and base values (except for "as the model is sold) is necessary for 40k?

Maybe I have missed it but all the arguments why other rules won't work can be summed up as "gw said so"

No? There's a lot of peoples anecdotal comments and subjective opinions, but nobody has said "cover must be written this way, GW says so" thati noticed, especially when gw have used a ancillary height system themselves previously.

consider Flame of War, in its 3rd edition, used "TLoS", but included a page, with photographs to illustrate, what "in cover" (more than half hidden) was, and to also illustrate what was not enough of a model to shoot at (mudflaps, gun barrels etc)

worked fine

4th edition brought the Team Yankee system in with "tall" and "low" terrain, "tall" (hills, buildings etc) totally blocking line of sight beyond it except to and from aircraft. "low" terrain providing concealment

the game working clearing on the assumption that the models were not in scale with the terrain

works

GW's Middle Earth game works, though could do with "area terrain" adding as it wants to use individual trees - though its a system with models acting individually so it wort of works

the Two Fat Lardies systems generally have "in the open", "light cover", "hard cover" and "out of sight", again well explained in the rules of the various games, works well

all of these games make a single useful assumption, just because the table is flat doesn't mean the terrain depicted would also be flat - as such it doesn't really matter is you can see an antenna or flag or whatever, what matters is how the thing obscuring the view is considered (basically does it block sight, obscure it or have no effect)

The idea of giving models an additional stat for "height" and sticking it on the profile, then working with terrain heights in a suitably abstract way works fine.

e.g. "small stuff" is "1" (grots, swarms etc), "normal stuff" is "2" (humans and similar), Marines get "3" as they are now taller than humans, the larger Orks the same. seriously large infantry maybe "4".

then buildings are in the order of say 5 per floor (roughly "1" per inch maybe, other models are abstracted)

this is not complicated, but it requires writing rules, GW would prefer to not bother

What you say here I found in a slowed auto-centered way, relates to what I tried to show with bolt action: system of LoS don't need to be perfect, they need to be clear cut and satisfying to play.
Granted in a way, TLoS as in :any millimeter of the model make it visible" is clear cut, it's just not satisfying at all.

the way TLoS is currently they may as well stick in a blanket "everything is always visible at all times" coupled with giving everything cover at all times and be done with it

Pretty much

leopard wrote:
the way TLoS is currently they may as well stick in a blanket "everything is always visible at all times" coupled with giving everything cover at all times and be done with it

Sounds like 5th edition to me.

Weird to say, but 9th and 10th both made the tiniest of tiny steps back in the right direction after 5th-8th actively tried to make terrain a total non-factor in games (excepting the pay-to-win Aegis defense line meta of 6th)

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
the way TLoS is currently they may as well stick in a blanket "everything is always visible at all times" coupled with giving everything cover at all times and be done with it

Sounds like 5th edition to me.

Weird to say, but 9th and 10th both made the tiniest of tiny steps back in the right direction after 5th-8th actively tried to make terrain a total non-factor in games (excepting the pay-to-win Aegis defense line meta of 6th)

That was absolutely not the case with 5th edition, unless all of your terrain was 'forest' bases with just two or three trees on them.

Ultimately, all of the editions of 40K I've played (2nd through to 6th) worked best with a lot of terrain on the table, in a variety of sizes and types. If you're not using terrain that's big enough for models to hide behind, your models not being able to hide behind it is not a fault in the rules.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
the way TLoS is currently they may as well stick in a blanket "everything is always visible at all times" coupled with giving everything cover at all times and be done with it

Sounds like 5th edition to me.

Weird to say, but 9th and 10th both made the tiniest of tiny steps back in the right direction after 5th-8th actively tried to make terrain a total non-factor in games (excepting the pay-to-win Aegis defense line meta of 6th)

at least some sense with "in or out of a ruin but not through" is now present, which given GW kits are basically a collection of window frames glued together was needed

GW have too much of a focus on trying to make the game need ever more models, its why sets of rules without a specific model line attached tend to be far better

 insaniak wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

leopard wrote:
the way TLoS is currently they may as well stick in a blanket "everything is always visible at all times" coupled with giving everything cover at all times and be done with it

Sounds like 5th edition to me.

Weird to say, but 9th and 10th both made the tiniest of tiny steps back in the right direction after 5th-8th actively tried to make terrain a total non-factor in games (excepting the pay-to-win Aegis defense line meta of 6th)

That was absolutely not the case with 5th edition, unless all of your terrain was 'forest' bases with just two or three trees on them.

Ultimately, all of the editions of 40K I've played (2nd through to 6th) worked best with a lot of terrain on the table, in a variety of sizes and types. If you're not using terrain that's big enough for models to hide behind, your models not being able to hide behind it is not a fault in the rules.

Agreed.

Playing with very terrain is only worth as a deliberate attempt to simulate very specific conditions like some desert or anything, and is only fun once in a while.

Terrain is what makes you manoeuvre and not go black powder era lines.

Yep did a big 4k 5th ed game last weekend. it was an urban mat/table so we had solid buildings that blocked LOS (8) as well as ruins (8) and even a fortification. no problems at all.

And it wasn't the random mirror tables of 9th/10th it actually looked like a proper city.

IIRC the specific problem with 5th (through 8th or even 9th), besides doing away with abstract area terrain so forests and ruins effectively became meaningless, was also that if even one elbow of one guy was visible, the whole unit was eligible for destruction.

Yes that was a bit cringe. I more or less accept the idea that it could represent soldiers running back and forth trying to rescue WIA, take aim ... But it makes a terrible game mechanic because bothering to hide your dudes to get them slaughtered anyway is zogging stupid.

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

A model that can easily be treated like the aforementioned Covenant of Menoth or artillery were in WMH. Both were mounted on 50mm bases for the sake of practicality, but both had rules stating what base they are considered to be on for LOS purposes. Done.

It was a rule called "man-sized".

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

Spoiler:

A model that can easily be treated like the aforementioned Covenant of Menoth or artillery were in WMH. Both were mounted on 50mm bases for the sake of practicality, but both had rules stating what base they are considered to be on for LOS purposes. Done.

It was a rule called "man-sized".

That seems incredibly immersion breaking.

Dudeface wrote:
That seems incredibly immersion breaking.

It's immersion breaking that multiple humans on a scenic base are as tall as a human?

Oh I forget, it has nothing to do with mechanics, it's because only what GW currently does is good and everything else is bad

Dudeface wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
How many models like this does infinity have?

Spoiler:

A model that can easily be treated like the aforementioned Covenant of Menoth or artillery were in WMH. Both were mounted on 50mm bases for the sake of practicality, but both had rules stating what base they are considered to be on for LOS purposes. Done.

It was a rule called "man-sized".

That seems incredibly immersion breaking.

That should be 10th edition's tagline


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
That seems incredibly immersion breaking.

It's immersion breaking that multiple humans on a scenic base are as tall as a human?

Oh I forget, it has nothing to do with mechanics, it's because only what GW currently does is good and everything else is bad

I'm again completely baffled how anyone's commentary in this thread could be remotely considered to be some defense of gw, they're awful and this whole thread is about the level of churn in 40k and at a quick glance, it's not a positive attribute.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
That seems incredibly immersion breaking.

It's immersion breaking that multiple humans on a scenic base are as tall as a human?

Oh I forget, it has nothing to do with mechanics, it's because only what GW currently does is good and everything else is bad

I don't know, assuming all infantry models are exactly 1.75" and needing that as an exception because they're not on a "human base" doesn't exactly seem any smarter or slicker imo.

I don't know Warmachine rules, is the terrain also an imaginary height? If it's not that must make LoS a pain in a different way as you measure the height of every terrain piece each game, or guesstimating where the head of the physical model who is less than 1.75" is. If it is then logically you can have a situation where a model can see over a terrain piece it's hidden behind despite being physically hidden, which will be confusing to play against as you may forget it's there or viable as a target. Conversely you could have something clearly visible and taller than the cover but be completely hidden.

Those seem to break immersion to me, it makes little sense to be me that a squat is the same height as a terminator, or even a primaris. It's a game enabling interaction and may be smoother in purely that sense, but it doesn't make it objectively better because checks notes GW didn't write it. As obviously only something GW doesn't do is good and anything they do is bad

I can't speak for Mk4, but up until Mk3 LOS was tied to base size, this included what you could see over. In practice it was never a problem as how much volume a model took up was cleverly included on the spray template.

If ever there was a LOS issue because of terrain (assuming you used 3d terrain), you'd just plonk the marker down and see if you had LOS, despite how the model is posed.

So, to circle this back to 40k with what I have been getting at from the start in my post ITT. Say, 40k now has LOS tied to base size, like WMH did. To eliminate that corner case of models of gigantic oval bases or whatever having a special rule called "Gargantuan" (or "Towering" ), allowing them to see over everything. You would have to make a special case for models such as that, giving their own special rule called "man-sized", where they are treated as being on a smaller base whilst not being physically mounted on one.

It all goes back again to GW not implementing the rules they produce in their games to the fullest extent. Anyone remember the dumb corner case in 5th edition where all of a sudden IG heavy weapon teams became a single model with 2 wounds? So now they can be one shotted despite there being two crew. GW had, in the very 5th ed rulebook a solution to this in their USRs, yet never, ever took advantage of it.
All they had to do was give the teams "Eternal Warrior", making them immune to Instant Death, and "Vulnerable to Blasts", which doubled their wounds took when hit by a blast weapon. Both of which could nicely represent the fact you had a weird interaction of 2 models being represented by a single statline.

Just to go back to the OP with some thoughts I have now that we have seen a 10th codex....

GW is obviously incapable of understanding complaints and fixing them. People complained that there were too many stratagems, so they monkies pawed that into 6 stratagems for the 6 different detachments meaning that the Tyranid codex is sitting at....36 stratagems. The 9th Tyranid codex at my count had 32. I can hear the white knighting already about how "You only need to remember 6 now!" except that when playing 9th Tyranids I knew which of the 32 strats were actually worth using so I only had to remember like...4 or 5. The problem was that there was no way of knowing all of the strats your opponent might be using which leads to gotcha moments which suck. They managed to make that problem even worse with 10th.

I've been playing since 3rd, 7th pretty much killed the game for me but I came back for 8th-9th and while I had my complaints at least the game felt playable. I look at 10th and I can't even be bothered with it. While making a list for my Orks I see things like a Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun gives rerolls of 1 to hit and can be attatched to Lootas who have that rule natively; Or how my Squiggoths can only hold 10 models which means I have to either pay for a 10 man squad for 9 men or not attach a character. Doubly annoying with the Gargantuan Squiggoth that can hold 20 models but I can only attach one character to a squad meaning I have to play the worst game of Tetris to try and figure out how to make that not awkward to fill.

So it's hard for you to check 6 stratagems opponeet can use?

Seriously? How slow reader you are? Word a minute?

Remember. Opponent doesn't have them to show, he cant use them.