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.

tneva82 wrote:
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.

It’s not about being able to check at the table it’s about mental space and design, it’s a massive failure state for the game. That GW proved they couldn’t handle.
It’s similar to how so many people complained about USRs in the passed, even if GW has never had that many. It’s just that they suck at designing the game in a smooth and in a way to promote understanding of the rules.

Apple fox wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

It’s not about being able to check at the table it’s about mental space and design, it’s a massive failure state for the game. That GW proved they couldn’t handle.
It’s similar to how so many people complained about USRs in the passed, even if GW has never had that many. It’s just that they suck at designing the game in a smooth and in a way to promote understanding of the rules.

"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"

How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?

I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.

Dudeface wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

It’s not about being able to check at the table it’s about mental space and design, it’s a massive failure state for the game. That GW proved they couldn’t handle.
It’s similar to how so many people complained about USRs in the passed, even if GW has never had that many. It’s just that they suck at designing the game in a smooth and in a way to promote understanding of the rules.

"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"

How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?

I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.

Most armies in 8th and 9th were only using 6-8 strats anyway. Even now with "only" 6 strats people will forget their opponents ones, not to mention the massive explosion in unique rules on datasheets which also leads to added mental load.

I think that paring it down so any given army only has 6 Faction Strats total is a positive development. Even if that's not much less than was actually used in 9th, it at least cuts down on wading through the crap options.

And it gets rid of the ones that are so situational as to never arise in nine out of ten games, but in the rare event that it does and your opponent uses it, it feels like a 'gotcha'.

In terms of mental load, reducing the total set of stratagems to a single sheet that you can have readily available as a quick reference is way easier to deal with than a giant list of which most will probably be irrelevant, even if the total number of stratagems in the game remains the same. Only having six opponent stratagems to remember is not the same as only choosing to remember six stratagems and hoping the other thirty won't come up.

It's such a no-brainer for streamlining that I'm genuinely surprised to see people dismissing it as pointless. There are other issues relating to the number of special rules now in play but as far as stratagems themselves, this is a sane and playable implementation, which the 8th/9th system of 'just try to remember the important ones and the rest don't matter, probably' was not.

 Bosskelot wrote:

Most armies in 8th and 9th were only using 6-8 strats anyway. Even now with "only" 6 strats people will forget their opponents ones, not to mention the massive explosion in unique rules on datasheets which also leads to added mental load.

The datasheet rules is fair play, but why are people's memories suddenly faulty? Isn't remembering your opponent's 6 easier than their 30ish? Having to know your opponent's is no different now, if not easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


It's such a no-brainer for streamlining that I'm genuinely surprised to see people dismissing it as pointless.

They're actually suggesting it's worse somehow, not just pointless.

It’s more that’s it’s added onto what’s already a mess, if GW was making a good game it would probably be a great improvement.

But upgrading from 9th, well at least they trying.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think that paring it down so any given army only has 6 Faction Strats total is a positive development.

It's a step in the right direction.

I just wish they'd take the next step and shove stratagems in the woodchipper where they belong.

 Grimtuff wrote:
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.

This was already the case in 40k 4th edition

What's one extra keyword on a small number datasheets

Despite the ridiculous caricatures that some people are trying to paint of other systems in order to defend GW, you don't actually need a size class for every 1/4" step of model height.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
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.

This was already the case in 40k 4th edition

4th edition wasn't tied to base sizes, though. Swarms were size 1, vehicles and monstrous creatures were size 3, and everything else was size 2. Base sizes didn't factor into it at all.

 insaniak wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
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.

This was already the case in 40k 4th edition

4th edition wasn't tied to base sizes, though. Swarms were size 1, vehicles and monstrous creatures were size 3, and everything else was size 2. Base sizes didn't factor into it at all.

Hence my confusion as to why some people insist that height class can't work without prescribed base sizes.

But I was referring to needing keywords (ie unit types) for exceptions.

In 4th edition, it 'worked' because there were only three Sizes, and the system just dumped a bunch of wildly varying sized models into a single category. Given that in 4th edition the size categories only actually applied some of the time, keeping the system simple was (IMO) the best approach within that framework, as it meant that it was relatively easy to remember what went where... but it was widely criticised at the time for being far too simplistic.

Making more height classes without tying it to base sizes would add that granularity that some people felt was missing from 4th edition, but at the expense of having to remember a more complicated system. Some people will be fine with that, others will hate it.

You're never going to get everyone to agree on just how much granularity is the right amount.

ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works

1.Every "datasheet" in infinity has a "Silhouette" stat that varies from 1-8
2. Every one of these stats are defined on their wiki with exact sizes, they also provide physical game aids that let you see their exact size on the board (shown in that image)

3. This lets the model sculptors have more freedom because various poses are all clearly defined and abstracting ALL of the line of sight means you don't get stupid things like "Shooting from and antenna" or "requiring view from the eyes of the model to a lethal part of the enemy's body"

These are an example of how it affects various models in Infinity


And this is an example of 3 physical models that in-game all have the same silhouette

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works

Stop it, you're scaring them!

Dudeface wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
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.

It’s not about being able to check at the table it’s about mental space and design, it’s a massive failure state for the game. That GW proved they couldn’t handle.
It’s similar to how so many people complained about USRs in the passed, even if GW has never had that many. It’s just that they suck at designing the game in a smooth and in a way to promote understanding of the rules.

"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"

How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?

I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.

Let me be clear, neither 32 nor 6 stratagems are overwhelming or make the game more difficult. My point is that we lost so much design space in how armies function jumping over to 10th but we kept the worst aspect of 9th completely intact. People did complain about there being too many stratagems and there are still the same amount, more in fact, but they broke it down into nice little bite size 6 starts blocks. Great, that doesn't change the fact that they are pushing this reliance on stratagems and boy do I hate stratagems.

When 10th was in pre-release I remember GW going on about how they were going to reduce the number of stratagems by making a core block of universal stratagems and each codex would have a small number of unique stratagems. This was a misleading statement at best. They seem to be removing flavor from armies and forcing it into the neat little box of stratagems.

Circling back to my original point that the response above failed to grasp was that GW just seems determined to learn the wrong lessons and change things without actually understanding why something is a problem. How many times has GW made a blanket nerf to target a single unit and end up smashing a whole slew of units?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works
...snip...

Not gonna lie, that looks awful. I can see it being tolerable, if tedious, in a game like Infinity with half a dozen models on the table... but in a game the size of 40K, a chart like that would be the point where I close the rulebook and go do something else.


Game scale needs to be considered in these sorts of mechanics. Introducing a need to check the profile of every model against a template in a game with 100+ models on the table would be a nightmare.

For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.

Dudeface wrote:
They're actually suggesting it's worse somehow, not just pointless.

I kind of made this argument 3 months ago - but I think if your issue before was remembering 30~ possible stratagems (arguably 60, as you have both yours and your opponents), then the fact each faction will eventually have 36 stratagems across 6 subfactions doesn't seem a huge improvement.

Yes, in theory I guess if both players make cards for the 6 they've got, possibly up to having them displayed on the table, then I guess it will be easy enough. Obviously if you play a lot, you are probably going to find the good subfactions show up over and over - and the bad ones don't.

But the issue to my mind was still the sheer breath of stratagems that you have to somehow install into your head. You are inevitably going to have people (either deliberately, or by accident) getting stratagems wrong because they always use them but now they are playing a different subfaction etc. Hopefully not at tournaments (although we have seen certain things already from lesser played factions).

It feels like a solution to the problem of "I'm sure stratagem #23 would save me, and I know its in this codex, or that supplement, give me 5 minutes to try and find it". But I feel that was a really narrow issue.

Personally I don't really mind stratagems - I didn't mind them in 9th - and I don't hugely mind this. So its arguably all a bit devils advocate. But if your concern in 9th was just how much there was to remember, you are still getting that. There's eventually going to be around 150~ subfactions in 40k, with 900 stratagems. Before we get into the surely inevitable supplements. Will you need to know every single one to play a game? No, but then I feel you didn't in 9th either.

Its probably slightly simpler - especially if you adopt the approach of two players running through all their rules at the outset. But I don't know if that will stay that way. (Ultimately, I feel most of 40k's "issues" are resolved by playing with such a mentality, the issue has always been that a lot of people don't.)

 insaniak wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works
...snip...

Not gonna lie, that looks awful. I can see it being tolerable, if tedious, in a game like Infinity with half a dozen models on the table... but in a game the size of 40K, a chart like that would be the point where I close the rulebook and go do something else.


Game scale needs to be considered in these sorts of mechanics. Introducing a need to check the profile of every model against a template in a game with 100+ models on the table would be a nightmare.

For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.

i mean sure, but hard disagree with you.

Its a thing where you learn the silhouettes and they become intuitive. Give them a straight up height stat and thats it if you want to simplify it. You only need to pull out the actual silhouettes for weird angles where LoS isnt obvious (infinity tables are muuuch denser and more vertical than 40k's)

do you check the Toughtness, movement or save stat of every unit every time they do anything?

 insaniak wrote:
Not gonna lie, that looks awful. I can see it being tolerable, if tedious, in a game like Infinity with half a dozen models on the table... but in a game the size of 40K, a chart like that would be the point where I close the rulebook and go do something else.


Game scale needs to be considered in these sorts of mechanics. Introducing a need to check the profile of every model against a template in a game with 100+ models on the table would be a nightmare.

Why? You have two heights for "men," three for "ogres," two for "giant" and then one for "gargantuan."

Without knowing anything about the game, I can imagine having dudes in light armor vs power armor or bigger dudes covering the two 25mm sizes, small dudes on bikes and small dudes in terminator armor and bigger dudes in power armor in 40mm, and so on. It's no more complicated than knowing the current number of factions, sub-factions and small arms.

For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.

Depends on how agonizingly long the measurement and discussion is, doesn't it?

Dudeface 811321 11586042 wrote:
"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"

How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?

I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.

No one has to tell the other person what rules an army has before the game. And during the game you only have to anwser targeted questions, so can your unit do X, what does stratagem Y do. If someone wants to know the rules of another army in advance they have to do it on their own. Especialy when the clock it ticking and you have a specified time to play the game. It would be stupid to wait for someone to go through your entire rule set. especialy as if this maybe a time move, because their army loses steam after round 3, and by "checking the rules" for 20 min they can assure that the game will last only that long or close to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint 811321 11586107 wrote:

For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.

Depends on how agonizingly long the measurement and discussion is, doesn't it?

True. Claiming TLoS is faster, is maybe true if the army is super fast, has a ton of LoS ignoring rules etc. Play a game vs a GK player who doesn't want to lose turn 2, and with TLoS the turns drag for ages, because everything has to be checked multipletimes.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface 811321 11586042 wrote:
"Hi, what detachments does your army use"
"Oh I use X"
"Nice, what that's does X get"
"These 6, have a look"
"Cool, thanks, I might even make a couple of quick notes"

How is that so hard? Compared to the 30ish of last edition? Is that such a huge mental burden?

I'd wager at events, top players will know what the favoured builds are and learn those and hence know the same or fewer as before. For casual folks beer and pretzeling, often they'll play the same people/armies in the group regularly enough to learn them, and probably be less likely to punish someone for forgetting.

No one has to tell the other person what rules an army has before the game. And during the game you only have to anwser targeted questions, so can your unit do X, what does stratagem Y do. If someone wants to know the rules of another army in advance they have to do it on their own. Especialy when the clock it ticking and you have a specified time to play the game. It would be stupid to wait for someone to go through your entire rule set. especialy as if this maybe a time move, because their army loses steam after round 3, and by "checking the rules" for 20 min they can assure that the game will last only that long or close to it.

No one has to.
You also don't have to game with people who intentionally try to conceal info or otherwise game the system.

If the game isn't fun, don't play it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No one has to.
You also don't have to game with people who intentionally try to conceal info or otherwise game the system.

If the game isn't fun, don't play it.

What do you mean by intentional. The rules are clear. Do you also say what are you going to do in the game pre game too, so the person isn't suprised? Go through the math of how many wounds of specific army have to be assigned to a necron brick, or something similar, in advance? It is a game, and while it maybe cool for the audiance of one of the participants shows his plans in advance and then does it, in general, in every sport it is considered a bad thing to do. And it doesn't matter if it is a charity event, league game, or training fight. It makes you look like an donkey-cave if you do it.

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No one has to.
You also don't have to game with people who intentionally try to conceal info or otherwise game the system.

If the game isn't fun, don't play it.

What do you mean by intentional. The rules are clear. Do you also say what are you going to do in the game pre game too, so the person isn't suprised? Go through the math of how many wounds of specific army have to be assigned to a necron brick, or something similar, in advance? It is a game, and while it maybe cool for the audiance of one of the participants shows his plans in advance and then does it, in general, in every sport it is considered a bad thing to do. And it doesn't matter if it is a charity event, league game, or training fight. It makes you look like an donkey-cave if you do it.

If you say, up front, "I'm not familiar with your detachment-can you tell me what your stratagems do?" then a sportsmanlike player should go over them with you.

If you already know how they play, then you don't need to ask, but I certainly wouldn't want to win because of a cheap trick they had no idea was possible.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
do you check the Toughtness, movement or save stat of every unit every time they do anything?

No, because these are fixed things that can be remembered. That's not the same thing as checking a model's position against a silhouette, which is a physical process.

If you're not following that physical process and just eyeballing it, then the process is irrelevant... you're just playing TLOS, with a bunch of extra rules that supposedly add clarity but which you don't actually use.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Depends on how agonizingly long the measurement and discussion is, doesn't it?

Not very long, in the vast majority of my games. If someone is arguing over every single LOS call, chances are I'm not playing against them more than once. This goes back to the need to play against like-minded players. If you don't want games to devolve into endless arguing about LOS... don't play games where you endlessly argue about LOS.

Karol wrote:

True. Claiming TLoS is faster, is maybe true if the army is super fast, has a ton of LoS ignoring rules etc. Play a game vs a GK player who doesn't want to lose turn 2, and with TLoS the turns drag for ages, because everything has to be checked multipletimes.

Nothing ever has to be checked multiple times. It's a game. The fate of the world is not in the balance. If you can't agree on a given LOS call, roll off for it and move on. If your opponent refuses to agree on every LOS call, pack up and go find someone who's actually interested in playing the game. Because once you've reached that level of finicky, the arguments aren't only going to be over LOS, and no amount of clarity in the rules is going to save that game. A miniatures game on an open table is always going to have a certain amount of imprecision baked in by its very nature, and players have to be prepared to give and take. If you want precision in every action, stick to games that play on a grid.

 insaniak wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
ok so i'll post an example of Infinity's silhouette system to make sure its clearly understood instead of people seemingly guessing how it works
...snip...

Not gonna lie, that looks awful. I can see it being tolerable, if tedious, in a game like Infinity with half a dozen models on the table... but in a game the size of 40K, a chart like that would be the point where I close the rulebook and go do something else.


Game scale needs to be considered in these sorts of mechanics. Introducing a need to check the profile of every model against a template in a game with 100+ models on the table would be a nightmare.

For all its flaws TLOS has the benefit of being fast, which means it scales easily.

In my experience, having to use the Silhouette markers is very rarely required. and when it is, it will be a case of 'shooting a sniper rifle, through a window, down an alley, over a wall, and between some cars' and even then, with such a janky shot, you probably won't need to check if you have been playing the game for any length of time.
Once you get used to the fact that your miniatures occupy a cylinder with a diameter equal to their base, up to a certain height, the rest is intuitive. It allows for miniatures to have dynamic and cool poses without having any effect whatsoever on whether you can shoot them or not. there is no MFA in infinity, you can pose your miniatures however you want, all that matters for LOS is their silhouette size.

Another thing to consider is that Infinity terrain, either purchased or scratch built will be designed specifically for the game, and takes into account the LOS rules. My experience of playing the game is that Infinity players take almost as much, if not more, pride in their terrain as they do in their actual miniatures. buildings and scatter terrain (which in infinity actually matters, A LOT) will be designed to provide total or partial cover to some units, and only partial to others. Your basic infantryman can stand behind a car and not be seen, a TAG (Dreadnought equivalent) can still use the car as cover, but it won't hide it completely. and there is always the option to go prone.

Its an easy to understand system, MFA doesn't exist, and silhouette markers are rarely required anyway.

Karol wrote:

What do you mean by intentional. The rules are clear. Do you also say what are you going to do in the game pre game too, so the person isn't suprised? Go through the math of how many wounds of specific army have to be assigned to a necron brick, or something similar, in advance? It is a game, and while it maybe cool for the audiance of one of the participants shows his plans in advance and then does it, in general, in every sport it is considered a bad thing to do. And it doesn't matter if it is a charity event, league game, or training fight. It makes you look like an donkey-cave if you do it.

Removed - rule #1 please




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
[
No, because these are fixed things that can be remembered. That's not the same thing as checking a model's position against a silhouette, which is a physical process.

If you're not following that physical process and just eyeballing it, then the process is irrelevant... you're just playing TLOS, with a bunch of extra rules that supposedly add clarity but which you don't actually use.

Youre clearly speaking from a point of view of someome thag never tried the rule... You dont need to pull out the template when a dude is out in the open or behind a waist-high barricade. The system simply tells you what the height of a model is so its clearer and the banner of a dude isnt suddenly a vital part of their body

Karol wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No one has to.
You also don't have to game with people who intentionally try to conceal info or otherwise game the system.

If the game isn't fun, don't play it.

What do you mean by intentional. The rules are clear.

Oh, well since the rules are clear, then I suggest you go read them: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dLZIlatQJ3qOkGP7.pdf
Please read Mustering Your Army, sections 2-6. Particularly section 2 where it states that players must show their completed rosters to their opponents before the battle commences.
And since "Muster Armies" is the very 1st step of the entire game sequence - before setting terrain, missions, etc?
You will be providing the answers to any questions about your force. How much of an you are while you do that is up to you.... And may influence your odds of getting future games.
Failure/Refusal = We do not proceed to Step 2 & there is no game.

Jesus Christ someone actually thinks actively hiding their dollies' stats is part of the competition

@vladimirherzog

So if I get it right, in infinity, you use TLoS and when in doubt, check with the silhouette template? More or less.

Sounds very good to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as I am aware both in 40k and bolt action not showing your list beforehand is an option Al rules players might agree on, but the normal rule is that they must show clearly what they bring.

For once, I think this is something GW has been pretty consistent with over the years? Am I mistaken?

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
@vladimirherzog

So if I get it right, in infinity, you use TLoS and when in doubt, check with the silhouette template? More or less.

Sounds very good to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as I am aware both in 40k and bolt action not showing your list beforehand is an option Al rules players might agree on, but the normal rule is that they must show clearly what they bring.

For once, I think this is something GW has been pretty consistent with over the years? Am I mistaken?

I think I only needed to check in infinity a handful of times,maybe twice in Warmachine. Since often you can see the base so easy to eye it.

I think for 40K hidden info is better left for narrative than anything in game, it’s just not a system that’s good with that.