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.

Frankly, I wish gw would take a look at infinity's silhouettes and give it a try. Considering how diverse their minis are it could serve.

I've used hidden info mostly in a campaign playing out the exploration of a new world by the mechanus, so he never really knows what he will bump into.

Otherwise, we rarely use it mostly because most questions we would have as to what unit has got what rules/gear, remembering the stats of some of them I forgot etc... It's a 5 minute phase but truly speeds up the game afterwards.

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

It might have something to do with the game turning into a "card game" with miniatures. can't let your opponent know what your trap card is.



Were back to the point GW used to understand, in fact they even put it in the rules back in 3rd-the game is supposed to be fun for both players as such having a game is by it's very nature giving consent, as you are not forcing the other player to play you.

If you are not a fun person to play against because of your attitude you will quickly find you have no people to play with, outside of those forced to play against you in tournaments.

Actually the card aspect is very accurate in my eyes because in project z litteraly both players have cards they keep hidden to play each other dirty tricks. For a fast paced skirmish game I must say it's kind of funny. They're drawn however, you can't choose which ones you get before hands.

just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn

because its widely known that on a battlefield only one small group at a time can crouch, and likely due to missing a few keywords and poor drafting tanks and titans will be able to use it

Actually a crouche rule would make entirely sense, as it used to.

After all, units were allowed to "go to ground" for added cover in exchange for not shooting straight that turn.

Strategems would poorly represent this to be fair.
I'dsay I actually even prefer USR over strategem for this reason. I see abilities linked more to the unit's gear, specialisation, members. Guess it's just a bias I've got.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Actually a crouche rule would make entirely sense, as it used to.

After all, units were allowed to "go to ground" for added cover in exchange for not shooting straight that turn.

Strategems would poorly represent this to be fair.
I'dsay I actually even prefer USR over strategem for this reason. I see abilities linked more to the unit's gear, specialisation, members. Guess it's just a bias I've got.

something whereby a unit can elect to either remain stationary (and get "gone to ground") or move at half speed and get a size class reduction would be good as just a core rule. not a strategem. providing a bit of tactical choice, though GW do seem to be trying to remove any such from the game in favour of winning in the model buying phase

Yup, you more or less better explained my thought than I did myself

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.

Then you don't use rule. Nobody has to just blindly believe opponent. Opponents are after all known to cheat.

You have the rules, hand over. Nobody uses rules without being willing to show them. That's admission of plan to cheat.

Or you can forfeit now that your plan to intentionally cheat was revealed

You can't go through every rule in your army before the game, like every WS, BS, M, S, T, A... stat and every ability and Stratagem. The question is how much is reasonable, in a casual game where neither player has said they're on a time limit you can ask a lot of questions. In a store with limited space or in a tournament you can ask a lot fewer questions. Reading all 30 Stratagems before the game in 9th was a lot, even when offered and people were not in a rush how many would accept instead of just getting on with the game?

You ask what your opponent's Movement characteristic is when it matters to your own actions, you'd forget them anyway if your opponent just vomited out all the stats at the start of the game. Then you warn your opponent if there is something it seems they don't know/forgot. I think Karol should try to shift the expectations to accept going through Stratagems since it's a lot more reasonable for 6 than for 30, but going through every stat for every model is too much, not just for time but to remember.

Apart from other being able to look while opponent does his stuff point is about stratagems.

Hand over stratagems. While you deploy i go over that.

If you aren't willing to do that i know you plan to cheat. So 2 options. Game not progressing until you do. Or i will metociously write down every single rule you use i'm not 100% familiar to check later.

Just consider which slows game down more. Handing over stratagems/det rules or me writing, by hand, down every single rule.

Nobody who has refused to provide rules when asked pre-game has yet to play without cheat. It's not about time. It's about trying to hide cheating.

Stratagems are awful , worst part about titanicus.

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from other being able to look while opponent does his stuff point is about stratagems.

Hand over stratagems. While you deploy i go over that.

If you aren't willing to do that i know you plan to cheat. So 2 options. Game not progressing until you do. Or i will metociously write down every single rule you use i'm not 100% familiar to check later.

Just consider which slows game down more. Handing over stratagems/det rules or me writing, by hand, down every single rule.

Nobody who has refused to provide rules when asked pre-game has yet to play without cheat. It's not about time. It's about trying to hide cheating.

Matches my reality. Almost everyone has the two pages of army-specific stratagems printed out, and if you ask your opponent whether you can see them, they just point to wherever the printout is and continue to move their models.

 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.

Its more like you intuitively know what the average volume of the silhouette is so you very rarely need to take out the templates but yes. Infinity is also played much more "by intent" than 40k, moving a guy past the corner of a building and telling your opponent that "you only want him to see up to that other corner is something that frequently happens and makes determining LoS much faster


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn

because its widely known that on a battlefield only one small group at a time can crouch, and likely due to missing a few keywords and poor drafting tanks and titans will be able to use it

well taking infinity again, you can go prone with any model, which drops your silhouette to the size of a blank base

Flames of War, at least in its earlier versions, had "declarative movement", worked well

"this unit is moving here to be hull down behind this ridge", "these infantry are moving here so that artillery spotter cannot see them" - that was then time for an opponent to question this, maybe noting they needed to move further etc

removed a lot of debate when playing with sensible people, when you got a response along the lines of "well we will see when I come to shoot won't we" it told you a lot about the player

 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.

90% of the time Infinity's system works exactly like 40K's, with it being intuitive and obvious whether a model is visible in the open or behind chest-high cover.

The remaining 10% of the time, you either pull out the silhouette template or just extrapolate from the base to quickly and cleanly resolve a question that would otherwise be an argument about 'does an antenna count', 'c'mon, the model's just kneeling, he should be able to see over the wall', 'no that does not count as 25%', 'I don't think it's fair that you converted the model to have his wings less visible', and so on.

Infinity's system is quick, with a deterministic mechanism to resolve ambiguity and edge cases. 40K's system is quick, and then falls apart as soon as you hit ambiguity, edge cases, or overly competitive players.

The prescribed silhouette system that Infinity uses would not be necessary for 40K; just the concept of using a model's base size (actually specified in the rules, because it's really stupid that it isn't) in conjunction with a specified height makes the mechanic viable. In a game like 40K that is generally more two-dimensional than Infinity, tracing paths between bases would suffice for LOS purposes most of the time, and height would only come into play with intervening obstacles. In practice it's a faster, not slower, system than getting down to model's-eye view to check whether an outstretched hand is actually visible.

leopard wrote:
just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn

There's no need to tie it to size or stratagem.
Just make it a general move option.
Works just fine in Bolt Action - a unit can be ordered to "go down". Makes it harder to hit at the cost of not moving or shooting. It doesn't matter if the unit is a tank/vehicle, men modled standing up, crouching, or lying prone.

ccs wrote:

leopard wrote:
just think though, sticking a "size" stat on the profile opens up the opportunity to have a "crouch" strategem to lower it for a turn

There's no need to tie it to size or stratagem.
Just make it a general move option.
Works just fine in Bolt Action - a unit can be ordered to "go down". Makes it harder to hit at the cost of not moving or shooting. It doesn't matter if the unit is a tank/vehicle, men modled standing up, crouching, or lying prone.

and thats basically my point, it should just be a core rule, comment was basically how GW would make it a strat, and screw it up

this should be basic military training stuff, models can "advance" already, its sort of the reverse for "cautious" movement for a defensive adjustment, of whatever sort.

See also how Flames of War allows infantry to be concealed in the open if they do not move, and can then also go to ground for a bonus to defence

 vipoid wrote:

 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?

Base size is better than what we have now even if its not standardized.... or they could just standardize it.

a general "size" stat would be useful, would have it default to zero, then +/-1 as a to hit modifier representing the targets general "how can you miss that" through to "eck thats a bit small" stuff

combining with other modifiers under the cap or max +/-1

 LunarSol wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 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?

Base size is better than what we have now even if its not standardized.... or they could just standardize it.

Let me try and better illustrate the issue:



You've got models like this, which are infantry-sized, yet would have a comparable volume to a dreadnought because of their stupid diorama bases.

But even more importantly, you've got models like this:



If you try to use the same volume cylinder that Infinity uses, then you're saying a significant chunk of the model doesn't count for LoS purposes. Not just antenna or such but substantial parts of the main hull.

And if you instead disregard the base then you're right back to square one in terms of what parts of the hull do or don't count.

Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.

The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.

Well, really, nothing stops GW from producing bigger bases to encompasse said vehicule.

Plus, if in doubt about whether or not it is visible, then get the silhouette and check.

I really don't think any shape of form would actually be impossible to categorise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The issue then would probably migrate from rules to GW actually trying to have rule and miniature departments work hand in hand to get consistent results - and not change them too often once they are good enough.

As a side benefit, putting a lot of those grav tanks on a Knight base would solve some weird rules interactions due to 10th's "measure from the base"-only approach.

If your suggested rules change requires a new stat for every model in the game or new bases for dozens of kits can we stop pretending that GW are idiots for not doing it?

leopard wrote:
Flames of War, at least in its earlier versions, had "declarative movement", worked well

"this unit is moving here to be hull down behind this ridge", "these infantry are moving here so that artillery spotter cannot see them" - that was then time for an opponent to question this, maybe noting they needed to move further etc

removed a lot of debate when playing with sensible people, when you got a response along the lines of "well we will see when I come to shoot won't we" it told you a lot about the player

That's a method of play that has been forwarded in competitive 40k for 5 years now.

 LunarSol wrote:
Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.

The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.

Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?

That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?

From a gameplay perspective its entirely reasonable, yes, but I'm also not trying to get LOS by drawing lines so I don't really care what the cylinder looks like. If you want to hide the model, you park the entire base behind an object defined taller than its height stat. Better than arguing over whether or not she can be wounded by picking off one of those birds.

Dudeface wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Top one is fine. It's got the height of other sisters; just a bigger footprint.

The second one is.... dumb. Like I get how it happens but obviously GW needs to either put it on a bigger base or use whatever rules they need to define the footprint of trucks or whatever. Personally I'd love to see things move to Knight bases for a lot of models.

Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?

That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?

Seems fine to me. Models aren't utterly static, so the base representing the width of their footprint for seeing and being seen isn't a problem. Lemartes is quite a thin model and takes up probably about 60% of the width of his 32mm base when viewed from the front but I think we can safely assume the guy isn't zooming forward in that exact pose all game and the base is a good representation of the area he generally occupies.

I really can't figure out why it's so hard for people to grasp the concept of a model's base and/or type being used to determine its size. Of course, with a system like this you also probably need a little bit of restraint from the sculptors. Putting some random SM character on an 80mm base to facilitate his huge tactical rock wouldn't be a thing, for example. The model used as an example here is borderline in this regard, but still fine, IMO.

 vict0988 wrote:
If your suggested rules change requires a new stat for every model in the game or new bases for dozens of kits can we stop pretending that GW are idiots for not doing it?

Adding a stat isn't hard work that GW isnt willing to do, they did it with OC, they can do it with a "height" stat too.

As for requiring new bases for kits, yeah thats a better criticism than saying the proposed rule itself would somehow slow down the game or wouldnt apply to models like the triumph.

A fix (without rebasing) would be to include a top-down view of the vehicle's area. Or feth it, just say its supposed to be on a base and let players use that info to approximate. SW:Legion has all its models on bases, even vehicles and it makes for a much nicer aesthetic IMO, where the whole force seems to be present in the same environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


Excuse my crap mobile finger art. But it's fine that the hatched areas (red) facilitate you being able to shoot a model that is by your own admission a standard human despite the cover (blue) obscuring every element of the mini?

That genuinely seems less weird that shooting where someone's visible banner is?

yes, because that way you can model your hospitaler (is that what that model is?) anyway you want.

And theres abrastraction in the game already, the space a model occupies isnt a precise thing, or are you saying that dante litterally always has that "landing" pose and just glides everywhere with his tactical rock?


Right now, TLOS feels bad because it assumes models cannot position themselves in a smart way (raised sword arm behind a wall for example). Saying "ALL of LoS is now abstracted to cylinders" suddenly doesnt make it feel bad because LoS is unrelated to modeling

So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?

Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.

It just seems daft. Again, if we assume models aren't static, things move, if it's not rational to think that dove sticking out represented the hospitalers backpack appearing overwhelming top, or her helmet, as she climbs over the wounded person on the base, the I don't se how firing at empty space because "she might be there" is any more rational really?

Personal perspective, not saying one is better or worse than the other, nor that GW are doing it right, just that the logic on display is causing a dissonance for me.

for me shooting at a cylinder that is roughly where the "core" of the body is on a base is an abstraction that makes more sense than shooting at something like the end of the staff of the rightmost sorcerer.