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.

 vict0988 wrote:
Finding points in favor of a silhouette system is easy, but it's easy to find points in favor of removing the psychic phase and all the useless psychic powers, I'm saying it's complicated because needing cylindrical tokens to stand in for your models is a hassle, it might be worthwhile to some, but it'd be a huge change, much bigger than anything 10th edition did and people complain that it changed too many things. It's possible to find points in favour of Stratagems despite a lot of people hating them. Making the perfect 40k edition isn't easy, it requires iterating and constructive criticism from fans.

Given people are now complaining that they've "changed core rules" to improve things, I'd say they cannot ever get it right for some.

Slipspace wrote:

I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play..

I don't think I am. I don't recall claiming at any point that it was complex. Merely that it's not as simple as just looking at the table to see what you can see. Whether or not it's a huge mental load, it's an additional one, as it adds extra things to remember or lookup which only apply to edge cases, compared to just 'I can see what I can see'.

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?

Or that 1 in 10 heavy weapon?

tneva82 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?

Or that 1 in 10 heavy weapon?

If it's the only visible model... yes? Not sure what point you're trying to spin there.

A reasonable proposal I've seen for LoS and Rhino Sniping is as follows:

The defending player chooses which models to remove. However, if at any point there are no more models in LoS of the attacking unit, any further shots (that require LoS) are lost.

So, if they set it up with terrain or vehicles or whatever to take out your one Lascannon, you can either remove the Lascannon first, losing only one model; or you can keep it and take casualties out of line of sight, requiring more shots to take down the heavy weapon.

For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.

* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb

 lord_blackfang wrote:
For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.

* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb

I forgot about that, I was in a happy place and, for some ungodly reason, assumed people would have a little integrity. But yes, rhino sniping aside, seems better.

Dudeface wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

You want your leader inside unit get shot to death 1st without needing precision?

Or that 1 in 10 heavy weapon?

If it's the only visible model... yes? Not sure what point you're trying to spin there.

That attacker can in essence choose whom he kills.

Term rhino sniping rings a beli? Use rhinos to ensure all your bullets fly to specific model.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
For those not in the know, a fringe WAAC move during "you can only allocate wounds to models you can see" era was to drive up two Rhinos and set them up so your dudes could only see the lascannon guy or the power fist guy or whatever through the gap between Rhinos. And while this was an obnoxious exploit, it wasn't done in polite society* and certainly wasn't prevalent enough to throw the whole system out over it.

* I did it once in a tournament to snipe a Resurrection Orb

I've never even heard of this. I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but the heavy weapon or sergeant you take is likely not going to compensate for the all-but-assured loss of two Rhinos parking in the open. And of course in the Good Old Days, vehicles could go up with a thunderous roar or flip over on anyone near them.

This does raise another point, though, which is that TLOS isn't simple if you can kill a squad because some dude left his banner pole hanging out. If one is going to use it, really use it - you can't shoot what you can't see. Target model by model, and then we'll see what happens.

Now it was possible for a template weapon to hit models outside of LOS, and I recall a dude who for some reason left a lone marine visible with the rest of the squad out of LOS. Unfortunately, they were within reach of the pie plate template I threw at that guy.

GW always seems to find the sour spot. It's a gift.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I've never even heard of this. I mean, it's fine as far as it goes, but the heavy weapon or sergeant you take is likely not going to compensate for the all-but-assured loss of two Rhinos parking in the open. And of course in the Good Old Days, vehicles could go up with a thunderous roar or flip over on anyone near them.

Not so much, by the time rhino sniping was a thing. The most likely outcome of shooting at the vehicle was that it would be unable to shoot back next turn.

And while sergeants or heavy weapons might not be as valuable a trade, that 200 point Captain in the unit is definitely worth potentially trading a 35 point rhino.



Interestingly, there was a similar tactic in 2nd edition, where thanks to fire arcs you didn't even need the rhino... you just had to face your models so that the target you wanted to shoot at was the only thing in their fire arc.

This does raise another point, though, which is that TLOS isn't simple if you can kill a squad because some dude left his banner pole hanging out. If one is going to use it, really use it - you can't shoot what you can't see. Target model by model, and then we'll see what happens.

The premise was that if you can see a single model, then you effectively know where the unit is, and ultimately it was the best solution to rhino sniping. What replaced it was removing casualties from the front (ie: closest to the enemy) which resulted in characters and special weapons needing to be buried inside the unit instead of up front where they would be useful, to stop them from being always being the first casualties

 insaniak wrote:
The premise was that if you can see a single model, then you effectively know where the unit is, and ultimately it was the best solution to rhino sniping. What replaced it was removing casualties from the front (ie: closest to the enemy) which resulted in characters and special weapons needing to be buried inside the unit instead of up front where they would be useful, to stop them from being always being the first casualties

Yeah, I'm not going to defend any of that nonsense. It drove me out of the game, in fact.

But if you look at the original version in 2nd, it worked and made sense. Yes, it was possible to play "fire arc" games, but your opponent also knew the score and could maneuver accordingly.

And yes, shots flowing from the front typically meant riflemen were in front of the heavies, but isn't that the case today? Does any army doctrine call for the AT weapon or MMG to be put out front to be killed without support? Usually you want those guys back a bit, and one of the neat ways it worked was that while the heavy weapons couldn't move and shoot, the troopers could (Space Marines lost Rapid Fire, but whatever), and so combat became a very fluid affair of subtle maneuver.

Getting back on topic, it was intuitive and consistent. There was even a basic size system so that your gretchen couldn't screen a dreadnought.

If GW had just built on that, refining it, the game would be a much better place than basically wiping the slate clean and starting over.

Oh, and the bases were very much the key part of LOS, so Infinity isn't exactly being innovative here. GW was doing this with WHFB for decades.

But when the design philosophy turned from iterative improvement to constant churn for fun and profit, well, certain sacrifices had to be made.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Stratagems are awful , worst part about titanicus.

We don't use them. Most people I know play Titanicus because they fell out of love with 40k upon the introduction of 783 stratagems.

I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.

What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.

EDIT: For what it's worth, Crusade implies a different understanding of what is signified when a model is removed from the table. In a stand-alone game, when a model is removed, most players say it's "Dead;" in Crusade, being removed from the table merely means the model has been rendered "Combat Ineffective."

Through that lens, the whole "I'm being removed from the table because your bolter shattered my sword" makes at least some sense. Sure, it's debatable whether the destruction of a weapon- particularly a mundane one- would render an operative combat effective, but a hand or a foot would do the trick in most cases..

PenitentJake wrote:


I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.

What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.

40k used to work like that, only being able to kill the models in a unit you could see, what a great system too, you'd only be as exposed to damage as you'd be outputting in terms of shooting, so if i only put half a squad on the second floor able to shoot and the other half on the bottom floor of a ruin out of los, my firepower is half but so is my exposure to damage. This is also a very good model of real life and why infantry are needed in terms of clearing/holding built up areas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Toofast wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Stratagems are awful , worst part about titanicus.

We don't use them. Most people I know play Titanicus because they fell out of love with 40k upon the introduction of 783 stratagems.

Same, especially now after the matched play book where it's basically a hand of cards, feels like being forced to play magic while also playing AT. Worse still, it's not like they could be asked to actually make the cards easily available, but they'll sure make them a core mechanic of almost every mission/scneaio for some reason.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 vict0988 wrote:

Karol wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.

Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?

I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.

What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.

Sure. Care to provide rule that does that without allowing rhino sniping?

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by rhino snipping? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Do you mean a rhino being destroyed because an antenna is visible?

If so, I'm not sure.

But I'm also not putting vehicles on bases just so that I can draw a silhouette because a base on a Land Raider or a Rhino would look stupid enough to me that I wouldn't want to play regardless of how good the rules were.

So like I said, agnostic about silhouette vs TLOS- pros and cons on both sides. So I'm leaving other people who care more about it than me continue that debate- their arguments on this issue, regardless of their side in the debate, are likely to be more cogent than my own because they are invested in the issue.

I just don't think nine guys behind a building can be killed by bolters because of the one guy who isn't, and conversely, nine guys behind a building shouldn't be able to shoot an enemy unit they can't see just because one guy can.

Fix that and any system- TLOS or Silhouette or something else entirely- is likely to be good enough for me.

PenitentJake wrote:
Sorry, can you explain what you mean by rhino snipping? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

Using rhinos to block your own LOS to funnel your shooting to specific models in the enemy unit. Look several posts up.

Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.

But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.

Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.

PenitentJake wrote:
Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.

But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.

Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.

9th edition basically brought back Rhino Sniping for the Black Legion and their +1 to the closest eligible target. Trust me, it wasn't that tough to angle using a building or a couple of vehicles (empty Rhinos work great since they don't have much else to do) to target the real unit I wanted a +1 to shoot. Especially if I had a squad of Legionaries, and I really just wanted the Lascannon to shoot.

And that's where the problem comes in. It doesn't really take a lot of resources to significantly trade up via Rhino sniping. That's why GW nipped it fairly fast.

I find the best solution, as mentioned, is the one that allows the targeted player to decide which models the wounds are put on. Where that player can choose to place them on the exposed models until no exposed models remain, or on the complete concealed models to retain exposed models armed with weapons/powers they'd rather keep.

This creates more interesting decision points in the game. Because sometimes it's better to remove/take the saves on bolter Legionaries just hiding in a building. And Sometimes it's best to lose that heavy weapon instead of the entire squad.

Even on the attackers side, it creates a little more of an interesting dynamic. Going full overkill on a squad that is only partly visible is likely to be a waste, since the targeted player is going to take the visible stuff to keep at least some of the squad around. So target priority requires a tad more consideration.

So there's more risk and reward on both sides. It also tends to promote maneuver to cut the angle to get more/all of the squad. One of the few downsides I've encountered is it makes long range small arms less useful. Something I'm fine with in 40k.

Thrown in a simple and decent suppression mechanic, and 40k starts to have a rudimentary Fire and Maneuver system. Which given the strong assault/melee component of the setting/game should be a core principle of 40k IMO. It shocks me that this game seems near perfect to make use of simplified modern military tactics while further enhancing the fantastical elements, such as glorious melee combat.

Concerning narrative, the weapons used in 40k are very much powerful enough to punch through much of the terrain we use in our games. I know we like to pretend that ruins are tougher to penetrate than terminator armor with a relic Iron Halo and a void shield, but it probably isn't. We can imagine that a targeted squad is being hit with a barrage of gunfire and some of it is hitting those in cover. Conversely, maybe it is hitting the exposed members and the concealed one are taking up their positions and/or weapons relatively quickly. There's more than a few ways for your Mind's Eye Theater to play out the situation beyond, "Legionary Raladrik Foecrusher is attempting to hold back the enemy with his heavy bolter while the rest of his battle brother hide like children in the nearby ruin."

tneva82 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

 vict0988 wrote:

Karol wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.

Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?

I'm agnostic on the TLOS vs. Silhouette piece honestly. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both points of view- I think advocates for both sides have made valid points.

What I object to is targeting models in a unit that ARE 100% objectively not visible because one of the of the models in the unit IS visible. Fix that and it matters a lot less whether you go with TLOS vs. Silhouette because models that truly are undeniably hidden will actually be protected.

Sure. Care to provide rule that does that without allowing rhino sniping?

You can't, any permutation you do come up with has knock on effects worse than rhino sniping. I'd suggest either "owner allocates damage, once the visible model is removed, stop allocating damage" is the nearest you can get, or simply throw a rulebook at your opponent and call them something unkind.

In the end, in it's gakked over state, 40k would need drastic changes anyway. And if they're for the better - go ahead. But not just in rules: in design philosophy.

Concern would be as to whether or not they'd be able to improve on it rather than change it all over again or kill it under the weight of a thousand silly rules piling on afterwards.

Again, they need to start getting rules and minis departments working togetherw listen to feedbacks, and come back to fixngnand improving an existing solid set of rules rather than throwing zog at the wall and see what will stick.

Again, TLoS has advantages in Bolt action, where to hit modifiers are a thing, where 90% minis are roughly the same height/width because only humans, and were what counts/doesn't counts is written clearly. In 40k with it's modelling emphasis and variety of models and beasts, it won't work just nearly as good.

You yourself said the rules must be done for fluff first. I 100% agree on that about 40k. But this, is nowhere against using RPG dices or silhouette systems - quite the contrary.

PenitentJake wrote:
Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.

But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.

Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.

I think you are misunderstanding how it was actually used.

There was this popular guide von the 3++ blog how to use it best, but it's now defunct. Essentially it showed a unit of long fangs aiming at a squad of imperial guardsmen with a heavy weapon team sitting in the back of the squad, but the squad not forming a perfect wall in front of it.

With no rhinos involved, the long fangs would fire 4 krak missiles into the squad and blow up most of the regular guardsmen, with the heavy weapon team alive.

You now drive two rhinos into the path, and create a 1-2mm wide slit which only allows the heavy weapon squad to be seen through it. Suddenly the long fangs, despite shooting the same missiles from the same position at the same unit would be able to kill the heavy weapon squad. Even if there was a guardsman in front of it, that guardsmen would take the first missile before the HWT is killed by the second.

This works for pretty much any unit which has certain members that are more valuable than others, which is a rather common theme for 40k.

You can also do horizontal LoS sniping, like using horde units to block vision to the regular dudes and just kill the ones with banners, raised swords or guns - which traditionally includes a ton of squad leaders and upgrade characters. It would be pure poison for the current leader mechanic which works surprisingly well.

As pointed out, rhino sniping is not limited to rhinos, but could be done with the help of other units, ruins and hills. It was both immersion breaking and fun-draining because it allowed your opponent to eliminated the dangerous aspects many units(and thus, armies) without counterplay. And of course, it was never taken into consideration for balance, as some armies didn't care about single models being sniped (aspects, necrons), while others couldn't snipe as well due the shape of their vehicles or because of the guns they had available.

easy way to avoid that sniping stuff

"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"

now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works

this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable

PenitentJake wrote:
Ah... Scrolled up and read the rhino snipping thing. I can see how it could be used as an exploit in a competitive environment.

But I'm a story guy. In real life, if you parked vehicles so that a single dude was your only target, you could shoot that dude.

Making up rules like "I can Kill nine guys behind a solid building because I can see their buddy" to prevent a player from doing something that is an actual legitimate tactic seems like a case of misplaced priorities, especially when theirs so much planning and opportunity cost required in order to execute said tactic.

In real life you would hit rhino shooting from gap smaller than ammunition...

Show me irl video of abrams shooting through gap of millimeters betmeen 2 friendly vehicles. Go on. I'm sure you have many examples since you claim that's realistic.

So sorry your realism arqument fails.

If there's choice between unrealism to whom defender can do something and unrealism where he can't choose the one defender can deal with his own choices. Don't expose that 1 guy.

That or you need to provide rule that works vs both. Out of los don't die, no rhino sniping and no way for other abuses(repositioning that model replacing other opens up exploitations)

leopard wrote:
easy way to avoid that sniping stuff

"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"

now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works

this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable

How do you check TLOS if there is two battlewagons, a landraider, a knight, a character on a tactical pile of corpses and a baneblade between the two units trying to shoot each other?

 insaniak wrote:
The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.

Was just about to suggest exactly this.

 Jidmah wrote:

leopard wrote:
easy way to avoid that sniping stuff

"models in your army or your opponents army do not block line of sight to other such models"

now one model visible due to a building or ruin etc, one model only can die, carefully parking vehicles to try and snipe characters as the "only visible target" no longer works

this is how a fair few other games get around this while having models actually out of sight being unkillable

How do you check TLOS if there is two battlewagons, a landraider, a knight, a character on a tactical pile of corpses and a baneblade between the two units trying to shoot each other?

most games that use such manage it reasonably simply, imaginary (or laser) line between the unit observing and its intended victim from above, if nothing other than army models obscure the line, model is visible, that bit is usually obvious. where you have hills, walls etc in the way its a bit more involved sometimes but again generally not too hard

its one thing Flame of War v4 got right over earlier editions where sniping unit leaders by carefully positioning tanks to make the poor sod the only viable target wasn't uncommon

and as for that twin battlewagons, a knight using them as roller skates while a hero climbs a pile of the dead to hit it with a sword and a baneblade is sneaking up is between a marine sniper and that grot who flipped him the bird... well the grot has it coming, though will get cover

unless the pile of the dead is a terrain feature of course

Yeah, that would work - I'd be fine with that compromise.

tneva82 wrote:

In real life you would hit rhino shooting from gap smaller than ammunition...

Show me irl video of abrams shooting through gap of millimeters betmeen 2 friendly vehicles. Go on. I'm sure you have many examples since you claim that's realistic.

So sorry your realism arqument fails.

Look dude, if a marine is 32 mm tall, and that represents 8ft, a 1mm gap on a table represents a 3 inch gap.

Is it rare for someone to shoot through a three inch gap? Absolutely.

Is it less rare than a guy out of view behind a building dying because his friend in the open got hit? Also yes, because that is a thing that is literally not possible, so my realism argument is fine. And if you want to prove otherwise, how about YOU show us a video of one guy dying when another guy gets hit.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The problem is less speed rolling than with character sniping. Back when you could only kill those specific models that you could see, the common tactic was to park a vehicle in front of your own unit, blocking LOS to some of the enemy unit and leaving just the character or special/heavy weapon guy visible. Having casualities come from anywhere in the unit removed that exploit.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Just make it so casualties are pulled from the unit, but you cannot kill more than what you can see.

this would be a solution thats far too simple.

though very effective