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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.

...Yes.

The discussion is fundamentally about edge case line if sight issues which lead to unintuitive or 'feels bad' outcomes; of which Rhino sniping is/was one example.

You claimed that the 30k rule provided a solution, when actually it doesn't at all.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.

I think if you hadn't swooped in praising GW for successfully writing the same problem into multiple game systems, it might have seemed better. That aside, it is a niche problem but it is a contentious one for 40k, in 30k I can see that it would be even less frequent. Might be something to do will less 30k competitive events to the scale of 40k, so people feel the need to leverage dumb stuff less?

It is a good idea to build in solutions to this in the rules anyway because even though it probably won't happen in most games current 40k have so many profiles with a ton of terrain and models on the battlefield that the situation of sniping models much more important than single lascannons could easily happen. If it isn't a lot of text or make things very convoluted then cases like this should be in the core rules.

Expensive characters without an invulnerable save that is hiding in a unit that is there to protect said character can suddenly be in the open and the only visible model to someone with a weapon that can easily one shot said character even though the rest of the unit is completely hidden and undamaged. When Rhino Sniping first became popular as a concept there were very little terrain and models compared to now and you almost had to use something like Rhinos to block line of sight. Especially since you often couldn't move the shooter (since infantry couldn't shoot lascannons and the like at all if they moved) so you had to use other models to block line of sight with. But now you can just move that lethal gun in to position so all the line of sight blocking ruins do the job of the Rhinos in the past.

But as multiple people have pointed out there is a super simple solution to it that prevents "abuse" from both sides. Defender allocates wounds one by one freely in the unit, even if some models are not in line of sight or even range, until all wounds have been resolved or all models that are in range and line of sight are removed. Now the defender can choose to try to protect their "lascannon" or their unit but in any case they will either lose their tactical lascannon or suffer a lot of casualties. Can be a difficult and interesting choice for the defender. The same applies to the attacker in this case as well. Do they want to fire everything they got into that unit, enough firepower to wipe the entire squad and risk only killing the 1 exposed model, or do they just allocate enough shots to the squad that the squad suffers some casualties but the "lascannon" is still alive. Add in some better morale mechanics (so taking 2-3 losses rather than the "lascannon" risk the unit running or getting pinned) to the game and suddenly the shooting phase has more interesting decisions for both players.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.

...Yes.

The discussion is fundamentally about edge case line if sight issues which lead to unintuitive or 'feels bad' outcomes; of which Rhino sniping is/was one example.

You claimed that the 30k rule provided a solution, when actually it doesn't at all.

The fundamental question is what is a a greater problem? Rhino sniping, or having an entire squad wiped out because only one member was in LoS? I'd wager that the latter is a greater problem as even yourself admitted that Rhino sniping was an "uncommon problem". You can either have a functional LoS system, or avoid "Rhino sniping". Take your pick.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!

Rhino snipe is a very fringe problem. Especially in a game with functional snipers. Why would I use Rhinos, when I have Nemesis bolter equipped Recons? I've literally never seen Rhino sniping used in a game of 30k.

Yes but we're talking about 40k - where the Rhino sniping tactic was literally a thing in previous editions (even if relatively uncommon).

As you admit, it was relatively uncommon. And 30k is basically "old 40k". You're complaining about a very uncommon problem. It's an edge case, basically.

I think if you hadn't swooped in praising GW for successfully writing the same problem into multiple game systems, it might have seemed better. That aside, it is a niche problem but it is a contentious one for 40k, in 30k I can see that it would be even less frequent. Might be something to do will less 30k competitive events to the scale of 40k, so people feel the need to leverage dumb stuff less?

Rhino sniping is a niche problem. Wiping entire squads because only one model is exposed isn't. Again, take your pick. Or, we can keep arguing edge cases.

You can have a system where entire units can't be wiped out just because one model is visible AND ALSO individual models can't be sniped because they're the only model visible.

Several workable solutions have been suggested. It isn't a binary case of accepting problem A or problem B.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You can have a system where entire units can't be wiped out just because one model is visible AND ALSO individual models can't be sniped because they're the only model visible.

Several workable solutions have been suggested. It isn't a binary case of accepting problem A or problem B.

Hmmm? As I mentioned, I haven't been keeping up with the thread for several days. Can you articulate such systems? I'm entirely open to anything that's eliminates both problems without causing others.

Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?

Defender allocates wounds anywhere in the squad, all remaining Wounds are lost once the visible models are slain.

Owner can choose to keep losing out of los people or simply remove the visible mini.

Why is it better: prevents making it so you can target individual models in the unit using dodgy LoS tricks and stops who units being wiped unless it's by choice.

I quite liked the Flames V3 system, in a nutshell:

- attacker rolls to hit
- defender allocates hits to individual models
--- only models in sight, where some attackers can only see some models they roll individually
--- models within half range before models outside half range
--- models outside cover before those inside cover
--- models without hits before those with hits (in effect hits have to be spread out)
--- models with weaker armour before models with stronger

at that point the models make their saves (FoW had no to wound roll) and live/die as appropriate, its quite easy to kill fewer models than you do wounds due to overkill

it specifically noted that this meant "specialists" in infantry units can basically only be hit through enough volume of fire some has to allocate to them, but also specifically permits more damaging shots to be on basic guys (representing others picking up weapons etc)

it actually worked well, there were about two pages (with examples) on how the hit priority stuff worked - but no hitting stuff you couldn't see, heavy weapons go against bods behind walls etc while machine guns go against guys in the open

V4 changed it to the attacker allocating, with a "save" to swap hits to nearby models, takes less pages to explain, also means specialists die more or less immediately

and while you could "snipe" in V3 with careful positioning the defender could usually mitigate it by keeping leaders etc where there would always be someone else to take the hit first

key bit though was its hits that get allocated, not wounds

worked quite well, even with multiple hits per models having to be resolved independently, indeed in 40k would likely be even better as there is no now need to worry about mixed toughness/saves

the "to hit" roll being determined by the easiest model to hit giving the units general position away

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?

How about instead of wandering into a thread when you don't understand the conversation, presenting a 'solution' which actually CAUSES the problem being discussed, and then demanding that people provide you solutions which you've already glossed over, you actually go back and read the last couple of pages.
I provided a potential solution. Go find it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?

Defender allocates wounds anywhere in the squad, all remaining Wounds are lost once the visible models are slain.

Owner can choose to keep losing out of los people or simply remove the visible mini.

Why is it better: prevents making it so you can target individual models in the unit using dodgy LoS tricks and stops who units being wiped unless it's by choice.

But keeps the option for "hidden lascannons, characters, etc". Not saying that it's bad, but still has it's problems.

And thanks for still participating in the debate, Dudeface.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Feel free to look literally three posts back from yours...

I just did. Am I missing something? Got any fixes of your own? Or proposed rules possibly?

How about instead of wandering into a thread when you don't understand the conversation, presenting a 'solution' which actually CAUSES the problem being discussed, and then demanding that people provide you solutions which you've already glossed over, you actually go back and read the last couple of pages.
I provided a potential solution. Go find it.

Yes? The same solution as Dudeface seems to be proposing, with the same problems. You're just switching the advantage to the Defender. Yes, I've read you're proposal now.

Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Yes. Which is the exact problem caused by Artificier armour equipped sergeants in HH. Well spotted, Karol.

Easy. Just make it so that unless the character is in LoS then you have to put the wounds on the troops. Or have all the wounds allocated before saves. Or have them be allocated evenly over the unit or just ignore that "problem". Lots of solutions. If the character have to use the units toughness and save rather than their own I don't really see how it will be abused.

Is it really a problem that will happen in game that people will use an expensive tank character to take hits to prevent exposed special weapons of getting wounded? Sounds very static and a waste of points rather than doing something more active. If you could make deathstars like in earlier editions with multiple characters then it could be problematic. Perhaps it doesnt feel right that a character out of LoS can tank for other models but I think that could be a small price to pay if allowed to have character tank shots for squad members in all the other situations.

Anyway, the important thing is that just because there might be a problem and GW in the current edition haven't been able to fix it doesn't mean that it is impossible or even hard to find a solution for. Sure GW is incompetent at this but they don't even have to come up with a brand new solution. They could just look at older editions of their own games or blatantly steal solutions from other game systems.

No one wants to stop and spend several minutes figuring how much of the target unit is visible to the firing unit, or worse, figure out how much of the target unit is visible to each individual model of the firing unit. Except people who want to complain about rules in a forum while they're not doing something useful.

As long as speed of game play is more important than anything else, you get the current edition's result.

I think a lot of people wouldn't mind that at all if it made the game feel more "real" to them.

You can even make it easy and have it so as long as a model in the targeted squad is seen by at least one model in the firing squad then it counts as visible to all models in the unit that can see the squad. This way you only need to see if a model can see the opposing squad at all and then figure out which models cant be seen at all and those are not eligible to be shot (unless defender wants it to). Quick and easy and takes barely any more time than the current system since every model that shoots still need to see at least one model in the opposing squad. No need to check every individual model.

 solkan wrote:
No one wants to stop and spend several minutes figuring how much of the target unit is visible to the firing unit, or worse, figure out how much of the target unit is visible to each individual model of the firing unit. Except people who want to complain about rules in a forum while they're not doing something useful.

As long as speed of game play is more important than anything else, you get the current edition's result.

You're opinion. Other's prefer a more comprehensive LoS/cover system which takes such things into account.

Again, it's opinion. You seem to prefer ankle water deep "tournament tactics". Other's will prefer real tactics.

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.

However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.

However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.

I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.

If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.

Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!

 vict0988 wrote:

Think about the gameplay for a second, is having a single lascannon standing on one side of a wall and the mooks standing on the other side so you can't ever take more than 1 casualty per enemy unit fun and thematic?

yes, because it forces your opponent to maneuver more meaningfully than "ok i see that dude, i'll wipe the 4 others that i can't see"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.

However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.

I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.

If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.

Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!

I wasn't responding to rhino-sniping I was responding to the question of how (if defender can allocate wounds as he pleases) you stop the issue of characters with better saves or such tanking wounds.for their unit.

Well I guess we got 3 pages of discussion about the topic before 14 pages of arguing about LOS

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.

However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.

5th ed.'s wound allocation was the best 40k has ever had.

Where it fell apart was with units like Nobs and Paladins* where every multi-wound model had different wargear. That could have been somewhat solved by reducing wargear choices for those problem units (boss poles and 'eavy armour shouldn't have been wargear for Nobs, and swords and halberds shouldn't have had different rules for Grey Knights), removing medic options (medics shouldn't be able to heal from bikes), and adding an extra step to wound allocation so that wounds are allocated in order of AP - which would mostly prevent stacking of instant death/armour ignoring wounds on single models rather than being spread across units.

*Really I'd argue that Nob bikers should be an entirely different unit to Nobs, and Paladins shouldn't exist...

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't it create problems with "tank" characters attached to units. Plus lenghten the game, because the defender would always ask to roll each roll separatly to see if it is still okey to allocate wounds to the tank or if it is time to start killing regular mooks in the squad.

Amusingly, this was something 5th edition's wound allocation system solved.

However, I think people would sooner eat a metal dreadnought than concede the advantages of that system.

I mean 4th solved it too, without the feth ups of 5th.

If you removed rhino sniping by giving the defender control, 4th probably would have been fine.

Edit:
Or even just said "you cannot shoot if your LOS passes within 2" of a friendly model" - it's not like the two Rhinos would be comfortable leaving a gap less than a fist wide for a lascannon to fire through!

I wasn't responding to rhino-sniping I was responding to the question of how (if defender can allocate wounds as he pleases) you stop the issue of characters with better saves or such tanking wounds.for their unit.

Right, I was saying 4th solved that, so if you solved rhino-sniping you would have a pretty good system.

Klickor wrote:

Is it really a problem that will happen in game that people will use an expensive tank character to take hits to prevent exposed special weapons of getting wounded? Sounds very static and a waste of points rather than doing something more active. If you could make deathstars like in earlier editions with multiple characters then it could be problematic. Perhaps it doesnt feel right that a character out of LoS can tank for other models but I think that could be a small price to pay if allowed to have character tank shots for squad members in all the other situations.
.

Have you ever engaged a necron brick. Warrior or L.Guard with all the characters, plasma cytes everything taking wounds for something else, then resurecting etc? Because a defenders allocating the wounds would be very bad for any frankestein monster style of units. Iron Priest with 4 servitors attached to a unit of Long Fangs type of situation, and the wound allocation would take "hours".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

And then we are back to rhinl sniping with bullet wider than 1mm flying through 1mm gap to kill lascannon/warlold/whatever opponent wants to kill.

Every rule results in abuse.

At least current one blame goes to owner. Don't be dumb leaving 1guy in open.