Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVIII: toy soldiers r srs bsns

[Avaris]

Thats great, because it was a stupid knee-jerk reaction of a rule, which should've never been in place to begin with. Its a bandaid fix on the bigger underlying issue of poorly defined guidelines for terrain; a hobbyist allowance that has no place in a competitive ruleset. Want to make your own unique and lovely scenery? enjoy getting anomalous rules scenarios; for everyone else who follows these sets of scenery rules (width, length, height, # of floors, whatever) it should prevent stuff like stacking on a narrow ledge.

It really feels like the rules/attitudes haven’t kept up with the change in scenery provision over the last decade or so. GW puts out a lot of good scenery now, but the high price point, extensive range of other producers snd history of people scratch building scenery makes it impossible to stipulate in the rules what scenery should be like in any great detail.

I personally really like the approach in Warcry, where there are scenery cards setting out a battlefield, but that only works for a smaller scale game where you can buy a whole table worth of scenery at once. Would never work for 40k.

[LansXero]

Its a hobbyist allowance, including the hobbyists in the design studio who make terrain without consideration of their rule / game impact.

A comprehensive tournament structure cant leave a key factor like terrain to 'whatever you think looks cool, lol'. If positioning is so important that you need to emergency patch a fix, then instead you should revisit how terrain is handled as a whole. "but I dont have terrain that complys" boohoo, make some. "but muh officiul terroin doesnt comply" tough luck, buy some more. Its not that expensive to make laser-cut or polystirene terrain, and it can look good with some work. And this is a much better alternative to 'let hobbysts hobby' causing wildly differing experiences due to abundance / lack of cover and LoS blockers, and the rules team getting feedback and deploying changes based on those differing experiences.

[Lord Torath]

I'd prefer (for a definition of "prefer" that means "I really don't care because I don't use the current rule set") they introduce a couple other key words in addition to fly: Skimmer and Heavy Skimmer.

Here're some very preliminary definitions:

Skimmers: Jet bikes, Sky boards, Land Speeders, Necron Destroyers, and similar light craft. Usually have a crew of one or two max. These guys can fly up to 12" (about 24 meters irl) off the ground, but generally maintain an altitude of about 1-2" (2-4 m). They can freely fly over anything less than 12 inches high, and can't be engaged in close combat by anything that doesn't have a jump pack or is a skimmer or flier, unless they (the Skimmer) are engaging in close combat with ground troops or are explicitly landing. They can reach the tops of buildings no higher than 12" above surrounding terrain.
Heavy Skimmers: All floating tanks and vehicles that are larger than Skimmers, but are not aircraft: Eldar grav tanks, Necron Monoliths, Primaris Repulsors, and similar vehicles. These units can fly up to 3" over the table top (and reach locations no higher than 3" above the surrounding terrain), and otherwise maintain an altitude of 1" (2 m). Any models that can catch them can fight them in close combat.
Fliers: These would be the vehicles that actually fly, like ork gyrocoptors and fightabombas, Valkyries, Thunderhawks, Storm Ravens, and similar stuff. These can go anywhere, and can only be engaged in close combat when they explicitly land (to drop off or pick up troops, for example).

Perhaps Monstrous units (dreadnoughts/knights, large tyranids, mini-titans like imperial knights, orkanoughts, soul grinders, greater daemons, etc) could also melee skimmers that aren't explicitly meleeing them. Something to look into.

I'm also not up on my necron-dark eldar flying vehicles, so arguments could be made that, say, Raiders should be Skimmers and not Heavy Skimmers.

Edit: Or come up with rules that let you attack structures. Land a couple melta shots at the base of the tower and bring the vehicles perched on top crashing down.

[Avaris]

My approach would be to firstly ditch the true line of sight rules, and then state that every terrain piece is assigned to one of several categories, for example:

Obstacles
Provide benefits of cover to units in base contact with them.

Ruins
Provide benefits of cover to any unit where an imaginary line passes through the ruin.

Building
Blocks line of sight to any unit where an imaginary line passes through the building.


I would then introduce rules for garrisoning, saying that only one unit (+1 character?) can garrison a building/ruin/wood at any one time, all measurements are made to the terrain piece as if it were the unit, and to assault you have to move into contact with the terrain piece. It doesn't matter where on the building a model is placed, you measure to the building. Vehicles cannot garrison. Units garrisoning get bonuses to their defenses. Perhaps say that if a terrain piece is over a certain size it should be split into multiple garrison sites.

[Destro_Yersul]

Maybe a special thing for buildings where you can garrison one unit per floor or something.

[Cheesegear]

A comprehensive tournament structure cant leave a key factor like terrain to 'whatever you think looks cool, lol'.

Kill Team got rid of terrain altogether because of that stupidity.

[Avaris]

Kill Team got rid of terrain altogether because of that stupidity.

Also seen in Underworlds. When designing a game for tournaments terrain is a good thing to either ditch or tightly control!

On which note, rumour has it that GW may be releasing plastic zone mortalis terrain before long, which could be interesting. In my experience, ZM games are very interesting because of all the tight sight lines and restricted movement.

[Cheesegear]

ditch the true line of sight rules

Why? Is 'Can your model see the other model?' too difficult to grasp? The real issue is that 'obscurity' rules are basically non-existent. I can see your model's foot. Eat lasers.

This is hard-reversed in Kill Team, where Obscurity is basically anything you say it is. "You can't see my model's feet, I'm Obscured."

I would then introduce rules for garrisoning, saying that only one unit (+1 character?) can garrison a building/ruin/wood at any one time

No.

The only issue with terrain has always - and has ever been - how models on the ground are supposed to deal with models in high places when ranged attacks aren't enough. Specifically, large models in high places where in order to be in BtB, you have to be able to place your model somewhere that you probably can't. This was made even more problematic when <Fly> got nerfed and 'spot fixers' like Smash Captains could no longer fix spots. Dawneagle Captains often try to do the same thing, but with their larger model/base, they are often un-placeable. There was also a problem with how Objectives player-placed in the top level of Terrain were impossible to get.

The only issue with terrain, has always been verticality. Kill Team got rid of it altogether.

This has been brought to a head by Iron Hands Repulsors. Exceptionally good, exceptionally large models, with <Fly> blocking all access to the top level of terrain, which means that they can't be Charged, and if they're over 7" high, they're unassailable even by Knights (my anecdotal examples involves Fire Prisms on Bastions).

Vertical terrain - that you can place things on top of - is the problem. Not terrain itself. The only reason that the ITC is forced to do something about it now - as opposed to anytime else - is that there is one, specific model that has the very real potential to ruin - no pun intended - the game.

[Grim Portent]

If I recall correctly in 5th edition you could attack models on higher/lower floors of ruins if they were within 2" of the attacking model's head/highest main body part. I really don't get why they changed that, seems like one of the simpler fixes to scenarios like this.

[Cheesegear]

you could attack models on higher/lower floors of ruins if they were within 2" of the attacking model's head/highest main body part.
I really don't get why they changed that

Because modelling for advantage is real.

[Avaris]

Why? Is 'Can your model see the other model?' too difficult to grasp? The real issue is that 'obscurity' rules are basically non-existent. I can see your model's foot. Eat lasers.

This is hard-reversed in Kill Team, where Obscurity is basically anything you say it is. "You can't see my model's feet, I'm Obscured."

True line of sight is a problem because A) it is sometimes difficult to agree if one model can be ‘seen’ by another, particularly as we can’t directly place our eyes next to the model and B) it creates disparity in the effects of scenery. My sector Imperialis scenery with solid walls plays differently to my sector Imperialis scenery with lots of windows, and not in a way that, IMO, adds to the game. The true line of sight rules are why we see L shaped solid walls on standard tournament tables: I’d much rather have those walls be consistent in effect regardless of whether they are solid or not.

Better obscurity rules would be another reasonable approach though. Whichever solution you go with, the point is that the current approach isn’t the best one.

No.

The only issue with terrain has always - and has ever been - how models on the ground are supposed to deal with models in high places when ranged attacks aren't enough. Specifically, large models in high places where in order to be in BtB, you have to be able to place your model somewhere that you probably can't. This was made even more problematic when <Fly> got nerfed and 'spot fixers' like Smash Captains could no longer fix spots. Dawneagle Captains often try to do the same thing, but with their larger model/base, they are often un-placeable. There was also a problem with how Objectives player-placed in the top level of Terrain were impossible to get.

The only issue with terrain, has always been verticality. Kill Team got rid of it altogether.

This has been brought to a head by Iron Hands Repulsors. Exceptionally good, exceptionally large models, with <Fly> blocking all access to the top level of terrain, which means that they can't be Charged, and if they're over 7" high, they're unassailable even by Knights (my anecdotal examples involves Fire Prisms on Bastions).

Vertical terrain - that you can place things on top of - is the problem. Not terrain itself. The only reason that the ITC is forced to do something about it now - as opposed to anytime else - is that there is one, specific model that has the very real potential to ruin - no pun intended - the game.

I personally feel that the best way to deal with the problems of verticality in buildings is to abstract it away, which is why I favour a ‘garrison’ like rule. Place models on buildings where they fit/look good, it shouldn’t matter for the game itself IMO, as that way lies complicated balancing and arguments over how many models are in base contact/able to be reached from the lower floor etc. It’s not that playing it in the current way is particularly difficult, it’s that it makes the individual positioning of a model much more important than it should be in a game about army level forces, and that is complexity in the game that would be better spent elsewhere. This type of play and caring about individual model position has its place, such as in Warcry, but I’m not convinced it adds enough to the game of 40k that it is worth keeping.

In fact, to put my point another way, what is good about the current way that models in buildings work that is worth preserving, and means that it is superior to a ‘garrison’ style approach?

[Squark]

The only issue with terrain has always - and has ever been - how models on the ground are supposed to deal with models in high places when ranged attacks aren't enough. Specifically, large models in high places where in order to be in BtB, you have to be able to place your model somewhere that you probably can't. This was made even more problematic when <Fly> got nerfed and 'spot fixers' like Smash Captains could no longer fix spots. Dawneagle Captains often try to do the same thing, but with their larger model/base, they are often un-placeable. There was also a problem with how Objectives player-placed in the top level of Terrain were impossible to get.

The only issue with terrain, has always been verticality. Kill Team got rid of it altogether.

How so? I'm not saying I've had problems with vertical terrain, but I can still see some of the issues you describe occuring, especially with more large base models in the game post-elites. It would be quite possible to position, say, a crisis suit on the top floor of certain ruins which are only large enough for a single terminator base.

Granted, GW seems to have discontinued that particular ruin kit since I can't find it on the site anymore, but there's still one of them in my local FLGS.

[Cheesegear]

How so? I'm not saying I've had problems with vertical terrain, but I can still see some of the issues you describe occuring, especially with more large base models in the game post-elites. It would be quite possible to position, say, a crisis suit on the top floor of certain ruins which are only large enough for a single terminator base.

Not even that. But the simple placement of multi-level terrain removes entire units from the meta.

Before the <Fly> rule was nerfed re-balanced, it was the only Keyword that really mattered in the entire game. Now? With <Fly> nerfed, you just have people shrugging their shoulders, wondering what to do...To the point where T'au are competitive because trying to Melee anything is for chumps.

Okay, ThunderCav. Very tough, very fast, very killy Melee unit. For the purposes of rolling up and punching your opponent's models in their stupid faces, they're one of the best units around...Until, your opponent puts Hellblasters on the second-level. Your ThunderCav are now effectively removed from the game because they can no longer deal damage. This also applies to Bikes, too. I remember you trying to build a Bike army, being told to replace all Bikes with ThunderCav, and even then, it still wouldn't be very good, because ThunderCav don't Fly, and Vertus Praetors have the same footprint, but do Fly.

[Blackhawk748]

True line of sight is a problem because A) it is sometimes difficult to agree if one model can be ‘seen’ by another, particularly as we can’t directly place our eyes next to the model and B) it creates disparity in the effects of scenery. My sector Imperialis scenery with solid walls plays differently to my sector Imperialis scenery with lots of windows, and not in a way that, IMO, adds to the game. The true line of sight rules are why we see L shaped solid walls on standard tournament tables: I’d much rather have those walls be consistent in effect regardless of whether they are solid or not.

Better obscurity rules would be another reasonable approach though. Whichever solution you go with, the point is that the current approach isn’t the best one.

Get a laser pointer. Its what I do and its been recommended in other games with TLoS. Hell, GW could make and sell their own if they wanted to.

[LansXero]

Get a laser pointer. Its what I do and its been recommended in other games with TLoS. Hell, GW could make and sell their own if they wanted to.

Army painter sells some cool Line pointers which also come in handy every now and then.

As for verticality being a problem, its not in and of itself. Its the availability of narrow, 'cool battle damaged looking' and such impractical surfaces. If there was a min. area / length / width for terrain that you can put stuff on (even if you can balance it, its a 'ledge' so it cant have things on top, screw you) we wouldnt be having this conversation. Then again, you also couldnt (or would need more work to) keep thundercav from running to the base and then charge-distancing their way upwards into the 2nd level, since it should be wide enough that removing all available room would be troublesome, making it so that if you camp there to block all access, you must use enogh models to lose board presence and its a trade off, not an auto-choice.

[Wraith]

Its a hobbyist allowance, including the hobbyists in the design studio who make terrain without consideration of their rule / game impact.

I still maintain that GW should have released their old Necromunda bulkheads as a stand-alone kit.

They're a standardised size and shape, all you need is a bit of scrap cardboard and you can build some pretty impressive stuff.
They're also easy to build, and break down, and to store... Sell a shoe box full of them and print "designs" for different buildings in White Dwarf, or as part of the mission setup rules, it really would solve a lot of problems AND would probably please hobbyists, too.

I have 3 sets worth of them from the late 1990's. I can't tell you enough how convenient and useful they are. Then again, since I have those, I have no intention of buying any other GW scenery, so that probably explains it....

[Cheesegear]

Then again, you also couldnt (or would need more work to) keep thundercav from running to the base and then charge-distancing their way upwards into the 2nd level, since it should be wide enough that removing all available room would be troublesome, making it so that if you camp there to block all access, you must use enogh models to lose board presence and its a trade off, not an auto-choice.

I'm trying to find that image of Mortarion placed horizontally so that 'measure from the base' tags models in the storey of a Ruin.

Like I said, the issue of verticality isn't new, and has been around for quite some time.

[Lord Torath]

Get a laser pointer. Its what I do and its been recommended in other games with TLoS. Hell, GW could make and sell their own if they wanted to.

Another option is to take a model's-eye view pic with a smart phone. Someone at the table will likely have one. Still have the issue of determining what counts as "obscured", though.

[Blackhawk748]

Another option is to take a model's-eye view pic with a smart phone. Someone at the table will likely have one. Still have the issue of determining what counts as "obscured", though.

Didn't the rule used to be 50% or more and it counted? Or was that just vehicles?

[Cheesegear]

It occurs to me that the culprit, is simply, well...GW (and the ITC).

40K's - and more specifically, the ITC's - heavy reliance on Ruins and Buildings to make up pretty much all terrain (partly because Ruins and Buildings are so easy to scratch-build, which means that they can be done on a budget, and fast). If more people used Forests and Craters on their boards, base sizes and <Fly> - and/or the lack thereof - wouldn't be such an issue. However, conversely, without Ruins or Buildings covering every board, LoS-blocking would be very difficult, and without LoS-blockers, the game is almost unplayable.

[Forum Explorer]

It occurs to me that the culprit, is simply, well...GW (and the ITC).

40K's - and more specifically, the ITC's - heavy reliance on Ruins and Buildings to make up pretty much all terrain (partly because Ruins and Buildings are so easy to scratch-build, which means that they can be done on a budget, and fast). If more people used Forests and Craters on their boards, base sizes and <Fly> - and/or the lack thereof - wouldn't be such an issue. However, conversely, without Ruins or Buildings covering every board, LoS-blocking would be very difficult, and without LoS-blockers, the game is almost unplayable.

I was going to say the bigger problem is that Forests and Craters don't really do anything for the game. I mean, it used to block LoS if you shot through more than 3 inches worth of forest and you basically got an invulnerable save from them. Now they only give a +1 to your save, and only for infantry.

I recently played a game where we used nothing but forest terrain and it did literally nothing all game. It had zero impact, and we might as well have been playing on an empty board.

[Avaris]

So, true line of sight CAN be managed by laser pointer/smart phone, but if a rule needs an outside tool to deal with in a fair way you have to decide if that rule is the best one to use. Getting rid of TLoS and replacing with rules that apply specific effects to different terrain types (including things like forests) would make the game rules more consistent and be a good way of adding variety in battlefields.

Ironically I suspect TLoS is used because it is ‘easy’. But better terrain rules feel like something that would add a lot of value!

[bluntpencil]

It occurs to me that the culprit, is simply, well...GW (and the ITC).

40K's - and more specifically, the ITC's - heavy reliance on Ruins and Buildings to make up pretty much all terrain (partly because Ruins and Buildings are so easy to scratch-build, which means that they can be done on a budget, and fast). If more people used Forests and Craters on their boards, base sizes and <Fly> - and/or the lack thereof - wouldn't be such an issue. However, conversely, without Ruins or Buildings covering every board, LoS-blocking would be very difficult, and without LoS-blockers, the game is almost unplayable.

We use large rock formations, mesas and similar, built from foam.

[Saambell]

So, true line of sight CAN be managed by laser pointer/smart phone, but if a rule needs an outside tool to deal with in a fair way you have to decide if that rule is the best one to use.

Might as well get rid of inch based movement cause it requires a measuring tape. Just move to a grid based system. Or just eyeball it.

Just cause GW doesnt sell a tool that would solve all your issues doesnt mean you need to rework the ruleset to avoid the issue. Use your brain, find solutions. Its not hard.

[Avaris]

Might as well get rid of inch based movement cause it requires a measuring tape. Just move to a grid based system. Or just eyeball it.

Just cause GW doesnt sell a tool that would solve all your issues doesnt mean you need to rework the ruleset to avoid the issue. Use your brain, find solutions. Its not hard.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that TLoS should be got rid of because it's 'hard', I'm saying it may not be the best fit for the game. There are solutions, TLoS is a perfectly workable approach, but if the solutions are needed it's worth thinking about if the rule is worth it and the best approach.

Inch based movement? Worth it: a lot of what is interesting about miniatures based wargaming is the flexibility of where you manouvere your models, and you lose some of that with a grid based system. Doing away with distances entirely would be equally unsatisfying.

In the case of True Line of Sight, it MIGHT be worth it, but I'm not convinced that a system which is based on a more abstract approach wouldn't be better. What are the advantages of TLoS to the game? Potentially it could be said to be easier than any other approach, but the impacts on playability of the approach (you need very specific terrain for the terrain to actually matter) and the potential for disagreements (resulting in the need for laser pointers or similar) means that that 'ease' may not be real/worth it.

[houlio]

After mostly moving out of 40k to Malifaux and the like, it always struck me strangely that GW doesn’t just have rules like “if the base if X mm, it has XxYxZ volume”. You basically get to use true line of sight without the ambiguity.

[LCP]

I'm with Avaris. Earlier editions of GW games had formal systems of LoS that were way better for competitive play. I think the move to TLoS was to try to make the games seem more accessible (i.e. not falling back on a lot of rules jargon to establish what can seem like a common-sense question), but in practice it bogs down play and creates a lot of undesirable quibbling, particularly when as a company your model range is trending towards minis with more and more elaborate silhouettes and more and more spindly sticky-outy-bits...

In earlier editions, if my unit is behind a forest, or another unit of the same rules-defined size, you can't see it. Under TLoS the forest is interpreted as literally consisting of 3 trees and does nothing, and if you can squish your face down to the table and claim to be able to see one micrometer of the top of my guy's hat over the heads of the interceding models, you can shoot him. It creates more problems than it solves and it actively reduces the amount of tactics available with positioning and LoS, because hiding models from sight just becomes globally more difficult.

[Avaris]

I'm with Avaris. Earlier editions of GW games had formal systems of LoS that were way better for competitive play. I think the move to TLoS was to try to make the games seem more accessible (i.e. not falling back on a lot of rules jargon to establish what can seem like a common-sense question), but in practice it bogs down play and creates a lot of undesirable quibbling, particularly when as a company your model range is trending towards minis with more and more elaborate silhouettes and more and more spindly sticky-outy-bits...

In earlier editions, if my unit is behind a forest, or another unit of the same rules-defined size, you can't see it. Under TLoS the forest is interpreted as literally consisting of 3 trees and does nothing, and if you can squish your face down to the table and claim to be able to see one micrometer of the top of my guy's hat over the heads of the interceding models, you can shoot him. It creates more problems than it solves and it actively reduces the amount of tactics available with positioning and LoS, because hiding models from sight just becomes globally more difficult.

Feels odd for me to be the one arguing in favour of something that is better for competitive play, but here we are

One of the worst things for any game to have is rules that, when a less experienced player learns how they actually work, feel like cheating. I'd argue that TLoS is one of these. A new player will assume that their models gain a benefit from being behind a wood, or that being mostly obscured is sufficient. So when you tell them that a wood does nothing, or that the spiky bit on their model means it can be shot, they think 'that's cheating'. It's not, it's rules as written, but it creates a feel bad moment.

(a similar 'that's cheating' feel bad moment is that created by being able to position models in a building such that they can't be charged. A new player would assume that they can charge, as their models can reach the building and vertical distance never matters at any other point. Which is why I think some sort of garrison rule would be a good idea)

[Voidhawk]

This isn't a new thing. Am I the only one who remembers how skimmers used to work in previous editions?

Back in the mists of time (3rd or 4th edition I believe), skimmers used to have the "Rise Above" rule: as they could hover up and down at will enemies weren't allowed to charge them, and friendlies could shoot underneath them without blocking LoS. Hence the ol' Fish of Fury: a Devilfish disgorges a Firewarrior squad behind itself, they get to rapid fire to their hearts content, you can't shoot the firewarriors, can't charge the 'fish, and to get to the firewarriors must stay more than 1" away from the fish.

Being able to punch to death something that moves like a helicopter is relatively new.

[Forum Explorer]

This isn't a new thing. Am I the only one who remembers how skimmers used to work in previous editions?

Back in the mists of time (3rd or 4th edition I believe), skimmers used to have the "Rise Above" rule: as they could hover up and down at will enemies weren't allowed to charge them, and friendlies could shoot underneath them without blocking LoS. Hence the ol' Fish of Fury: a Devilfish disgorges a Firewarrior squad behind itself, they get to rapid fire to their hearts content, you can't shoot the firewarriors, can't charge the 'fish, and to get to the firewarriors must stay more than 1" away from the fish.

Being able to punch to death something that moves like a helicopter is relatively new.

You could charge the Devilfish, but Skimmers could only be hit on a 6 in close combat, so it was extremely difficult to actually kill the Devilfish. And then they had some ability that made it really hard to actually kill the Devilfish with shooting. Something like effectively ignoring glancing hits or the like.