PDA

View Full Version : LOS farce



tarrin
10-03-2008, 22:25
Thought you would like this.

The "lighter" side of 5th ed. Chalk a victory for 5th Ed. vs. powergamers.

A guy shows up at the store last night with a new necron army. He is known to be a bit of rules idjit and a total ****.

A full 7/8rds of his men were modeled so they were pulling themselves out of the ground. Playtesting 5th, he then has them all sweetly hid in cover and as the models are only 1/3 the size of a normal one he is loving the LOS rules as no-one can see any of his minis behind an inch high walls on the scenery. One of the models was a head and and arm! He then also decides to lie one down to hide it (pointing out there was no-where in the rules that states the model had to be stood up on its bases (just that it had to be based).

Arguments ensued.

About 40 mins later a canny and witty modeller who is having a laugh about the whole thing, comes up with a sniper which had been modeled with a bush totally around him, with only the slightest tip of the barrel showing (if at all).

Personal camouflage. My man is carrying his own terrain. You cannot see the "mini" so you can't shoot at him. Of course we all realize that the bush is the mini. Well all of us except necron boy.

Arguments ensue again with the necron guy getting redder and redder in the face. Finally he packs up and leaves.

elotsip
10-03-2008, 22:30
Wow, that's just amazing. What is the point of even playing a game if you are just going to do that? I wouldn't even give that dude the time of day, let alone actualy sit down to play a game with him.

cailus
10-03-2008, 22:41
It's not a win for 5th edition over powergamers. It's just show casing some of the problems that will arise if the rumoured LOS rules are true.

It's actually a victory for 4th edition LOS rules.

Malorian
10-03-2008, 22:41
It's things like this that makes me hate the LOS rules. They were on the right track with set sizes for models and terrain that would have fixed everything, but now they have gone back and ruined it...

Blackwolf
10-03-2008, 23:07
I second that.

x-esiv-4c
10-03-2008, 23:10
hmm, these LOS rules do bode new problems with people who wish to exploit it.

Khornies & milk
10-03-2008, 23:19
Gamers that end up modelling their minis like Necron-Guy just won't get to play m(any)games....well sure as hell not around where I play anyway.
They are total a$$e$ who deserve to be turfed out on their ear.
Is it actually a given that this has made it through to the Rulebook, or still unconfirmed?
If it does make it through then it's a backward step, but my Group will just ignore it like some of the other inane ones in the PDF.

John Vaughan
10-03-2008, 23:24
Oh, players like them get their just revenge. Additionally, I think it would only be fair to point out that since the necron was (for example) pulling his gun out of the ground, or pulling himself out of the ground, then he cannot shoot because either he or his weapon is currently underground. Makes sense right? Only to a person like him.

Killgore
10-03-2008, 23:25
its just a prime example of someone being an ****

LOS rules would not be brought into conflict during a game between sensible people

Halfpast_Yellow
10-03-2008, 23:34
This story has no special relation whatsoever to the PDF rules. Walls block LOS in 4th. Walls block LOS in the PDF.

I don't see the point of this post in this forum TBH.

You can model to exploit the rules in 4th edition. You probably will be able to in 5th ed as well. So what, that's no excuse for adopting any ****** total abstraction rules that will affect everyone negatively because of a few ******s that will always exist. Good thing is GW seems to know that.


It's not a win for 5th edition over powergamers. It's just show casing some of the problems that will arise if the rumoured LOS rules are true.

It's actually a victory for 4th edition LOS rules.

Seems you're blinded and living in nonsense land because of 5th ed hate...

Straha
10-03-2008, 23:39
I hope he has fun playing alone with his Necrons. Guys like that ---- what's the point of even trying to play them?

Niibl
10-03-2008, 23:46
I assume that he couldn't shoot either.
Isn't such modelling quite pointless?
The table then belongs to the opponent who, allthough with a dull game, should win.

The Song of Spears
10-03-2008, 23:46
This story has no special relation whatsoever to the PDF rules. Walls block LOS in 4th. Walls block LOS in the PDF.

I don't see the point of this post in this forum TBH.

You can model to exploit the rules in 4th edition. You probably will be able to in 5th ed as well. So what, that's no excuse for adopting any ****** total abstraction rules that will affect everyone negatively because of a few ******s that will always exist. Good thing is GW seems to know that.



Seems you're blinded and living in nonsense land because of 5th ed hate...

I was just about to agree with these guys when you posted this... as it turns out, yes you can use modeling and bases size now, 4th ed, to weasel around certain rules. So i guess there is really no change in that regard..

Khornies & milk
11-03-2008, 00:05
I was just about to agree with these guys when you posted this... as it turns out, yes you can use modeling and bases size now, 4th ed, to weasel around certain rules. So i guess there is really no change in that regard..

The agreement is that most posters to this Thread are saying that Gamers like the Necron player in question is being an A$$ by modelling his minis like that, and that ANY who do like-wise will be lucky to get a game.
My point on 5th Ed LoS is that it will be fresh in people's minds that they can, if they want to, exploit the rules.
imo anyone who models their minis to exploit LoS, whether it be in 4th or 5th are tarred with the same brush.

Klomster
11-03-2008, 00:08
If you convert the models to look cool, like necrons up from the ground can be very cool and proning guards or lying snipers and people in sewers and stuff.

Who cares.

But when you put the model to the side so he isn't visible.... that's beeing an ****.

Battle-Brother Wags
11-03-2008, 00:19
So what, that's no excuse for adopting any ****** total abstraction rules that will affect everyone negatively because of a few ******s that will always exist. Good thing is GW seems to know that.

I am not trying to troll, nor hijack the thread, but I was wondering what aspects of "abstractness" you believe will affect everyone negatively? I personally only see positives, but I would enjoy hearing your perspective.

Occulto
11-03-2008, 00:57
The guy went to all that effort to guarantee people won't want to play him. A stroke of genius! :rolleyes:

Halfpast_Yellow
11-03-2008, 02:35
I am not trying to troll, nor hijack the thread, but I was wondering what aspects of "abstractness" you believe will affect everyone negatively? I personally only see positives, but I would enjoy hearing your perspective.

Well I'm pretty much incorrect when I say 'everyone' because minorities will always exist with an unpopular take on things. I'd just like to believe that the sizeable majority enjoys the fact that 40k is essentially a WYSIWYG game system in regards to terrain and player armies.

Full abstraction removes any semblance of verisimilitude. Might as well play 40k with soda cans and bottletops if it comes to that kind of rule system, you wouldn't be losing anything!

cailus
11-03-2008, 03:25
This story has no special relation whatsoever to the PDF rules. Walls block LOS in 4th. Walls block LOS in the PDF.

I don't see the point of this post in this forum TBH.

You can model to exploit the rules in 4th edition. You probably will be able to in 5th ed as well. So what, that's no excuse for adopting any ****** total abstraction rules that will affect everyone negatively because of a few ******s that will always exist. Good thing is GW seems to know that.



Seems you're blinded and living in nonsense land because of 5th ed hate...


As wierd as it seems you're absolutely right.

I think I've got a little bit too caught up.

Let's face it, if GW do not release a modified upgraded version of 2nd edition I'll never be happy.

shabbadoo
11-03-2008, 03:39
To the OP: LOS works both ways. If the Necrons were only a head sticking out of the ground, the 1" high wall sort of blocks their LOS too. Unfortunately there is no patch for stupid, so it sounds like the Necron player needs to either be browbeaten into submitting to the spirit of the rules or be run out of the shop so non-arses can enjoy what is supposed to be a fun game.

jhon
11-03-2008, 03:50
Thought you would like this.

The "lighter" side of 5th ed. Chalk a victory for 5th Ed. vs. powergamers.

A guy shows up at the store last night with a new necron army. He is known to be a bit of rules idjit and a total ****.

A full 7/8rds of his men were modeled so they were pulling themselves out of the ground. Playtesting 5th, he then has them all sweetly hid in cover and as the models are only 1/3 the size of a normal one he is loving the LOS rules as no-one can see any of his minis behind an inch high walls on the scenery. One of the models was a head and and arm! He then also decides to lie one down to hide it (pointing out there was no-where in the rules that states the model had to be stood up on its bases (just that it had to be based).

Arguments ensued.

About 40 mins later a canny and witty modeller who is having a laugh about the whole thing, comes up with a sniper which had been modeled with a bush totally around him, with only the slightest tip of the barrel showing (if at all).

Personal camouflage. My man is carrying his own terrain. You cannot see the "mini" so you can't shoot at him. Of course we all realize that the bush is the mini. Well all of us except necron boy.

Arguments ensue again with the necron guy getting redder and redder in the face. Finally he packs up and leaves.

so what ! . one of the dude in my club show up with a epic scale nids model army few weeks ago . guess what , every body start to show up epic scale close combat type army .

in 4 ed we use base size system . therefore no matter how small your model are , as long as your base is size 2 you still get shot at even your model is compate bock by a size 1 wall .

Battle-Brother Wags
11-03-2008, 04:06
Well I'm pretty much incorrect when I say 'everyone' because minorities will always exist with an unpopular take on things. I'd just like to believe that the sizeable majority enjoys the fact that 40k is essentially a WYSIWYG game system in regards to terrain and player armies.

Full abstraction removes any semblance of verisimilitude. Might as well play 40k with soda cans and bottletops if it comes to that kind of rule system, you wouldn't be losing anything!

I'm not so much worried about the 'everyone' concept, we all have a tendancy to exagerate in our exasperation. Though I do applaud you on using the word 'verisimilitude,' as it caused me to go to dictionary.com, which I don't usually have to do. And I agree, I think that the more WYSIWYG the game is, the better it is . . . up to a certain point where the "realism" of the game mechanic, WYSIWYG, can in itself become a hindrance. Basically there is a cutoff point between which a rule or mechanic is helpful and harmful. And quite simply, in my thinking concerning WYSIWYG, that point is simply the point where the concept starts causing more trouble than it causes good.

disclaimer: The following is my opinion and belief concerning the matter, but I will still write it in a 'this is fact' type manner because I do, in fact, believe it to be fact. I'm certainly willing to engage others in disputing it, however :-)

Obviously the OP is bringing forth a true (I certainly have no problem believing his story) but rather uncommon set of circumstances. However, it is not hard at all to see other players utilizing similar desires to gain an advantage, though it may not be to quite the same degree. And even more so I am concerned about the people who cannot then model their figures the way they desire to because it would cause problem gameplay-wise. People would be shooting themselves in the foot for basing their characters on any sort of pedestal, rock formation, whathaveyou because it would make it harder to hide the model behind cover when an ordinary model with no conversions whatsoever would have no problem staying hidden from view.

That is just one small example of how true LOS and WYSIWYG in terms of LOS and cover can have a negative impact on players and a certain aspect of the hobby: conversions in modeling. In that way it puts a limitation on the hobbiest who loves to play the game but also enjoys modeling their characters in various poses, etc. I see that kind of restriction to be very bad.

Your argument, which I have heard before, is absolutely true. If you wanted to play the game with proportionately sized rocks or little crystal columns and paper meche boxes for vehicles, you could do so. Why you would want to do that, I'm not sure, and it would probably be difficult to easily represent all the weapons and wargear the figure or vehicle was supposed to be armed with to make it a legal representation on the board. My point is just because its an option, I dont' see why its a negative. Don't like the option? Don't choose the option. At the same time, all the other options are still viable. Want to put your Wolf Lord standing on a bolder so that his feet are already an inch off the table top to make him look more badd-@ss than anyone else on the field of battle? Go ahead, he's still size two (or whatever the rules would classify him as), so there's no problem. You have Crisis Suits on clear bases and you're not sure how having them on shorter or taller pedestals will affect the gameplay? Not a problem because it doesn't matter. Obviously if the situation was real, your crisis suit isn't going to remain hovering about 3 feet off the ground anyway, the model is already just a representation of the 'reality' of the battle in the 'gameworld'. I see the abstract concepts as opening up so many possibilities without restrictions at the same time as clarifying so many issues that some people could try to use to their advantage and others might just honestly be confused or run into situations that are trying because of.

Remember, you only need a small percentage of people to distort ambiguity in rules to ruin the game for a far larger number of gamers.

Also and finally, you are absolutely correct that true LOS IS used in 4ed with anything but area terrain. The thing I'd like to note there is that the REASON so many people have forgotten that is because they use almost exclusively area terrain because they have found that the abstractness of it clears up so many of those problems. Again, I'm not speaking of everyone, but many, if not a great majority.

When it comes down to it, I guess I just dont' understand how a game designer or even a player can say something to the effect of, "Model X is a representation of where that soldier is on the board and what he's doing, running, ducking, firing his weapon, diving behind cover, hacking at enemies with his chainsword, moving from a prone position to standing all in one fluid series of events (though probably not in the sequence I listed them) which of course cannot be designated by a stationary model in one pose. But in terms of the game, he's doing those things throughout the phases and as he takes cover saves and participates in close combat. Yet at the same time, how he is modeled is so important that it affects his basic usefullness in the game. Therefore, according to true LOS rules and everything, if the necron-guy the OP told us about was playing those guys who are less than half an inch tall due to the pose, which sounds awesome by the way (at least for some, it'd be kinda bland if they were ALL that way, IMO), those models wouldn't be able to do much except sit there in cover. They can't be seen over the wall, brush, rubble, etc, and they can't see over it to shoot, either. The only time they could really be effective is if both they and their target were in the open. Now obviously this guy was over the top and trying to do it for his own advantage, but even then he didn't do a very good job. But since I have necrons myself, if I decided that'd it'd look awesome to have one or two warriors in the army dragging themselves up from the ground, I don't want to be penalized for converting them to such poses! The only way not to be limited nor give yourself unfair advantages or disadvantages in modelling is to use an abstract system. And if an abstract system bothers you because someone might possibly have the option and for some reason the inclination to use rocks for models or inch tall wooden dowels, then just refuse to play them. There are already tons of people who refuse to play unpainted or proxied armies anyway.

Halfpast_Yellow
11-03-2008, 05:15
so what ! . one of the dude in my club show up with a epic scale nids model army few weeks ago . guess what , every body start to show up epic scale close combat type army .

in 4 ed we use base size system . therefore no matter how small your model are , as long as your base is size 2 you still get shot at even your model is compate bock by a size 1 wall .

Walls shouldn't have size values..

@ Battle-Brother Wags.

There isn't really anything unacceptable about your viewpoint there. My take on it is simply that it's (hopefully) fairly easy for most people to reach a consensus when someone is pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable converting, and how to interpret issues like the Wolf Lord on the rock maturely. We don't need to, or shouldn't be, trying to build a rules system around dissuading these few low-lives from trying out their exploits, if it leads to in a slightly more stale rules system for the rest of us mature tabletop gamers.

There isn't really a justification why a couple of guys in a squad converted to be kneel/lying down, or even jumping in the air for some purposeful reason, can't be treated by both players as 'this guy standing normally next to him'.
If someone came along with a whole converted squad of Necrons crawling out of the ground, I'd consider it highly unusual, but be willing to play if he had some way to show the 'correct' or playable height for the squad.

That level of abstraction I'm okay with. It's the most common-sense POV for me.

I'm not a fan of giving all the units sizes, and then giving all the terrain pieces (like the walls per above post) sizes. On a flying base or not, a Crisis suit or a wraith is still going to be a different size to a Guardsman. In abstract land they're both the same size. Same with vehicles and MCs, in abstract land a Wraithlord is as tall as a Tomb Spyder, a wall of Ork buggies could block LOS to a Monolith, etc. A huge variance of terrain features is reduced to 'size 1,2,3'. Too much of a dumbing down for me to enjoy.

Simple peer pressure over what is 'acceptable' for a game is the best and most effective way to combat the cheeky gits in my mind..

CbmH2xX
11-03-2008, 05:33
I think I would wait until 5th ED comes out to play it. So you don't have idiots like that Necron player saying you can't see his guys. Rumors are rumors Until I have the 5th ED book in my hands Im playing 4th ED plain and simple.

DSwede
11-03-2008, 17:07
To the OP: LOS works both ways. If the Necrons were only a head sticking out of the ground, the 1" high wall sort of blocks their LOS too. Unfortunately there is no patch for stupid, so it sounds like the Necron player needs to either be browbeaten into submitting to the spirit of the rules or be run out of the shop so non-arses can enjoy what is supposed to be a fun game.

Okay so fair enough, the LOS works both ways. What about my elaborately converted Fallen Dark Angels chaos lord with giant wings. He is not as tall as his wings stick up above his head so he can't shoot over big walls etc but he can be shot at.

This rule is retarded and a step way, way back. For a industry that promotes painting, converting, cool diorama like bases etc. this rule seems to have been created while someone was on crack. I really hope it doesn't make it to 5'th.

Long_Fang
11-03-2008, 17:22
If it does make it to 5th edition, which it very well might. It will rarely matter since you don't have to see every model to kill it. Besides that, I imagine that in the spirit of the rules a necron, space marine, IG Trooper, etc are all a similar size whether modeled smaller or bigger.

Besides that, rules can -always- be manipulated. Don't expect GW to make them bullet proof...I wouldn't want it anyway....just more fun.

burtnernie
11-03-2008, 17:37
This is amusing but brings an argument to the fore that some friends of mine had. I went to the fantasy gt's this and last year, qualifying for the finals both years.

However, I found that alot of people were moaning about foreign contigents coming over and winning each year with beardy armies of doom. I had a look and realised they were right. I asked each of my friends why they were beardy etc etc and they all said "I would never write a list like that cos it's so harsh... " - yet they moan they never win because they don't write lists to win, they write lists that are balanced to try and prove they can beat the power gamers... hmmm

Basically some people want to win so badly that they will do anything in the rules to exploit that, I actually saw someone on table one cheat in the last game, with 2 other people, he turned the wound dice behind his steam tank and it won him the game.... not only that, it won him the heat.

I hope to hell and back that LOS does not ruin 40k in this way, as there are plenty of ***** out there who will spoil any game at the drop of a dime, I have just came back to 40k and love playing it at the moment, please GW don't mess this up...

Colonel Jacka
12-03-2008, 14:02
To the OP: LOS works both ways. If the Necrons were only a head sticking out of the ground, the 1" high wall sort of blocks their LOS too. Unfortunately there is no patch for stupid, so it sounds like the Necron player needs to either be browbeaten into submitting to the spirit of the rules or be run out of the shop so non-arses can enjoy what is supposed to be a fun game.

Shabbaboo,

I spent some time with Jervis Johnson about twelve months back and we discussed this issue. And you are quite right, our Necrud player doesn't understand that one point you made and never will. Sprit of the rules is far outside of his thinking therefore his games will be few and far between. His figures are man-sized and will not spend the whole game beneath ground, they will be above ground or will not be able to shoot. Where I come from he is known as a Spanker.

jhon
13-03-2008, 04:57
Walls shouldn't have size values..

..

yea , unless you wana play against an epic size stealer army and having your land raider's carp rippe out by a hive nids ,which less that a 1inch tall .guess what , ppl in my club start to show up with epic size army in a 40k game . YOU , JOSH , DAN , MAC DEAN :mad: i know you are read this thread . if i see those epic size stealer army on the 40k table again , i m going to pack it bak up in your axx hole and kick you out of the club , store FOREVER .

sushicaddy
13-03-2008, 07:32
There was a guy who played Necromunda at my old store, back in the day, who had an entire Ratskin army that was of the one ratskin who was modeled as hunched over, so that less of his models were visible over walls, and he got a bigger cover save.

Isha
13-03-2008, 10:28
LOL!!! Man, that boy is my new idol! :)

Grey Seer Skretch
13-03-2008, 10:56
The agreement is that most posters to this Thread are saying that Gamers like the Necron player in question is being an A$$ by modelling his minis like that, and that ANY who do like-wise will be lucky to get a game.
My point on 5th Ed LoS is that it will be fresh in people's minds that they can, if they want to, exploit the rules.
imo anyone who models their minis to exploit LoS, whether it be in 4th or 5th are tarred with the same brush.

But why the hell would they!? I ask because I'm genuinely appalled and confused! Why spend actual money and buy nicely sculpted models only to lop nine tenths of the model off and chuck it in the bin, only to have the repeatedly depressing experience of being laughed at by their opponent in the first shooting phase and then watching said opponent pack up their army and go find someone to play who isn't an utter loser? And who, with any prior knowledge of someone being this utterly stupid, would actually play them?! Yeah, ok, so perhaps by the strict letter of the rules this is a 'valid' (ha ha) tactic, and perhaps we are going to see a small minority of complete retards modelling all their minis lying down, hiding under a rock, tripping over a log, curled into a sobbing ball or whatever, but theres a simple answer to this...don't play them! When games designers put together sets of rules on this kind of thing, they do with a certain level of respect for the gamers they are designing for. They assume that these people, being intelligent enough to understand complex sets of rules and be into an intellectually stimulating, imaginative hobby, will have at least a measure of common sense, and to some degree a sense of fair play. Should they drop this assumption in the light of this kind of player and their idiocy? No. Instead, people like this should be kindly taken to one side and have concepts such as 'fun', 'far play', 'spirit of the game' and 'not desperately winning games at all costs just to prop up their sadly flagging egos' explained to them... anyone who is incapable of displaying some basic common sense with a rule like this not only leaves me cold and is not someone I would enjoy playing against, they also genuinely confuse me as to their motivation when playing the game...

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-03-2008, 10:59
I've modeled my Raptors to be about a half-inch off the ground. Their wings are usually above their heads. I'm in the same straits- this kind of LOS crap will kill me (or my Raptors, however you look at it).


*snip*

Probably should not post inflammatory content like that.

Grey Seer Skretch
13-03-2008, 11:02
yea , unless you wana play against an epic size stealer army and having your land raider's carp rippe out by a hive nids ,which less that a 1inch tall .guess what , ppl in my club start to show up with epic size army in a 40k game . YOU , JOSH , DAN , MAC DEAN :mad: i know you are read this thread . if i see those epic size stealer army on the 40k table again , i m going to pack it bak up in your axx hole and kick you out of the club , store FOREVER .

Those are models from a different game system, and therefore would not be legal to use in 40k. I'm pretty sure theres some guidelines somewhere as to what kind of size models should be. If not, I think perhaps common sense might intervene. Not to mention that anyone who actually tries this should probably be euthanised...

Squallish
13-03-2008, 11:24
There are huge problems with allowing True LoS to be the standard. Yes.. you can run a cheeky git out of the store and never play him in a friendly.. But in a tournament, where he is a paying member of the game and cites the rules, which cannot be debunked by an organizer since they're in the rulebook, you will run into arguments with said gits.

Abstraction of sizes does nothing wrong.. doesn't "simplify" the game. It just standardizes models to terrain and prevents arguments.

If all games were friendlies.. then by all means bring in true LoS.. but in a tournament game, rules need to be clear precise and not abusable at the level true LoS has the potential to be.

You want Crisis suits to be bigger than guardsmen? What's stopping them from adding new size values (say 1-5) with a one-page listing of what current units are what size.

Example:
1 - Rippers
2 - Gaunts, Gargoyles, Genstealers
3 - Warriors, Raveners
4 - Zoanthropes
5 - Fexes, Tyrants

You get that 4+ cover from any unit -2 sizes or bigger if its in front of you (Fex gets the save from a Warrior, but not a Gaunt by this example).

Saves arguments. Saves tournaments.

Sureshot05
13-03-2008, 11:30
Given the rules haven't been released and I suspect there might well be a section on spirit of the game, then I think that tournament organisers won't have the slightest bit of trouble with this thing.

But as many have said, it up to players to police themselves, not GW.

Crazy_Irish
13-03-2008, 11:35
I've modeled my Raptors to be about a half-inch off the ground. Their wings are usually above their heads. I'm in the same straits- this kind of LOS crap will kill me (or my Raptors, however you look at it).


You don't have to worry, wings, banners Antenna or other nice conventions don't count for LOS. Its just die Legs, the arms, the head and the torso that counts for LOS.

Looking forward of seeing crawling khorn berzerkers.....:rolleyes:

In fact, i would like to see Squallish idea in the 5th ed.

Unicorn
13-03-2008, 12:10
If a player models his shooting units like the necron player did, then with the proposed new rules he would have a trouble with shooting. But what about all the close combat units out there. Like the crawling berzerkers, sneaking genestealers, and my favorite, the deamonprince that is erupting from the ground. Close combat units that are moddeled to take advanteged of the rules is IMO the biggest problem, not the shooting units.

tsutek
13-03-2008, 12:10
I don't get this thread - It clearly reads in the 4th ed rulebook that "players should not be penalized for making dramatic poses to the models". I fail to see what would have made the rulebook authors to change their minds on this one as it seems highly obvious to me.

There is no place for "true LOS" in 40k or in any warhammery GW game - an IGOUGO game system can't work that way and still claim being playable IMO.

If we were to go true-LOS, hell, why not bring back firing arcs and facing while we are at it... and sell our apoc forces and stop playing big games altogether. It's like they really have difficulity in choosing to go for 2nd ed or for 3rd ed, can't have skirmishy rules for games that have 50+ minis per side and still expect it to work..

Amnar
13-03-2008, 20:44
Isn't that what sticks are for? To discourage that kind of behaviour?

Halfpast_Yellow
13-03-2008, 21:46
There are huge problems with allowing True LoS to be the standard.




There is no place for "true LOS" in 40k or in any warhammery GW game - an IGOUGO game system can't work that way and still claim being playable IMO.






My god.

/facepalm.

TRUE LOS ALREADY EXISTS AS THE STANDARD IN 40K.

if you don't like it why are you playing the game aaarrrgghhhhh words fail.

@##%#!@&(^!$!!$!!!!!

tarrin
13-03-2008, 22:20
as the OP i should point out that:

A: The guy i was talking about was using these units to secure objectives (with WBB and number sand no LOS). It proved very hard to shift any of his squad (unlike my FW's who were been pounded on the next table by plasama dev squads, but thast a different story).

B: the guy is a known ****, but is a regular tourney player so we do indeed, have to play him :(

C: For true LOS we have been using laser pointers to mark out, however GW frown upon them immensely.

D: I agree Yellow. ******s do exist. This guy is one of them. Having traveled and played all over the world i can attest to this.

E: LOS does work both ways, but if you can dodge even one round of shooting on teh precious scoring troop units (especially if they are soft like FW's or guard) then your modelling has done its job.


Interestingly the general view of 5th from the PDF's in my stores is that GW have gone to far in sorting the problems with 4th. I woudl say 70% good changes/15% indifferent/15% bad changes.

It will be interesting to see what becomes dominant in 5th, but i expect we will see a lot of kneeling troops, hunched wraithlords and seraphim/raptors on the ground.

In my opinion the size thing worked and as someone pointed out it simply could have been extended from 1-5.

DoctorTom
13-03-2008, 23:06
Thought you would like this.

The "lighter" side of 5th ed. Chalk a victory for 5th Ed. vs. powergamers.

A guy shows up at the store last night with a new necron army. He is known to be a bit of rules idjit and a total ****.

A full 7/8rds of his men were modeled so they were pulling themselves out of the ground. Playtesting 5th, he then has them all sweetly hid in cover and as the models are only 1/3 the size of a normal one he is loving the LOS rules as no-one can see any of his minis behind an inch high walls on the scenery. One of the models was a head and and arm! He then also decides to lie one down to hide it (pointing out there was no-where in the rules that states the model had to be stood up on its bases (just that it had to be based).

Arguments ensued.

About 40 mins later a canny and witty modeller who is having a laugh about the whole thing, comes up with a sniper which had been modeled with a bush totally around him, with only the slightest tip of the barrel showing (if at all).

Personal camouflage. My man is carrying his own terrain. You cannot see the "mini" so you can't shoot at him. Of course we all realize that the bush is the mini. Well all of us except necron boy.

Arguments ensue again with the necron guy getting redder and redder in the face. Finally he packs up and leaves.

So, since most of his Necrons were modelled to be pulling themselves out of the ground, wouldn't that mean that because of the way he modelled them they's always be in difficult terrain as they're always pulling themselves out of the ground? ;)

Halfpast_Yellow
13-03-2008, 23:24
It will be interesting to see what becomes dominant in 5th, but i expect we will see a lot of kneeling troops, hunched wraithlords and seraphim/raptors on the ground.



Sigh. The only rumored LOS change is that silly bits of Area Terrain aren't going to block LOS. Ok? Ok.

Do we see a lot of kneeling troops, hunched wraithlords and seraphim/raptors on the ground now?

I don't see any logical reason whatsoever for the arrival of 5th edition to somehow wake people up and make them think hey you know what, I realise all of a sudden I can be an ******* and use modeling to exploit the rules!!1!

It's an absolute non sequitur.

The Song of Spears
13-03-2008, 23:30
Sigh. The only rumored LOS change is that silly bits of Area Terrain aren't going to block LOS. Ok? Ok.


Actually i think there is a major change, that allied and enemy troops will block LOS to some degree, or provide some kinda of odd cover save. Which will affect deployment and in game move-shoot units.

If I read it correctly, i really hope they ditch this part, as i dont really see troops being in the way so literally.

jhon
14-03-2008, 04:21
Those are models from a different game system, and therefore would not be legal to use in 40k. I'm pretty sure theres some guidelines somewhere as to what kind of size models should be. If not, I think perhaps common sense might intervene. Not to mention that anyone who actually tries this should probably be euthanised...

at first , ppl are only using epic stealer for the ripper swarm , eipc titan for dread which is not a big deal . but since the rumour rule comes out ppl starting to do carzy things .

Imperialis_Dominatus
14-03-2008, 04:37
You don't have to worry, wings, banners Antenna or other nice conventions don't count for LOS. Its just die Legs, the arms, the head and the torso that counts for LOS.

Looking forward of seeing crawling khorn berzerkers.....:rolleyes:

In fact, i would like to see Squallish idea in the 5th ed.

Alright, but my models are still stuck on flying bases higher above the ground, making them easier to spot under true LOS.


I don't get this thread - It clearly reads in the 4th ed rulebook that "players should not be penalized for making dramatic poses to the models". I fail to see what would have made the rulebook authors to change their minds on this one as it seems highly obvious to me.

But the rulebook also states, almost in the same breath, that LOS is drawn to the body of the model. If they were really going for abstracted LOS they'd have said to the base.


Isn't that what sticks are for? To discourage that kind of behaviour?

Preferably.


My god.

/facepalm.

TRUE LOS ALREADY EXISTS AS THE STANDARD IN 40K.

if you don't like it why are you playing the game aaarrrgghhhhh words fail.

@##%#!@&(^!$!!$!!!!!

Calm down. At least in 4th GW was trying to go in the right direction (standard sizes and such). Some of these new 5th rumors suggest a step backwards, that's all.

jhon
14-03-2008, 04:40
Example:
1 - Rippers
2 - Gaunts, Gargoyles, Genstealers
3 - Warriors, Raveners
4 - Zoanthropes
5 - Fexes, Tyrants

You get that 4+ cover from any unit -2 sizes or bigger if its in front of you (Fex gets the save from a Warrior, but not a Gaunt by this example).

Saves arguments. Saves tournaments.

support !!! you have my vote borther squallish . but i think it sould have 6 level for model . and 4 level for terrian pics.

gobbo , swarm etc . size 1
IG , FW ,marine, stealer etc. size 2
jet troops. size 3
termie, bike,jet bike , crisis suit , warrior , waith guard etc. size 4
all type of monstours , tanks with armour 34 total or less. size 5
tanks with armour 35 or more , gaint monstours [ forge world greater deamon etc ..] . size 6 . special rule mobie forterss : - 1 ld to all foe that can draw los with the size 6 model ..

level 1 - hill[behind] ; things that is half inch above the table lavel . 6+ ive save to size 4 model
level 3- ruin , low bush , swamp , swallow river bad , etc .5+ ive save to size 4 model . 6 + to size 5,6 model
level 4- full size building , high wall , jungle , wood land , stone piller etc ...3+ ive save to size 4 model . 4 + to to size 5,6 model [ note ; only size 5,6 model can see and be see in or behind[with in 4 inch ] level 4 terrian ]
level 6- bunker , mountian , high dinse tarrian . 3+ ive save to size 4 model . 4+ to size 5,6 model [only size 6 model can see or be see in or behind[ with in 4inch] the tarrian ]

Codsticker
14-03-2008, 05:13
Finally he packs up and leaves.

Great success!

High Five....

Halfpast_Yellow
14-03-2008, 06:20
Calm down. At least in 4th GW was trying to go in the right direction (standard sizes and such). Some of these new 5th rumors suggest a step backwards, that's all.

There can't be a step backwards when there is no stepping anywhere in the rumours. No increase in reference to 'standard sizes', no decrease in reference to 'standard sizes'.

I am quitting this thread, it's too exasperating.

Squallish
14-03-2008, 08:47
TRUE LOS ALREADY EXISTS AS THE STANDARD IN 40K.

It is applied to WYSIWYG terrain. Area Terrain at my store and every tournament I've been to (3 cities - 1.5 hours apart) is 95% of the terrain.

Size categories were a step in the right direction. Making area terrain WYSIWYG (which is what the new pdf proposes) is a huge step backwards to streamlining the game and preventing arguments in tourney settings.

I have personally used WYSIWYG LoS in 2 instances in the last 1.5 years because no one uses it here.

DSwede
14-03-2008, 16:48
It is applied to WYSIWYG terrain. Area Terrain at my store and every tournament I've been to (3 cities - 1.5 hours apart) is 95% of the terrain.

Size categories were a step in the right direction. Making area terrain WYSIWYG (which is what the new pdf proposes) is a huge step backwards to streamlining the game and preventing arguments in tourney settings.

I have personally used WYSIWYG LoS in 2 instances in the last 1.5 years because no one uses it here.

Exactly. It is a big step backwards and I can't believe it's even being considered.

peasea
14-03-2008, 17:07
Exactly. It is a big step backwards and I can't believe it's even being considered.

Agreed, with any luck someone at GW will read this thread and see what greif such a rule would have.......

P.

Rombo Baak
14-03-2008, 17:46
He is not as tall as his wings stick up above his head so he can't shoot over big walls etc but he can be shot at.



With CURRENT rules if the miniature's torso is not in LOS he can't be shot, why don't players actually read the rules before playing?

Halfpast_Yellow
14-03-2008, 20:50
It is applied to WYSIWYG terrain. Area Terrain at my store and every tournament I've been to (3 cities - 1.5 hours apart) is 95% of the terrain.

Size categories were a step in the right direction. Making area terrain WYSIWYG (which is what the new pdf proposes) is a huge step backwards to streamlining the game and preventing arguments in tourney settings.

I have personally used WYSIWYG LoS in 2 instances in the last 1.5 years because no one uses it here.

Okay I can't let rampant stupidity run riot. Behold the astounding power of correct reading comprehension.

You are wrong. Area Terrain is not 'WYSIWYG' in the PDF. By DEFINITION Area Terrain is not WYSIWYG Terrain. If Area Terrain still exists in the PDF, which it does, then non WYSIWYG Terrain still exists in the PDF - which it does.

Size categories - currently these only matter when area terrain and close combat is involved. And of course size 3 stuff becomes WYSIWYG for LOS purposes.

Besides size categories being a stupid idea, they only matter if Area terrain blocks LOS, as per 4th ed. If it doesn't block LOS, then size categories won't matter. And so if the rules for CC, MCs, and vehicles blocking LOS can be expressed better in other words, the size concept is chucked out.

Size categories in 4th ed, when Area Terrain blocks LOS are stupid why? Well one only has to play a game with a few size 2 or 3 forrests, some Necron Warriors, Tomb Spyders, and a Monolith to see how dumb and unintuitive it is.

As for your crazy game experiences, lets go through the cover chart in the PDF and what it represents. This is exactly the same for 4th ed.

High grass/crops - Area Terrain
Bushes - Either, depending.
Hedges/Fences/Railings - WYSIWYG

Logs/Pipes - WYSIWYG
Crates/Barrels - WYSIWYG
Hill crests - WYSIWYG
Woods/Jungles - Area Terrain
Wreckage/Craters - WYSIWYG
Rubble/Rocks - Area Terrain
Ruins/Walls - Area Terrain (Walls on their own are WYSIWYG though)
Buildings - WYSIWYG
Trenches/Gun pits/Tank Traps - WYSIWYG
Emplacements/Sangbags - WYSIWYG
Wrecks - WYSIWYG
Other models (Wraithlords, Tanks etc) - WYSIWYG

Bunkers - WYSIWYG
Fortified buildings - Either.

11 WYSIWYG, 6 Area Terrain.

So if you've used true LOS just twice in your games, you're either playing on some of the worst designed tables ever, with no MCs or vehicles in your armies - or willfully ignoring/house ruling the rules, in which case you can keep on doing the same in 5th ed no matter what the rulebook eventually says.




Exactly. It is a big step backwards and I can't believe it's even being considered.


Agreed, with any luck someone at GW will read this thread and see what greif such a rule would have.......

P.

Get out. :mad:

DSwede
14-03-2008, 21:13
No this is the correct list.

What terrain you decide as Area Terrain = Area Terrain
What terrain you don't decided as Area Terrain = WYSIWYG

And from what I've heard about the considered 5th edition area terrain doesn't exist. You're supposed to check LOS even through things like a forest etc. Now if that's not the case, then I guess nothing changed at all?

Halfpast_Yellow
14-03-2008, 21:35
You heard your rumours wrong.

Also it's fairly intuitive what Area Terrain is and is not. Read your rulebook.


For most terrain features, what you see is what you get.

Only things like forrests, marshes, rubble need liberties to be taken and are thus Area Terrain.

A wall is not and cannot be Area Terrain. Models aren't area terrain. Hills, intact buildings, craters, fences are specifically mentioned to be WYSIWYG terrain. If it has a clearly defined outline/borders, it is WYSIWYG terrain.

Mandragola
15-03-2008, 00:26
The change in area terrain is that it doesn't always block LOS.

Modelling a model standing up or crawling doesn't make a difference here. Currently a model in any position would be out of LOS, but in 5th it will be in LOS. Currently a crawling model behind a wysiwyg wall would be out of LOS, and the same is the case in 5th. Nothing has changed to make it more effective to have models lying on the ground.

What has changed is that some models now block LOS (or maybe give a cover save according to more recent rumour). I can't really see how this would benefit you laying your models down, since it would then mean that the guys behind it weren't hidden, or didn't get a cover save.

In any case no change in the rules is going to change one thing: There will always be idiots and people trying to find loopholes in the rules. Just don't play them if you can possibly avoid it.

jhon
15-03-2008, 05:07
Agreed, with any luck someone at GW will read this thread and see what greif such a rule would have.......

P.

if , by any luck some of the GW dude read this thread , i would like to ugue them to stop the ture los rule to set foot in the 5th ed . stop this madess ..cos their were more and more ppl using cawling and epic model in my club and finally i had to band ppl using the rumour 5ed rule in my club area . and i curse whoever brought up the cawling and epic idea ...

Halfpast_Yellow
15-03-2008, 07:11
The change in area terrain is that it doesn't always block LOS.

Modelling a model standing up or crawling doesn't make a difference here. Currently a model in any position would be out of LOS, but in 5th it will be in LOS. Currently a crawling model behind a wysiwyg wall would be out of LOS, and the same is the case in 5th. Nothing has changed to make it more effective to have models lying on the ground.

What has changed is that some models now block LOS (or maybe give a cover save according to more recent rumour). I can't really see how this would benefit you laying your models down, since it would then mean that the guys behind it weren't hidden, or didn't get a cover save.

In any case no change in the rules is going to change one thing: There will always be idiots and people trying to find loopholes in the rules. Just don't play them if you can possibly avoid it.

Thank you, well said.

Crube
15-03-2008, 15:35
Can you all please be more aware of what you post. I have had to go through this thread and edit or delete quite a few inappropriate comments.

Should this not change, I will be closing the thread.

Crube

The Warseer Inquisition

Azzy
15-03-2008, 18:15
Besides size categories being a stupid idea,

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s stupid.


they only matter if Area terrain blocks LOS, as per 4th ed. If it doesn't block LOS, then size categories won't matter. And so if the rules for CC, MCs, and vehicles blocking LOS can be expressed better in other words, the size concept is chucked out.

With the change from the PDF that units no longer block LOS, you are correct that size categories are no longer strictly necessary. However, they would still be welcome if implemented properly (clearly defined and applied to all units and terrain features).


Size categories in 4th ed, when Area Terrain blocks LOS are stupid why? Well one only has to play a game with a few size 2 or 3 forrests, some Necron Warriors, Tomb Spyders, and a Monolith to see how dumb and unintuitive it is.

I love when other people say what is intuitive or not like it's categorically some sort of fact. Especially when they imply that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow less intelligent or what not. You’re not going to win and arguments (or respect) like that.

If applied to all units and terrain, size categories would be a stunningly good addition to the game and would help speed up play. Even when units or terrain do not block LOS, size categories would allow for instant recognition for when the firer can ignore intervening terrain or units that would provide cover to the target (say, a Size 2 unit on a Size 2 hill firing over a Size 3 piece of area terrain at Size 2 unit). And that on top of the obvious benefits for dealing with terrain that does block LOS.

If size categories were correctly implemented, there would be no need for bending over and trying to get a “model’s-eye view” or for using laser pointers, or what ever. It would be simply a matter of knowing what size categories the involved units and terrain are.

Cruor
15-03-2008, 18:27
If I would play against this guy I would model all my devestators on 1 feet high stelts ^____^ or something...

Squallish
15-03-2008, 21:02
Modelling a model standing up or crawling doesn't make a difference here. Currently a model in any position would be out of LOS, but in 5th it will be in LOS. Currently a crawling model behind a wysiwyg wall would be out of LOS, and the same is the case in 5th. Nothing has changed to make it more effective to have models lying on the ground.

I'm sorry I guess you must not have many short walls in your terrain. Short models WILL have a DEFENSIVE edge on some terrain just based on the way they are modeled which is why it's a huge issue.


1.5" wall at the edge of a ruin = area terrain
ducking model = behind said wall completely out of LoS = no shooting
standing model = part of the body is above the wall = shooting

This is why there's an issue. Some units WANT to not be shot at because they don't shoot or don't shoot well. All nids, and Assault Troops fit into this category. By modeling them really short it decreases the chances they will be shot with True LoS and WYSIWYG. I don't understand how this isn't seen as a problem?

Mandragola
15-03-2008, 22:05
It is a problem, it just isn't a new problem apart from in the case you have.

If you build ruins with a 1/2" high wall around the edge, then small models will be able to hide and idiots who want to exploit the terrain will be able to.

Solution is as follows:

- Don't make terrain like that. I've never seen anything like it myself I must say.

- Don't play idiots.

linvus232
15-03-2008, 22:23
This is why there's an issue. Some units WANT to not be shot at because they don't shoot or don't shoot well. All nids, and Assault Troops fit into this category. By modeling them really short it decreases the chances they will be shot with True LoS and WYSIWYG. I don't understand how this isn't seen as a problem?

This is true, and this is also the case at the moment. It would be a problem if everyone was like the person referred to by the OP- that is, out to win at the expense of having fun. I mean, when was the last time you saw a prone Khorne Berzerker? Yet you could always do it. Exploits have always been, and will always be, a part of any game which has a ruleset that can't be completely covered on a couple of sides of A4.


I'm unsure as to what the new rules are going to be with regard to Line of Sight, but I am in favour of size categories as, in my opinion, they speed up games and prevent arguments later on. This sort of abstraction also takes into account models moving between/taking advantage of sources of cover in the best way possible.


What ordinary gamers need to do is not let those with no respect for others (which is what it boils down to, really) get in the way of their games. Certainly if I was a tournament ref and someone was trying to pull this sort of thing on someone else, I'd always rule in favour of the guy who was going with the spirit of the game. Anything else would just seem...wrong, somehow.

tarrin
16-03-2008, 01:05
1.5" wall at the edge of a ruin = area terrain
ducking model = behind said wall completely out of LoS = no shooting
standing model = part of the body is above the wall = shooting

This is why there's an issue. Some units WANT to not be shot at because they don't shoot or don't shoot well. All nids, and Assault Troops fit into this category. By modeling them really short it decreases the chances they will be shot with True LoS and WYSIWYG. I don't understand how this isn't seen as a problem?

This is exactly what happened in the OP game. He didn't want his crons to be shot at as they were scoring for him. We have a lots of small ruins and tank traps that are like this.

Simply by making true LOS part of the game this will happen, more and more. I have witnessed this first hand, and that was the point of my original post.

Its ok when you are playing friendlies with yoru mates, but in tournies you cannot dodge these guys and you cannot say i'm not playing with this scenery.

Certainly if I was a tournament ref and someone was trying to pull this sort of thing on someone else, I'd always rule in favour of the guy who was going with the spirit of the game.

Sadly though the spirit of the game is no defence against the cold hard written rules. The player would be right as his model cannot be seen.

Squallish
16-03-2008, 05:59
It is a problem, it just isn't a new problem apart from in the case you have.

If you build ruins with a 1/2" high wall around the edge, then small models will be able to hide and idiots who want to exploit the terrain will be able to.

Solution is as follows:

- Don't make terrain like that. I've never seen anything like it myself I must say.

- Don't play idiots.

Yes it is a new problem, because you can't shoot *through* area terrain in the current edition.. the rest of the piece would be Size 2 (sorry if this wasn't implied) and thus you couldn't shoot through it at either model.

Rebuilding an entire store's terrain is not the solution to allowing an abusable loophole into the rules. Removing the loophole is. I don't play idiots.. but I don't want idiots to have legs to stand on.

Colonel Jacka
16-03-2008, 07:18
I think we are missing the point here. Terrain is terrain, walls don't move with figures. Any game where I have played against players with well based figures I am yet to here them say that the piece of wall that is on their base is cover. Lets apply the common sense rule here and not blow the changes to LoS rules up to becoming a problem that may not exist.

Halfpast_Yellow
16-03-2008, 09:22
Yes it is a new problem, because you can't shoot *through* area terrain in the current edition.. the rest of the piece would be Size 2 (sorry if this wasn't implied) and thus you couldn't shoot through it at either model.

Rebuilding an entire store's terrain is not the solution to allowing an abusable loophole into the rules. Removing the loophole is. I don't play idiots.. but I don't want idiots to have legs to stand on.

It is not a new problem as has been explained by quite a few posts in this thread.

GW is not going to cut off the nose to spite the face, which is what some of you are proposing they do.

Therefore modelling exploits will continue to exist. Luckily there aren't many people out there who are silly enough to waste $$$ on models, proceed to ruin them, only to have people laugh in their face and find someone else to play.

Huw_Dawson
16-03-2008, 09:53
The only time this would become an issue would be if somebody turned their models on their side...

Otherwise, if anybody tries this - and the LOS rules in the PDF are 100% correct, and thats less likely than Nader becoming US President - the best solution is to grab your new 5e hardback and beat him over the head with it.

Maybe thats why GW wants everyone to have a hard back rule book. Defensive weaponry versus idiots.

- Huw

RFT
16-03-2008, 11:37
Maybe thats why GW wants everyone to have a hard back rule book. Defensive weaponry versus idiots.

- Huw

In 4th ed, you can use the hardback as a defensive weapon, but in 5th, only the softback summary can be used as one...;)

tarrin
16-03-2008, 11:39
what?!!!? another downgrade? I bet any money they will release a special MEQ version of the rules which will be ironbound, as it seems to be the way of the things :D

rev
16-03-2008, 11:42
I assume that he couldn't shoot either.


QFT

whats the problem? If he can't shoot you - walk up to him without danger the nobble him in assault.

Squallish
16-03-2008, 20:29
And if your army is scared of assault and his isn't?

Halfpast_Yellow
16-03-2008, 21:07
At the risk of being repetitive, don't play him?

tarrin
16-03-2008, 22:04
but if you are playing in a tourney you have to. the guy is a regular on the circuit here. Nobody gives him the time of day normally....

its ******s like this. The last thing you want is to pay X amount of money to face cockwands

Halfpast_Yellow
16-03-2008, 22:59
- Make a complaint to the tournament organiser(s). Gather a petition of likeminded players if you must.
- Give him zeros for soft scores.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 00:24
Hello

Today, I have talked with two of my friends.
We like to search exploits in the games, because it's interesting to be prepared against them.

Relatively to the LoS, I have some comments:
* You don't need to ruin models to get advantage: a space marine is taller than a crouched scout, so the marine can shoot above him...but you can't shoot the marine.
* Same with Tau crisis, next to kroots.

And not only this...if I model a marine over a rock, he is taller.
Yes, this is easily solved, but the two previous situations...

Well, I can use blast weapons...but I want to use blast weapons because they are good, usefull or I like them.

Not because is the only way to past over a exploit.


EDIT:
And another thing: you can be the ref of a tourney, or whatever you want.
But if the rules say something, you can rule against them...I supposse.
And give a player zero points, in "sportmanship" or "fair play", doesn't change the fact the he wins you, with the rules.

BigBossOgryn
17-03-2008, 00:49
Having read a version of the PDF (not sure how many versions there are now) that stated LOS IS blocked by ALL units then isn't this a good thing? I think that this will make small specialist squads useable again as opposed to being left out of most builds because they can get shot through their 30 mates (!?) I don't believe that this change will affect most armies anyway as most people dont setup Konga lines of units to protect the back most ones anymore surely?

As for the modelling figures to take advantage of low terrain; it seems a tad silly to be honest. I speak from experience when I say that people that do that DO NOT get away with it at tournaments as the judges and/or refs will always rule in favour of the person who is not violating the spirit of the game, at least in my experience anyway.

Seriously, complaining about it online and getting irrate is not the solution. Talking to someone you feel is being silly with their modelling to take advantage of certain rules is the best solution. Saying to them that you feel it is unfair and against the spirit of the game should be enough and if they refuse to change their approach, then politely decline any further games with said individual. As i've said already, in tournament, rulings will always go against people that do these things and if it doesn't, you take it up with a head judge calmly, works wonders that does.

Peace.

Morticon
17-03-2008, 01:24
Wow.

I cant stand people like this. Takin' all of the fun...outta da game.

Seriously though, there are a few things you can do to combat this.

One thing is to make a house rule that you cant model units/models in such a way to grant unintended benefits. ala: http://www.adepticon.org/files/INAT_FAQ.pdf top of page three.

I have to note, that Ive been to tournaments across the world (and will be flying to the States soon for another tournie). I NEVER (touch wood) encounter people like this, because at a proper tourney it just would not fly.

As far as im concerned, if the players are hamstrung to do anything, its up to the tournament organisers to ensure this sort of behaviour is not tolerated.

How old is this guy btw? 9?

tarrin
17-03-2008, 02:53
23 i think.

its a shame as the boy can paint

Blueshift
17-03-2008, 05:25
Have some people sign a petition stating that 2 inches of height be added to all of his models for determining line of sight... that would be the proper GW bureaucratic method. :D

Since my lists are insanely balanced and i would never leave home without some CC tau units (for example), i wouldn't worry about this guy.

we know superbroken units take it directly in the ass from any well-thought out army list that has had experience in different theaters of battle. we're also big believers in theory and math hammer being posters on warseer. when people cheese out and take short-cuts, they lose out on the skill it takes to run a seriously over-costed or dated army. taking the superbroken or short-cut makes any player lazy and sloppy.

in order to challenge myself on a frequent basis, i will seek out rules-lawyering douche bags at my local store and whenever a rules issue arises, i force a die roll immediately. usually i hope i lose the die roll and try to adapt to the new change in game dynamic.

the best way to handle the general behavior gigantic **** sandwiches like him IMHO is to totally play yourself down and act as if you totally don't care about the game, take your time and move extremely slow.
play the game as if you were a sloth. :D

that is... if you want to put that much effort into it. ;)

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 09:04
Hello again.

Well, I want to think that the question about age isn't about me.
I'm a lawyer, mainly because I think the number of rules' holes is indicative of the effort in the rules.
And I like a lot 5th ed.

The conversion for miniatures being taller, I know have easy solution.

But...what about a squad of only crouched scout, that does't obscure a marine vision who is next to him, but obscure vision to anyone who wants to shot the marine?
The same for a crisis behind a kroot.

I know it can be solved in game (with blast weapons) but, do you think it might be fixed in the rules?
Because with this, came again a problem with the 1inch charge.

jhon
17-03-2008, 09:43
Hello again.

Well, I want to think that the question about age isn't about me.
I'm a lawyer, mainly because I think the number of rules' holes is indicative of the effort in the rules.
And I like a lot 5th ed.

The conversion for miniatures being taller, I know have easy solution.

But...what about a squad of only crouched scout, that does't obscure a marine vision who is next to him, but obscure vision to anyone who wants to shot the marine?
The same for a crisis behind a kroot.

I know it can be solved in game (with blast weapons) but, do you think it might be fixed in the rules?
Because with this, came again a problem with the 1inch charge.

for the marine we can go by the rule " if you can see me that means i can see you " but this rule was in 3ed and also was unoffical . but for the crisis i really dont know because they got the jet pack movement ..

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 10:51
for the marine we can go by the rule " if you can see me that means i can see you " but this rule was in 3ed and also was unoffical . but for the crisis i really dont know because they got the jet pack movement ..


That not solves the problem.

A crisis can clearly see above the head of kroots...but you can't see clearly the crisis, because of kroots.

I supposse that we have to live with this.

Mandragola
17-03-2008, 12:09
A crisis can clearly see above the head of kroots...but you can't see clearly the crisis, because of kroots.

Where are you getting this from?

In the version of the pdf that I have read (which may not be the latest) the rule doesn't say that big models can see over small ones. It says that if there are any troops in the way, even if models are only partially obscured, then you can't fire. You aren't even allowed to trace LOS through the gaps between models in a unit.

So no, the crisis suit cannot fire over the top of the kroot, and you can't shoot the crisis suit back.

I understand that there may be a more recent version of the rules circulating in which obscuring units gives a 4+ cover save. Again, this would leave the suits no better off as they could shoot and be shot, and both sides would get the save.

Xurben
17-03-2008, 13:56
Um, simplest solution ever!

All models in this game have a standard size, per model. (necrons standing up are roughly the same height as any other troop other then halflings and such) Against said player, take a space marine or necron that isn't modeled in such a way, and place it beside his. Use that model for LOS shooting, if he disagrees call a judge on his attempt to exploit rules. No tourney would ever let that fly where I've been. And no person of any intelligence will argue against you.

A necron is a necron is a necron. They don't "crawl out of the ground" for the duration of a battle.

Solution 2;
Tell him as his models have no legs, they cannot move.

Solution 3;
Don't play him, ever.

Solution 4;
Have him removed from tourney for proxy'ing necron warriors with imcomplete models. (I quite like this one, it's just as beardy as what he's trying to do)


Good game sir, well played.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 15:10
Where are you getting this from?

In the version of the pdf that I have read (which may not be the latest) the rule doesn't say that big models can see over small ones. It says that if there are any troops in the way, even if models are only partially obscured, then you can't fire. You aren't even allowed to trace LOS through the gaps between models in a unit.


In the version that I have read, it's said that if a model is tall enough to have a clear LoS to the target unit above other models, it can shoot to the target unit.
Not literal,because I'm at work.

So, the crisis suit is taller than kroot and in b-t-b can see above the kroot, so can shoot.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 15:42
Um, simplest solution ever!

All models in this game have a standard size, per model. (necrons standing up are roughly the same height as any other troop other then halflings and such) Against said player, take a space marine or necron that isn't modeled in such a way, and place it beside his. Use that model for LOS shooting, if he disagrees call a judge on his attempt to exploit rules. No tourney would ever let that fly where I've been. And no person of any intelligence will argue against you.

A necron is a necron is a necron. They don't "crawl out of the ground" for the duration of a battle.

I agree with you, but with one problem: GW sold crouched scouts snipers.
Somebody can convert them so it have a lascannon, instead a sniper rifle.

GW sold model taller and/or shorter, so the problem is that that models exist.



Solution 2;
Tell him as his models have no legs, they cannot move.

The model have legs, but it's crouched.




Solution 3;
Don't play him, ever.

GREAT!!!
Another win in a tournament, because nobody knows how to stop my tactic, with the rules in hand!




Solution 4;
Have him removed from tourney for proxy'ing necron warriors with imcomplete models. (I quite like this one, it's just as beardy as what he's trying to do)

Repeat, the model is not incomplete, is crouched



Good game sir, well played.
Thanks :)


And I want to repeat: I enjoy finding holes in the rules, because I prefer to put myself in the worst conditions&scenario, because I like to search for solutions.

But the "meat shields tactic", like my friends have named it, today, only have two solutions: blast and template.

Mandragola
17-03-2008, 16:06
Interesting. I read it again and you are right. Since LOS needs to be drawn from the firer's eyes to the body of the target, tall models can see over short ones and the crisis suit can see over the kroot, but not be seen back because the kroot will partially obscure it.

That is a bad rule and I hope it gets fixed. It looks like it might, by the cover save instead of screening, but we shall see.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 16:20
Well, i like the idea :) of human (or xenos) meat shields
xD

But I know it could be abused, so it'll be good to be fixed

Todosi
17-03-2008, 19:25
Interesting. I read it again and you are right. Since LOS needs to be drawn from the firer's eyes to the body of the target, tall models can see over short ones and the crisis suit can see over the kroot, but not be seen back because the kroot will partially obscure it.




You are right the Kroot may partially obscure it, but it's still a valid target. If the head or body can be seen, it can be shot.

kokujin_atsuhara
17-03-2008, 19:32
You are right the Kroot may partially obscure it, but it's still a valid target. If the head or body can be seen, it can be shot.


No
The pdf says that to shoot a target you must have "clear LoS", and if there are interviewing units, only in some cases you can shoot at them.
And these situations, imply MC or vehicles.

Azzy
17-03-2008, 23:24
The PDF is a really old draft. According to more current versions (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2332680&postcount=1), units no longer block line of sight--they now simply provide a 4+ cover save to any units they obscure.

jhon
18-03-2008, 02:27
Interesting. I read it again and you are right. Since LOS needs to be drawn from the firer's eyes to the body of the target, tall models can see over short ones and the crisis suit can see over the kroot, but not be seen back because the kroot will partially obscure it.

That is a bad rule and I hope it gets fixed. It looks like it might, by the cover save instead of screening, but we shall see.

look , the hold ture los rule is a bad rule and i dont see fixed ....

Mandragola
18-03-2008, 09:59
I don't mind true LOS. I do mind the idea that a unit can shoot you but you can't shoot it back.

As it stands in the pdf I have read the suit only needs to be able to see from its eyes to all of one of your figures to shoot, and that is possible if it is standing immediately behind another infantry model. Shooting back would not be allowed because LOS from the eyes of your figure to parts of the suit would be obscured.

Xurben
18-03-2008, 15:35
I agree with you, but with one problem: GW sold crouched scouts snipers.
Somebody can convert them so it have a lascannon, instead a sniper rifle.

GW sold model taller and/or shorter, so the problem is that that models exist.


The model have legs, but it's crouched.



GREAT!!!
Another win in a tournament, because nobody knows how to stop my tactic, with the rules in hand!



Repeat, the model is not incomplete, is crouched


Thanks :)


And I want to repeat: I enjoy finding holes in the rules, because I prefer to put myself in the worst conditions&scenario, because I like to search for solutions.

But the "meat shields tactic", like my friends have named it, today, only have two solutions: blast and template.

If you read my first response, in the same thread you replied to. You would have seen my solution in a tournament environment. Call a judge and ask for a stand in model to check LOS issues. At best this works, at worst you are going to be scored as "attempting to find exploits in the rules" every game you play, which will affect your overall score. And also scored low on your army I would bet, further lowering your score. Combine that with no mentions on best army, or best opponent and you better be maxing your game score every game that day to even think of a win.

I have never understood this mentality of "I enjoy finding holes in rules to prepare myself" I generally take it to mean "I don't play this game for fun, I play to win at any and all costs and will argue anything I can to turn this to my favor". There are plenty of ways to win without cheating and/or looking for holes, I prefer the honorable fight to such nonsense.

kokujin_atsuhara
18-03-2008, 17:11
If you read my first response, in the same thread you replied to. You would have seen my solution in a tournament environment. Call a judge and ask for a stand in model to check LOS issues. At best this works, at worst you are going to be scored as "attempting to find exploits in the rules" every game you play, which will affect your overall score. And also scored low on your army I would bet, further lowering your score. Combine that with no mentions on best army, or best opponent and you better be maxing your game score every game that day to even think of a win.

I have never understood this mentality of "I enjoy finding holes in rules to prepare myself" I generally take it to mean "I don't play this game for fun, I play to win at any and all costs and will argue anything I can to turn this to my favor". There are plenty of ways to win without cheating and/or looking for holes, I prefer the honorable fight to such nonsense.


And who says I use holes in the rules?
I only want to be prepared for them. And...why I have to change my crouched for one standing?
I have not converted my scout for being crouched...GW sell it.
I like the the solution, it's the conclusion that our group reached.
But, with rules, It's not possible because the rules doesn't say anything about the height of the models.

I have left using dark eldar's wwp, because here, in Spain, is bad translated.

Xurben
18-03-2008, 17:41
And who says I use holes in the rules?
I only want to be prepared for them. And...why I have to change my crouched for one standing?
I have not converted my scout for being crouched...GW sell it.
I like the the solution, it's the conclusion that our group reached.
But, with rules, It's not possible because the rules doesn't say anything about the height of the models.

I have left using dark eldar's wwp, because here, in Spain, is bad translated.

See underlined section:
As with any tourney, rules questions are the responsibility of the organiser. The rules do mention modeling and not giving a player a benefit or penalty due to modeling (Such as crouching marines) which is exactly what the OP was talking about.

I'm done with this post as it has devolved into rules lawyering.

/wave

kokujin_atsuhara
18-03-2008, 18:49
See underlined section:
As with any tourney, rules questions are the responsibility of the organiser. The rules do mention modeling and not giving a player a benefit or penalty due to modeling (Such as crouching marines) which is exactly what the OP was talking about.

I'm done with this post as it has devolved into rules lawyering.

/wave

Yes, you right.
Better to not continue, because in the new rumours this problem is solved.

jhon
19-03-2008, 04:02
I don't mind true LOS. I do mind the idea that a unit can shoot you but you can't shoot it back.

As it stands in the pdf I have read the suit only needs to be able to see from its eyes to all of one of your figures to shoot, and that is possible if it is standing immediately behind another infantry model. Shooting back would not be allowed because LOS from the eyes of your figure to parts of the suit would be obscured.

but this problem is cos by the true los rule . and this is only the tip of the ice ...

Mandragola
19-03-2008, 12:06
Well there are lots of different ways you can have "true" LOS.

True LOS is about the models being able to see what you can actually see if you look from their perspective. The thing with models blocking LOS isn't necessarily included in true LOS, and the point you take to check LOS from can vary.

The problem here is the combination of saying that a partial LOS block by a figure is a total block of LOS, so the suit can't be seen behind the kroot, but that the suit measures its LOS from its eyes, so it can see over the top of the kroot, kneeling FW, or whatever. In the pdf rules set I could shoot the crisis suit in the head if it was looking over a wall but not when it's looking over a kroot. I would be able to shoot it under many definitions of true LOS.

The rule should, in my opinion, be that LOS is either blocked or clear in both directions. Base that on any combination of true or abstract LOS you want but make it work the same both ways.

As many times stated, this doesnt' seem to be the final rule anyway. Let's just see what happens.