PDA

View Full Version : TLOS contradictions



Ravenous
30-05-2008, 20:06
So in the up coming rules we will have WYSIWYG LOS, which in itself is good, however there seems to be some glaring contradictions with "true" LOS.

1. If you can see one model you can kill the entire unit even if you can only see that one model. Example: 1 marine is in the open and his 9 buddies are hiding behind a rhino and you take 4 plasmagun wounds, you would have to remove models that were unable to be hit with TLOS.

2. Removal of models outside of range, stray bullets okay, makes sense, but magic bullets whipping around corners?

I dont think "true" is the best word to discribe the LOS I think it better classifys under bullsh** LOS.

Now I dont mean that offensively, but normally if someone says "okay Im shooting at you despite the fact I cant see you" you're going to call bullsh** on that.

Jonik
30-05-2008, 20:39
Its not meant to be whipping around corners, its meant to be going through the walls, since they aren't all solid - enough bullets would go through the concrete.

Squallish
30-05-2008, 20:43
Concrete, yes.. Bolter shots going through Rhino or Land Raider armor? NO. I agree it's BS.

Jwolf
30-05-2008, 20:45
It's a simple mechanic, solves the "block my own LOS to snipe" problem, and the unit receives a cover save (usually 4+), as most of the unit is out of LOS or obscured. In the case mention above, you would lose an average of 2 marines rather than 1, and it would prevent someone Rhino-walling themselves to snipe your Lascannon, Melta, or Vet Sarge, which is better for balance and fair play.

I thought it was dumb just reading it, but it's really quite good in actual play.

Ravenous
30-05-2008, 20:47
Adding a good note to the new LOS rules is that it does remove "mirco sniping" which is the one tactic that always ensured I would have a frustrating game.

Now if you dont know what mirco sniping is I will explain:

Its when your opponent moves his tanks or moves a squad around terrian to block his own LOS in order to kill 1 or models in your squad (like a heavy weapon guy or a squad leader/IC) and because you could only kill guys in LOS that model would be the dead one. Its a dastardly tactic at best.

In 5th this can no longer happen, which is good, but I feel they took a sledgehammer to a rule that one needed a sclapel.


Its not meant to be whipping around corners, its meant to be going through the walls, since they aren't all solid - enough bullets would go through the concrete.

But what about tanks?

Tanks offer a cover save now to units behind them, are bolters really going to tear through a land raider?

EDIT:
Crap I got ninja'd :P

fear_the_squirrels
30-05-2008, 20:53
They were shot before they got behind the tank? In the end its an abstraction for simplification. Same reason why the game is turn based and not real time.

This is a battle game after all, and certain rules are sweeping generalization.

-Chris

bassmasterliam
30-05-2008, 20:54
You can't please all the people all the time. i guess what GW was thinking when they came up with that rule was one guys gets shot his buddy next to him tries to grab his body then he gets shot cause he's in the open and so on so forth until 6 of your ten marines are dead, and the sergeant gives up hope of getting those geneseeds back.

dyslexia
30-05-2008, 20:57
Its when your opponent moves his tanks or moves a squad around terrian to block his own LOS in order to kill 1 or models in your squad (like a heavy weapon guy or a squad leader/IC) and because you could only kill guys in LOS that model would be the dead one. Its a dastardly tactic at best.

In 5th this can no longer happen, which is good, but I feel they took a sledgehammer to a rule that one needed a sclapel.
The reality, though, is that they could've easily fixed micro sniping without this. The sensible fix would have been to rule that regardless of which models in a unit were in LOS, any model in the unit could be removed as a casualty. So, if only 1 guy is visible, only 1 guy can die, but it does not have to be exactly the guy who is visible (thus, no sniping).

Instead, they've gone a rather ridiculous step further -- if a single model is visible, they can all die. It seems pretty ridiculous, because it means that in any case where you cannot get behind a piece of terrain entirely, you might as well not even have the terrain.

It boggles my mind that they skipped over the pretty obvious and sensible middle ground ("Wounds may be applied to models in a unit that do not have LOS to the firing model") and went right to the insane.

mchmr6677
30-05-2008, 21:01
Not entirely true. They still get the obscured cover save. If they were in the open they would just die.

dyslexia
30-05-2008, 21:06
Not entirely true. They still get the obscured cover save. If they were in the open they would just die.First, is it actually in the rules that they get an obscured cover save, or are you just assuming?

Second, presuming cover saves still max out at 4+, against sheer masses of firepower that isn't low-AP, the cover save is meaningless for a lot of armies. Anything with a 4+ or better save was already going to get the save, only now, instead of, say, 1 maximum casualty, you have as many potential casualties as you have in the unit.

Jwolf
30-05-2008, 21:12
@ dyslexia - I don't think youre defining a middle ground at all. Panicing about what is likely to be a handful more casualties taken over the course of a tournament isn't all that moderate. They get the cover save, it is in the rules. And in most cases, only one unit is going to get to shoot at that exposed model before he dies.

I think the move to make model position on the board slightly more abstract, rather than some bizarre frozen-in-time moment absolute is both more realistic and plays smoothly.

IJW
30-05-2008, 21:16
1. If you can see one model you can kill the entire unit even if you can only see that one model. Example: 1 marine is in the open and his 9 buddies are hiding behind a rhino and you take 4 plasmagun wounds, you would have to remove models that were unable to be hit with TLOS.

2. Removal of models outside of range, stray bullets okay, makes sense, but magic bullets whipping around corners?
I don't really see these as two separate points - presumably the reasoning goes something like this:

Unit A have spotted someone from unit B (a model in the target unit was visible) and open fire for an indeterminate amount of time. As both units move around (and that Rhino blocking LoS also moves) they get to fire at more than just the one model that is initially visible.

In other words, it's almost identical to the 4th ed. justification for being able to fire through your own units and through enemy units to hit a more distant one.

That's not to say that it's a good rule, I've not played using it to know for sure - but it's definitely explainable.

dyslexia
30-05-2008, 21:20
I think the move to make model position on the board slightly more abstract, rather than some bizarre frozen-in-time moment absolute is both more realistic and plays smoothly.Doesn't it seem awfully strange that they're supposedly moving away from abstraction (no more area terrain blocking LOS), and now they've added an enormously abstract concept? I would actually be completely for an all-abstract system, with LOS blocking terrain being like 4th-ed area terrain. GW claims that they're going the opposite direction with 5th, and I guess so be it, but they've then done an about face and added rules that are arguably more abstract than what they removed.

Also, I'm not really panicking; I play a fairly shooty DA army, and this can likely only help me. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Why should assaulty armies even bother trying to get behind terrain while advancing, if a single model in a unit being in LOS means the whole unit is in LOS?

Jwolf
30-05-2008, 21:25
Because they have cover if they're behind the terrain, and no cover if they aren't?

The game plays really well in 5th, dyslexia, and this isn't really much of a big deal. I expect that everyone will be putting in a lot more hills and walls as terrain, and a lot fewer pieces of green paper with a tree on them.

TheMacDiesel
30-05-2008, 21:33
My $0.02...

If you think of the game in terms of 30 fps animation, instead of the freeze frame end-state that turns represent, units are running from one spot on the battlefield to another. Over the course of 30 frames of animation, to get from one key frame to another there are 29 in-bettween frame that you cross... so, it's easy to imagine that the shots are fired during the "tweens" and they guys are caught running.

Another way to say it is, I can't imagine the guys that are firing wait until a unit gets fully hidden behind a tank before they fire at them.

dyslexia
30-05-2008, 21:51
Another way to say it is, I can't imagine the guys that are firing wait until a unit gets fully hidden behind a tank before they fire at them.Here's the thing: I completely understand that. I have no problem at all understanding a whole host of ways you can rationalize why this would work this way. What I cannot understand is how it makes any sense from a game design standpoint, given the move towards true LOS.

What we have in 5th are two completely conflicting game design choices:

1. "We're Just Numbers" (to quote the leaked PDF) - it's all an abstraction. You can't really tell precisely where models are, because a turn is really just a freeze frame in time depicting an ongoing battle.

2. True LOS. It's not an abstraction! Do you have a unit that is modeled on tall bases? Congratulations, they can be seen and killed over terrain that otherwise identical units (in terms of stats) cannot. (Wait, what happened to "freeze frame in time?!")

It wouldn't bother me if they'd choose one and go with it. If it's the former, keep LOS blocking area terrain, switch to pure Magic Cylinder and height categories, and go at it. If it's the latter, use true LOS for everything, and only things that can be seen may be killed.

It's GW's desire to yet again mix them together that really bothers me -- that, and the implications to how unit movement and cover is going to work because of it.

Ravenous
30-05-2008, 22:22
Here's the thing: I completely understand that. I have no problem at all understanding a whole host of ways you can rationalize why this would work this way. What I cannot understand is how it makes any sense from a game design standpoint, given the move towards true LOS.

What we have in 5th are two completely conflicting game design choices:

1. "We're Just Numbers" (to quote the leaked PDF) - it's all an abstraction. You can't really tell precisely where models are, because a turn is really just a freeze frame in time depicting an ongoing battle.

2. True LOS. It's not an abstraction! Do you have a unit that is modeled on tall bases? Congratulations, they can be seen and killed over terrain that otherwise identical units (in terms of stats) cannot. (Wait, what happened to "freeze frame in time?!")

It wouldn't bother me if they'd choose one and go with it. If it's the former, keep LOS blocking area terrain, switch to pure Magic Cylinder and height categories, and go at it. If it's the latter, use true LOS for everything, and only things that can be seen may be killed.

It's GW's desire to yet again mix them together that really bothers me -- that, and the implications to how unit movement and cover is going to work because of it.

Im going to have to agree with you, considering JJ was all about "we're getting rid of abstraction in LOS" in this months standard bearer Im going to have to call them out on this.

They turned an abstract rule into a more abstract rule.

MrBigMr
30-05-2008, 22:44
It's better than the old rule that disallows non-guess blast markers causing wounds outside LOS. Ok, you got that one marine peeking out. You blow him up with a direct hit from a battle cannon, but that massive shell had no effect on his buddies, hiding behind the tank, yet standing right next to the detonation.

Look, we have to remember that in war people don's stand and wait for the other guy to shoot at you before you get to shoot.
"Oh, shoot, I'm in the open, but I can't do a s*** about it since I've spent all my movement. Oh well, at least my buddies are in good cover, out of harms way."

Those marines jump out and sure as hell will fire from behind the Rhino at the enemy, exposing themselves even if technically they don't cause wounds. It's just like how rapid fire weapons can't shoot and assault by rules, but by fluff some of the casualties in CC can be put to the troopers firing off from the hip as the charge.

Nurgling Chieftain
30-05-2008, 23:17
What you're going to see in practice is that virtually everybody gets a cover save and virtually nobody is ever out of LOS. This makes the game remarkably boring and vanilla, IMO, since all shooting situations become essentially the same.

Oneofmany
30-05-2008, 23:29
hallo,


Read the 5th book today in amsterdam.

The leaked PDF is not even close to the final product!!



1. If you can see one model you can kill the entire unit even if you can only see that one model. Example: 1 marine is in the open and his 9 buddies are hiding behind a rhino and you take 4 plasmagun wounds, you would have to remove models that were unable to be hit with TLOS.

If moste of you unit is behind bunker AV14 you get a 3+(or more?)cover save
so yes you wil need to take 4 cover saves of 3+ for the plasmagunzzzzz.
You are not lucky today and 4 marines go down! O no!..... you take the one that was in TLOS and 3 that are behind the bunker and no other unit will be able to see you that turn.
I do not see a problem there.


2. Removal of models outside of range, stray bullets okay, makes sense, but magic bullets whipping around corners?

If a remenber correct weapons that are out of range wil not hit you.

Thanks One:cool:

knightwire
30-05-2008, 23:42
...What I cannot understand is how it makes any sense from a game design standpoint, given the move towards true LOS.



From a game design standpoint, if it plays smoother (which from what it sounds like it does) then that's an excellent reason to deviate slightly from a system wide philosophy that may be doing the opposite in other areas. It's not an easy thing to balance out a game system, but if a change like that fleshes out well in practice, then it should be done.

There's no need of a slavish adherence to anything once the dice start rolling and feedback is given.

cochise
31-05-2008, 00:04
The funny thing about the example given (unit beeing shoot at because one model is visible)
is that it doesnīt work the other way around!!!! When the unit shoots back only the visible model is able to shoot!!!
So the abstraction works one way but not the other one!!!

(I hope Iīm wrong with this one, but thatīs what I remember)

Reticent
31-05-2008, 00:06
What you're going to see in practice is that virtually everybody gets a cover save and virtually nobody is ever out of LOS. This makes the game remarkably boring and vanilla, IMO, since all shooting situations become essentially the same.

The only difference really will be in situations where only a couple of models are in LOS, and in those cases the first models you remove will be the ones in LOS to limit incoming fire.

If the whole unit is out of LOS no change.

MrBigMr
31-05-2008, 00:20
Aren't in WHFB ranged weapons able to kill as many models from a unit, no matter how many they see? And as long as the shooter has range to even one model, the unit can be wounded. I don't know fully, as I don't have any shooting units and haven't gotten a full understanding of the rules yet, but that's what I've picked up so far when facing shooty units/models.

So if WHFB has the similar rule, why can't 40K pick it up as well? Seems like a good simple rule without all the additional thinking that eats away on game time. Especially for the ones of us that don't have a calculator for a brain.

scarvet
31-05-2008, 00:51
If "only visible model have to be remove first" is a rule in 5ed, then mirco snipe is just worse; you can kill what you snipe and some of his buddies

It's better than the old rule that disallows non-guess blast markers causing wounds outside LOS. Ok, you got that one marine peeking out. You blow him up with a direct hit from a battle cannon, but that massive shell had no effect on his buddies, hiding behind the tank, yet standing right next to the detonation.


This is not true, the 4ed rule said you can only aim the guy in line of sight; blast still does damage even if it scatter out of LOS. There is enough FAQ out there about this.

MrBigMr
31-05-2008, 01:22
I never said anything about the shot scattering. Yes, a scattering ordnance shot (nothing about direct hits in the FAQ) and guess weapons can wound units out of LOS. I should have used another weapons. Ok, Tau Hammerhead pops a sub-ammo shot at the marines. It's not ordnance nor guess. Only one marine visible, yet the pie plate covers half of the squad hiding behind the Rhino. So after all the rolling, how many models will be taken off? Can the guys behind the tank, out of the shooters LOS, be removed as casualty?

KingNova3000
31-05-2008, 01:25
Abstract? Yes
Smoother game? Yes
Balances out shooty armies over the now quicker assault armies? Yes

You guys are looking at this as one mechanic alone, you have to combine it with all the other mechanics to see how much better or rather balanced it it. Assault is now brutal, shooty armies are a lot more vulnerable to horde assault armies (nids and orks), if area terrain and the older model removal rules were in play then shooty armies wouldn't stand a chance as the enemy will be able to bring their entire assault army into combat untouched by turn 3 average. People are crying that small elite armies are now nerfed, not true, they benefit from the new model removal and cover rules as its a lot easier to hide a unit of 5 termies then its a unit of 20 gaunts.

Squallish
31-05-2008, 03:01
Aren't in WHFB ranged weapons able to kill as many models from a unit, no matter how many they see? And as long as the shooter has range to even one model, the unit can be wounded. I don't know fully, as I don't have any shooting units and haven't gotten a full understanding of the rules yet, but that's what I've picked up so far when facing shooty units/models.

So if WHFB has the similar rule, why can't 40K pick it up as well? Seems like a good simple rule without all the additional thinking that eats away on game time. Especially for the ones of us that don't have a calculator for a brain.

Fantasy uses a LOT less terrain, at least around here. 40k tactics currently revolve around using LoS to your advantage by staying behind cover, avoiding fire and getting cover saves. FB is more focused on formations than on locations.

big squig
31-05-2008, 05:31
It's an abstract game of little toy soldiers. The shot could pierce the cover or it could just represent the front guys dying and the back guys stepping up to take their place...just like in fantasy.

Geddonight
31-05-2008, 07:03
Because they have cover if they're behind the terrain, and no cover if they aren't?

The game plays really well in 5th, dyslexia, and this isn't really much of a big deal. I expect that everyone will be putting in a lot more hills and walls as terrain, and a lot fewer pieces of green paper with a tree on them.

this is true... of course, i'm going to have to drill holes in all my cities of death terrain walls so that i can ensure models can see out of the bloody things. No sense having a position where you can die, and still can't shoot out.

Also, I liked having area terrain marked by a few trees and a raised piece of differently colored MDF board. It was pretty yet functional. I mean, look at the trees GW produces, and they can't hide ANY vehicle height-wise.

rakath
31-05-2008, 07:06
I tried the 5th ed rumour rules yesterday, and found that in some situations it's easier to hide your troops than in 4th ed.

In 4th ed, if your unit was standing in some ruins, it could get shot at. From whichever direction, they just got the 4+ cover save.
In 5th, all the walls are WYSIWYG, so you actually can try and hide your troops completely from enemy fire.

In yesterdays game my small HQ unit was almost completely shot to pieces, so they ran behind a small wall, just enough to conceal them. In 4th it would just have been a 5+ cover maybe. Now my men got to hide there for a round, completely safe, until reinforcements got in and dealt with the eldar rangers.

First when I heard about true LoS and forests/area terrain not blocking LoS, I thought it was the stupidest move ever made by GW.
Now, I'm not so sure. Just have no forests on the table, and add ruins, hills, buildings and single ruined walls.
Those cardboard ones from 2nd ed work pretty well in 5th ed.

And the "everyone can die" rule was fine. Sure, my marines got hit a few times more, but so did the eldars. Made the game run a bit smoother. No biggie.

All in all, I really liked my 5th ed test game. Tank rules were a bit crap, and I couldn't figure out how the 2" rule with area terrain should work. If your troops are over 2" inside an area terrain, also your target recieves the cover save. But what happens if you've got a single wall in front of you, that's basically a 1/8" area terrain you can't fit into?

(I didn't post this in the "playtest area", as this directly relates to the subject at hand..)

Baran
31-05-2008, 07:18
Hi there!

And what about things like Standard Bearer and so on? If all squad is in cover, and the enemy sees my banner, can he shoot at it and kill all my squad? This dosent seems right. Isn't there any rule saying that in order to shoot you're opponnent You must see a piece of his armour? Armies like Nids and Orks are a bit screewed 'cause they have more dynamic figures with limbs in the air and so on. Also new SM Veteran will be screewed if more dynamic.

Sorry for language. English is not my native language.

Cheers

Mr_Rose
31-05-2008, 08:18
Baran; no. Banners, weapons and bits that aren't the "body of the model" don't count for LoS IIRC. At all. You have to be able to see a part that would reasonably be expected to actually alter the fighting effectiveness of the model if you damaged it.

I think the biggest problem with all these "discussions" is that some of you have forgotten that the other guy will be using the same rules as you.
I get the distinct impression that some of you are reacting as though you will be playing by 5e LoS (or Deep Strike, or Hit'n'Run or whatever) whilst your opponent will mysteriously be using 4e rules for some reason. Bizarro tournaments aside, this is extremely unlikely.

Also, AFAIK, LoS is traced model→unit, not unit→unit. So if you've got two units facing off and each one only has one guy visible out of cover, only he can fire, so barring multi-shot weapons, you're only going to lose one model at best. And now it can be any goob in the unit, not just the point man with the superweapon.

Baran
31-05-2008, 08:41
Also, AFAIK, LoS is traced model→unit, not unit→unit. So if you've got two units facing off and each one only has one guy visible out of cover, only he can fire, so barring multi-shot weapons, you're only going to lose one model at best. And now it can be any goob in the unit, not just the point man with the superweapon.

Yep! Tottaly true.... BUT! When there is 10 marines in open on one side and 9 in cover and 1 in open on second side there will be following issue. 10 Marines can shoot and shootout all Marines in cover, and those in cover can't shoot. Only 1 guy can shoot. It is quite stupid in my opinnion. Where is the advantage of being in cover? Imgaine Fragile unit with good guns ie. Fire dragons, they obtain Sv4+ cover and can't shoot, while small group of Dire Avengers, even without Blade Storm can easily shoot them out. I imagine that soldier should be able to shoot from the cover, in other way what would be point in situating models like snipers in cover?

Ok and how works that?:
Let's say I Have pathfinder sniper in ruins. His legs and half of torso is covered. His gun and head stick out from the cover. He can shoot to enemy. Does he benefits cover save form his position.

Niibl
31-05-2008, 09:23
Aren't in WHFB ranged weapons able to kill as many models from a unit, no matter how many they see? And as long as the shooter has range to even one model, the unit can be wounded. I don't know fully, as I don't have any shooting units and haven't gotten a full understanding of the rules yet, but that's what I've picked up so far when facing shooty units/models.
In Fantasy the units are assumed to constantly shuffle to close ranks or keep unit coherency.
This allows to remove back rankers or, in case of skirmishers, models from the edge of a unit.
If more models are removed than it should be possible, it just means that the soldiers who move up get killed once they become visible/in range.
This logic should also work in 40K.


BUT! When there is 10 marines in open on one side and 9 in cover and 1 in open on second side there will be following issue.
Then the player with the marines in cover should bite his own whatnot for leaving the one marine in the open.:rolleyes:
If you try to hug cover, do it right.
Assume to have a pile of corpses where the single marine was standing as his fellows have followed the idiot into enemie's fire.
IIRC there also should be the option to become pinned for some kind of save bonus:confused:.

Baran
31-05-2008, 09:45
Then the player with the marines in cover should bite his own whatnot for leaving the one marine in the open.:rolleyes:
If you try to hug cover, do it right.

But some times it's not possible. I really find using screeners as cover really realistic. Troops in army also advancing in cover of tanks. And as You may know, if You have ie. 10 ASM squad, you can't hide them behind LR. It's impossible! Also every army has some more manuvarble units. Even If you could hide 10 man squad, there always be some ie. Tornado wich can pick up 1 soldier.

I must say, regardles of my awerness of 5th it probably speed up the game, hence it would be more fun for me.

PS and what about the case of sniper I gave before?

MrBigMr
31-05-2008, 09:53
This logic should also work in 40K.
I agree. Imagine you're hiding behind some wall. Your buddy is firing behind the corner at the enemy. He gets hit and goes down. Will you just coward behind the wall or take up his place and fire at the enemy to stop them from using the lack of fire to advance at your position?

DeathsHead
31-05-2008, 10:32
The more I reflect on how this rule seems to have been included in order to counter the moronic "rhino-sniping" some particularly undesirable types seem to have been so fond of, the more I wonder if half of this new rule-set wasn't designed for a similar purpose - babysitting.

Is the bad behavior of a noxious and notable minority having repercussions for the rest of us? I think so.

Mandragola
31-05-2008, 10:33
The justification in the BBB is not that bullets go through walls, but that that it represents the fact that people move around, while models do not. A unit that is positioned coming around a corner and running into enemy fire might indeed lose many guys to enemy shooting.

I do find it a very odd rule though. If you are going to use true LoS, fine, use it - or use abstract LoS. What seems really bizarre is checking true LoS to one guy, and thereby being allowed to shoot people you can't see at all.

Note that each firer needs range and true LoS to a target to be able to fire. It isn't good enough for one member of the squad to get LoS, but it is good enough for all firers to only be able to see one model.

Niibl
31-05-2008, 13:32
I do find it a very odd rule though. If you are going to use true LOS, fine, use it - or use abstract LOS. What seems really bizarre is checking true LoS to one guy, and thereby being allowed to shoot people you can't see at all.
Think of a vulnerable spot. You hit it and the whole unit could be affected* but still you have to be able to hit it in the first place.
In the 10vs1+9 Marines example that could mean that some of those 10 boltguns won't be in range due to the cover.

*What I dislike about such "examples" is the rediculous assumption of 100% kills followed by an uproar about it. :eyebrows:

BTW, if people can live with Mr.Longarm-nobasecontact-2" close combat, they can also live with behind-the-wall kills.

Hokiecow
31-05-2008, 15:33
Just like in CC, everyone is moving around. It true for the rest of the battle field. Just because the models are static for a portion of the turn does not mean the rules should behave that way.

dyslexia
31-05-2008, 16:43
Just like in CC, everyone is moving around. It true for the rest of the battle field. Just because the models are static for a portion of the turn does not mean the rules should behave that way.And again, those of us who don't like this rule are not saying we can't imagine a justification for it from a fluff perspective. The issue is simply that it causes some very strange situations.

Quite frankly, if this is how GW wants things to work, why not just go to full unit-based LOS? If one model in Unit A can see any other model in Unit B, every single model in both Unit A and Unit B should be allowed to both fire at the other unit, and die to fire from the other unit. Right now, they're doing half of that -- if a single model in your unit can be seen, all models can die, and yet while the enemy's bullets can magically whiz around the terrain to hit them, those models behind terrain can't do the same thing in return to the enemy. The logical next step is to take the abstraction farther, to a much fairer point.

Instead, as has been pointed out, if you have two opposing 10 man squads of marines, one fully in the open, and one with 9 models behind LOS blocking terrain and 1 model in the open, the squad that is fully in the open actually has a significant advantage. That is completely screwed up.

For those of you saying the equivalent of "well don't leave one model in the open", please, come up with a real argument. It is quite frequently impossible to get entire units behind LOS blocking terrain. A 10 man squad coming out of a Rhino, for example, in most cases will not be able to block LOS to the whole squad. They may be able to block LOS to 6-8 of the squad (depending on where the enemy is and how you angle the Rhino), but almost never all 10.

In 4th, it still makes tactical sense to use the Rhino to block LOS, because although 2-4 of the squad may still be able to be shot, you have protected the majority of the squad. In 5th, you might as well not even try. If you can't protect every single one, you're actually far better off intentionally putting the whole squad in the open, so that they can all return fire. The alternative, in which even 9 of the 10 are in cover, but 1 can be seen, leaves you with everyone eligible to die, but only a small percentage eligible to fire back.

Pink Horror
31-05-2008, 20:07
In 4th, it still makes tactical sense to use the Rhino to block LOS, because although 2-4 of the squad may still be able to be shot, you have protected the majority of the squad. In 5th, you might as well not even try. If you can't protect every single one, you're actually far better off intentionally putting the whole squad in the open, so that they can all return fire. The alternative, in which even 9 of the 10 are in cover, but 1 can be seen, leaves you with everyone eligible to die, but only a small percentage eligible to fire back.

How often are ten marines going to die to one squad's fire in one round? Those 2 or 3 in the open can be removed first, and then everyone else is safe.

Niibl
31-05-2008, 22:58
Well, I have written quite a lot and deleted it again because I think it wont do any good.
Now I try to keep it short.

...are not saying we can't imagine a justification for it from a fluff perspective
So removing models behind cover is acceptable as justified by the "models in motion" theory?!

those models behind terrain can't do the same thing in return to the enemy
You didn't intent to shoot anyway, so let me return the
please, come up with a real argument back to sender?
Just to 'cite Tuco: "if you want shoot, shoot..." but you decided to hide and
You know, because of the "models in motion" thing, if you keep one model out of cover
your whole squad is vulnerable (vulnerable, not dead, provided the actual V5 Rule will be that way).
You sacrificed your shooting for beeing in cover,
but you failed because your cover of choice was too small so you
completely screwed up.
If your Rhinos are not big enough to be used as protection any more well, tough luck. New rules can cause such things.
Like Pink Horror wrote, it's not the end of the world and I don't see a reason to get enraged about it and go bold letters.

izandral
31-05-2008, 23:42
quick question , if i'm in area terrain but the enemy can see most of my unit (> 50%) do i get a cover save from being in area terrain anyway ?

Ravenous
31-05-2008, 23:53
quick question , if i'm in area terrain but the enemy can see most of my unit (> 50%) do i get a cover save from being in area terrain anyway ?

Yes, but the models outside of the terrian are hit normally.

CarnusCaedes
01-06-2008, 02:16
I'm not sure if its worth mentioning that many OTHER games have tried to improve the Flow of Battle in order to bring a modicum of reality into the game i.e. Warzone's individual squad activation instead of Your Turn My Turn based gaming. I read the posts regarding how BROKEN the rules are if one unit can target another with a majority in cover. My reply is based on this thinking. :angel:

It is my opinion (so feel free to disregard) that this rule reflects the fact that the turns represent a short span of time in which those units moving into cover but not completely concealed are likely to receive damage. Where the offending model has his @r5e hanging out making the whole unit a viable target reflects the entire move of that unit from a starting point, to its final placement in cover or its proximity. This rule allows for shots to be made at the moving unit whilst it travels to cover without breaking stride in turn-based mechanics. :skull:

Once behind the cover of say a tank etc. the unit is concealed and if my memory serves are no longer in line of sight and no longer targets. Does that sound right? :confused:


apologies: After all this it has already been brought up!
This in my opinion this rules brings the aforementioned reality into a the context of a YTMT based gaming environment.

Please, feel free to correct any false assumptions I have made. I have only briefly read the PDf. All things aside I think this addition to the game is well thought out even though it took some time (and some lateral thinking (care of the Mrs.)) to get my head around the concept :o

neophryte
01-06-2008, 08:19
It is basically gonna be like this - 90% of the people who haven't played with it will complain about it. 90% of the people who have played with it are going to like it. Theory=/=practice.

DeathsHead
01-06-2008, 08:22
It sounds like a lot of folks are trying to rationalize something which was not designed to reflect something realistic, but to curb the infantile game tactics that power-gamers tend to employ. Doing so just doesn't work very well.

There are so many arbitrary shifts from abstract to concrete in this game... it is in no way consistent. Just a mishmash of patches and tweaks from different eras and in response to different consumer issues.

It is a mess. At this point, I really wish GW would just hit the reset button on the whole thing and conceive of an entirely new set of game mechanics.

I also WISH that people didn't play this game as just a set of rules to be abused, exploited and made "efficient", but as a set of rules attempting to reflect an awesome fantasy background. Maybe we wouldn't be in this idiotic situation to begin with!

totgeboren
01-06-2008, 10:11
I havnt played it, but it sounds like it might work in practice.
For example the way-to-cheap ork shootaboyz will be alot less effective with 5:ed, which is something I think is good. (Being an Ork player)

It just really gets to me that they say they are doing real LOS, and then suddenly include a rule that in essence says
"your guys cant see his guys, so cant shoot at them, but his guys can see the leg of one of your guys so he can kill all you guys, eventhough he cant see them... Except the leg of one."

I don't like that at all and I promise you, having played lots of games that uses true LOS, it totally sucks all sorts of genitalia.
The LOS rules in 4:ed was a big improvement, the LOS rules in Cities of Death were really good (all I played with used those even when not playing cityfights). And now they go back to what is the worst kinda LOS rules. :(

Buy hey, the rules are not written in stone, and games like this are not supposed to be played competitively.

If you and those you play don't like the rules, just change them. Though I see a problem with this since points values might become abit off. :(

CarnusCaedes
04-06-2008, 03:41
I also WISH that people didn't play this game as just a set of rules to be abused, exploited and made "efficient", but as a set of rules attempting to reflect an awesome fantasy background. Maybe we wouldn't be in this idiotic situation to begin with!

I agree with you on that its not the Mechanics that have kept me involved with this game for the inordinate length it is the background and the fact it is freely available, a thing that has restricted my forays into other games/genres.

Nurgling Chieftain
04-06-2008, 04:09
It just really gets to me that they say they are doing real LOS, and then suddenly include a rule that in essence says
"your guys cant see his guys, so cant shoot at them, but his guys can see the leg of one of your guys so he can kill all you guys, eventhough he cant see them... Except the leg of one."
Yeah, seriously. It's like they deliberately set out to make hiding units nearly impossible.

Shinzui
04-06-2008, 04:23
As someone who has come across LOS sniping more than once I can say this will be a great change.

EmperorEternalXIX
04-06-2008, 04:26
I for one am happy about the TLOS rules even if they seem bizarre, because they eliminate some really stupid metagame tactics I have always hated.

Though the humble Rhino is present in many TLOS horror story examples, few people are acknowledging the super-huge buff these 5th Ed rules are giving it; it is now FINALLY actually safer and more beneficial to ride in the rhino than walk behind it! *Three cheers for GW*

The metagame always thoroughly annoys me because it seems like there is a lot of using the rules rather than your army to win. Things like blocking the doors on wrecked transports, or the famed "Walk behind the rhino as it turns sideways every time it moves"...that is the sort of thing that would be a very silly sight on the battlefields of the 41st millennium.

Personally I am glad people will have to start using transports like...transports. It gives me a reason to actually want to use rhinos, especially when coupled with no more auto-entanglement and no more easy deaths on glancing hits.

I haven't played a test game but I can already see it being a good change.

Ravenous
04-06-2008, 04:55
Another slight problem that is apparently not addressed in the rule book is how Dreadnaughts and MCs block LOS, in other words we may be able to shoot through a dreadnaughts legs in order to hit units behind them...

neophryte
04-06-2008, 06:29
Another slight problem that is apparently not addressed in the rule book is how Dreadnaughts and MCs block LOS, in other words we may be able to shoot through a dreadnaughts legs in order to hit units behind them...

What do you mean may? You absolutely can and the unit behind will get a 4+ cover. Pretty simple.

Plastic Rat
04-06-2008, 11:11
You can't please all the people all the time. i guess what GW was thinking when they came up with that rule was one guys gets shot his buddy next to him tries to grab his body then he gets shot cause he's in the open and so on so forth until 6 of your ten marines are dead, and the sergeant gives up hope of getting those geneseeds back.


It's an abstract game of little toy soldiers. The shot could pierce the cover or it could just represent the front guys dying and the back guys stepping up to take their place...just like in fantasy.

Once again, evidence of this weird compulsion some people have of justifying idiotic rules with some sort of contrived fluff example.

Can you imagine it?

Sarge: "Right everyone in cover? Louie, your butt is hanging out there a bit, bring it in!"

Louie: "Sorry sarge, this power armor makes it look so much bigger I don't thi...aaarrghhh!!!"

Sarge: "Louie's DOWN! Max go take his place!"

Max: "Yes Si....ARAARAGGH!!!"

Sarge: "Jimmy move to the place Max was standing in that Louie was in when he got shot!"

Jimmy: "Ok but sarge I don't thi...AArrgh!!"

Sarge: "Mikey, you're next, move out of your secure cover position and go stand where Louie, Max and Jimmy were standing when they got shot!"

Mikey: "Ye..aaaargh!"



Seriously did you guys see this happening in your heads before you leapt out to justify it?

samiens
04-06-2008, 11:27
Its quite clear that this is what is happening:

Tom gets shot
Bob: What was that?
Bob looks round the corner and gets shot
Bill: Wait a sec, what happened to Bob?
Bill looks around the corner and gets shot
Rich: Why does this keep happening?

Shinzui
04-06-2008, 11:28
Using hostile sarcasm in your limited imagination of what the rule could be interpreted in the background is pretty fail.

People have come up with logical and mature reasons that can be interpreted from the rule. From hitting the unit before it moves into or out of the blocking los terrain to that once they know their there the intervening terrain doesn't protect from their weapons.

Plastic Rat
04-06-2008, 12:13
Using hostile sarcasm in your limited imagination of what the rule could be interpreted in the background is pretty fail.
I don't know, what's more limited and less imaginative? Coming up with rules that make no sense in fluff and require contrived imaginary events in order for them to be remotely believable, OR simply coming up with rules that work and have a sense of cinematic appeal straight out of the box?

So basically what this rule does, if I'm looking at it correctly, is to place even less emphasis on positioning than ever before. Most pieces of terrain are not big enough to completely block LOS to every single member of a squad. I get that from looking at our terrain, most of which is Cities of Death. In almost every situation, especially with larger squads above 5 man, there will be one member that just can't fully be stuck in behind cover, which makes it exactly as effective as if the whole squad was on top of the building waving their arms and singing drinking songs.

What am I missing here?

Shinzui
04-06-2008, 12:45
I don't know, what's more limited and less imaginative? Coming up with rules that make no sense in Fluff and require contrived imaginary events in order for them to be remotely believable, OR simply coming up with rules that work and have a sense of cinematic appeal straight out of the box?

What makes sense fluff wise is up to interpretation. This rule certainly was designed for the fun and balance side of things rather than realism or cinematic appeal.

Nothing makes less sense then los sniping and other such things.


So basically what this rule does, if I'm looking at it correctly, is to place even less emphasis on positioning than ever before. Most pieces of terrain are not big enough to completely block LOS to every single member of a squad. I get that from looking at our terrain, most of which is Cities of Death. In almost every situation, especially with larger squads above 5 man, there will be one member that just can't fully be stuck in behind cover, which makes it exactly as effective as if the whole squad was on top of the building waving their arms and singing drinking songs.

I don't know if the skill (or lack of) of bunching guys behind wall/rhino/ego really takes away from anything. It's clear from GWs design change for 5th edition is they want the concept of 'hiding' to die as it deserves. You can't hide 'special' models in units, you can't hide behind area terrain because of TLoS and you can't hide normal troops behind walls and such most of the time because of this.

This is clearly a balance decision and can be made to make sense in fluff or situation.

spaint2k
04-06-2008, 12:59
Y'know what, I completely agree with Plastic Rat's interpretation of the rule, and any attempt to justify it from a fluff point of view is pointless.

On the other hand, I've decided I'm going to just accept the new rules in 5th ed, play the game as the rules say, and see what happens. Worse comes to worst, that's what houserules are for.

In other news, I'm also finally glad to hear that transports are actually worth transporting units in.

Steve

jack'n'coke please
04-06-2008, 13:07
as a new player with a less than solid grasp on all but the most fundamental rules, me and my friends have always used TLOS. it just seems a bit fairer and, in certain respects, more realistic. at the end of the day though, it seems people are getting really angry at a set of rules for a GAME that havn't even been released yet. lastly, if an enemy unit can see you, you can see them also.

totgeboren
04-06-2008, 13:14
lastly, if an enemy unit can see you, you can see them also.

well this is what many people dont like, because with the new rules, this is not true.

An enemy can se the leg of one of your guys, so can kill your entire unit, but you cant even shoot back with one guy in return, because you cant see them.

rakath
04-06-2008, 13:26
I played a few 5th ed test games (marines vs. eldar) and this wasn't a concern, at all. Eldars got their LoS blocked, so did the marines. My opponent took casaulties from the whole unit, and so did I.
It's not like you're playing with 5th ed rules, and your opponent magically uses 4th ed Area Terrain rules. You're both affected the same way, so it's a quite balanced rule overall.

Actually I don't remember ever having as much fun with 40k, as I did with the 5th edition test games. I just loved the WYSIWYG terrain, it makes the game more cinematic, as you take the model's eye view more often, and actually see what the models see. "Oh no! There's a plasma cannon aiming straight at us!" (http://maktah.googlepages.com/maastokuva4.jpg/maastokuva4-full.jpg)

We did interpret the rules, that you have to see at least most of the torso or the whole head of a model to shoot at it. A piece of a leg, hand, backpack, weapon or cape wasn't enough.
The most fair way was to say "if I can see you, you can see me." So the model being shot at could always shoot back.

I realize True LoS is going to be a paradise for all abusers and cheaters, and might make tournaments less fun. You just have to choose your opponents more carefully, or properly house-rule LoS so that pieces of leg armour, shoulder pads or rocks on bases don't count.

Ravenous
04-06-2008, 16:17
With 4th edition one thing I always found funny was that barely no one knew that TLOS worked as well.

The only terrian that had a size was area terrian, everything else was TLOS, the problem though was that a majority of people just made all their terrian area, or were confused and started deeming everything with sizes.

So all GW needed to do was fix the area terrian rules, thats it, but as par usual they took a sledgehammer to a rule that only required a scalpel.

samiens
04-06-2008, 16:33
Um, my sarcasm was just what I think is funny- it certainly wasn't hostile as I like this rule as it stops sniping abuses. I'm afraid in my honest opinion fluff justifications are unnecessary as I'm pretty sure in warfare people don't take turns...

neophryte
04-06-2008, 16:36
Um, my sarcasm was just what I think is funny- it certainly wasn't hostile as I like this rule as it stops sniping abuses. I'm afraid in my honest opinion fluff justifications are unnecessary as I'm pretty sure in warfare people don't take turns...

Nope, you are absolutely wrong there! When I was in the army many times we did drills where we all move as fast as we could for 10 seconds and then stop. Once we heard the enemies vehicles stop moving we would go. It was like a giant game of red light green light go!

Oh yeah, that is sarcasm, btw. The rules work fine, they make sense in a fluff sort of way. I don't know what else you could ask for. If it is that big of a deal to you, play a video game.

Ravenous
04-06-2008, 16:39
I don't know what else you could ask for. If it is that big of a deal to you, play a video game.

Which is why GW is losing tons of money;)

Xurben
04-06-2008, 17:19
A better way to represent, if you must, the people behind cover being killed due to 1 man in the open. Here's another lil' chat, from the shooters side. And this is known to actually happen in warfare.

Bob: Serg, we have visual contact @ 6:00.
Serg: light em up!
Bob: Contact eliminated sir.
Serg: Put some rounds through that wall, I doubt he was alone.


Simple enough no? As for hugging tanks, it's moving and so are the guys trying to hide behind it. Some will be visable at some point.

meh.

Strey
04-06-2008, 20:40
And again, those of us who don't like this rule are not saying we can't imagine a justification for it from a fluff perspective. The issue is simply that it causes some very strange situations.

Quite frankly, if this is how GW wants things to work, why not just go to full unit-based LOS? If one model in Unit A can see any other model in Unit B, every single model in both Unit A and Unit B should be allowed to both fire at the other unit, and die to fire from the other unit. Right now, they're doing half of that -- if a single model in your unit can be seen, all models can die, and yet while the enemy's bullets can magically whiz around the terrain to hit them, those models behind terrain can't do the same thing in return to the enemy. The logical next step is to take the abstraction farther, to a much fairer point.

Instead, as has been pointed out, if you have two opposing 10 man squads of marines, one fully in the open, and one with 9 models behind LOS blocking terrain and 1 model in the open, the squad that is fully in the open actually has a significant advantage. That is completely screwed up.

For those of you saying the equivalent of "well don't leave one model in the open", please, come up with a real argument. It is quite frequently impossible to get entire units behind LOS blocking terrain. A 10 man squad coming out of a Rhino, for example, in most cases will not be able to block LOS to the whole squad. They may be able to block LOS to 6-8 of the squad (depending on where the enemy is and how you angle the Rhino), but almost never all 10.

In 4th, it still makes tactical sense to use the Rhino to block LOS, because although 2-4 of the squad may still be able to be shot, you have protected the majority of the squad. In 5th, you might as well not even try. If you can't protect every single one, you're actually far better off intentionally putting the whole squad in the open, so that they can all return fire. The alternative, in which even 9 of the 10 are in cover, but 1 can be seen, leaves you with everyone eligible to die, but only a small percentage eligible to fire back.

Good points, dyslexia. But to use your example, of two squads of 10 SM's. Lets assume each squad has a plasma gun, as is likely for SM vs. SM. As the controller of the SM's in cover, could I position the plasma gun holder out in the open and kill 1-2 SM's per turn, and in return, assign their plasma gun return fire to my bolters in cover? If so, still seems like a good idea to use cover when available. Just make sure your good gun is the single guy with LOS.

Sitting Duck
04-06-2008, 21:59
Has anyone given any thought to models that are prone? I have an IG army where may of the crew served weapons are modelled lying prone. If that model is behind a low wall is it able to fire over the wall even though the models eye view is blocked by the wall. Obviously the crew would prop the heavy bolter on the wall and fire away but I'm not sure how strict these rules are.

CitizenNick
04-06-2008, 22:10
Has anyone given any thought to models that are prone? I have an IG army where may of the crew served weapons are modelled lying prone. If that model is behind a low wall is it able to fire over the wall even though the models eye view is blocked by the wall. Obviously the crew would prop the heavy bolter on the wall and fire away but I'm not sure how strict these rules are.


I don't have an answer for you, but I quoted you becasue I have the opposite problem. I have a Tzeentch Sorcerer on a disc. I have a very tall flying base (I used a thin brass tube).

There is no way I'll be able to hide him behind anything shorter than 5"-6". Granted he has a 4+ Invul save...

The flipside is that if he can be shot more, he can shoot more, right? I haven't read the new rules, so I'm looking for some guidance. What do those of you that have read the new LOS rules think?

Sitting Duck
04-06-2008, 22:19
I don't have an answer for you, but I quoted you becasue I have the opposite problem. I have a Tzeentch Sorcerer on a disc. I have a very tall flying base (I used a thin brass tube).

There is no way I'll be able to hide him behind anything shorter than 5"-6". Granted he has a 4+ Invul save...

The flipside is that if he can be shot more, he can shoot more, right? I haven't read the new rules, so I'm looking for some guidance. What do those of you that have read the new LOS rules think?


It certainly seems like TLOS screws anyone that has done any work on model bases. I hate that. Having a good model on a built up base shouldn't hurt or help you in the game. I guess you could have a stand in model in case it became an issue. The store that I play at got it's advance copy so I hope to get a 5th ed game in this weekend. I can't wait to see how this is going to work.

DeathsHead
04-06-2008, 22:29
What makes sense fluff wise is up to interpretation. This rule certainly was designed for the fun and balance side of things rather than realism or cinematic appeal.

Nothing makes less sense then los sniping and other such things.



I don't know if the skill (or lack of) of bunching guys behind wall/rhino/ego really takes away from anything. It's clear from GWs design change for 5th edition is they want the concept of 'hiding' to die as it deserves. You can't hide 'special' models in units, you can't hide behind area terrain because of TLoS and you can't hide normal troops behind walls and such most of the time because of this.

This is clearly a balance decision and can be made to make sense in fluff or situation.

Ok, I can appreciate that GW wants to eliminate cheap, power-gaming BS approaches to the concept, but this screws the rest of us who want to employ the concept of hiding in a more realistic, tactically satisfying way. The streamlining, simplifying nature of TLOS makes this impossible.

Hiding is a big part of warfare. It's just about always been an important part of warfare. In a table-top game like this, it allows for situations where there's actually a real judgement call involved about whether or not to move out concealment. It means that troops trying to flush other troops out of buildings have to be cautious and not wander right into a trap.

All of these possibilities have just vanished, and THAT SUCKS. It's changes like this that ensure that I'm not going to bother taking my army down to the local GW store, because I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to find what I'm looking for - a detail oriented, tactical wargame which at least comes somewhere within the realm of simulating the kind of action we find portrayed in great war movies, video-games, novels, etc.

Look; the reality is that the more people who clamor for GW to produce BABY-SITTER rules to make the character flaws of certain people disappear (very likely indeed), the more we all suffer for it. The day that GW makes this game perfectly balanced and unbreakable is the day it is renamed "space checkers".

SwordJon
04-06-2008, 22:31
You guys realize that the rulebook says that impressively modeled figures will not be penalized or given advantages? You can't shoot at wings, pieces of weapons, legs, pointing hands, etc, etc...

CitizenNick
04-06-2008, 22:38
You guys realize that the rulebook says that impressively modeled figures will not be penalized or given advantages? You can't shoot at wings, pieces of weapons, legs, pointing hands, etc, etc...

No, I didn't realize that. I haven't read the rules, that's why I'm asking.

So you can't shoot legs? Or hands? so is it just the chest and head?

SwordJon
04-06-2008, 22:43
No, I didn't realize that. I haven't read the rules, that's why I'm asking.

So you can't shoot legs? Or hands? so is it just the chest and head?

Long story short: you can't shoot extremities, and you can't take LoS advantage of a model that is spectacularly posed/modeled/etc. Of course like anything else you should check everything out with your opponent before hand, but yeah, if a devestator sergeants finger is poking out behind a building, you can't shoot him.

TheMacDiesel
04-06-2008, 22:45
Serg: Put some rounds through that wall, I doubt he was alone.

I think you're exactly right Xurben... like playing COD4, BTW... argh, to be shot through a wall by a SAW! A bolter round which is fusion of bullet and grenade doesn't have a possibility of taking out a huge chunk of wall and making it "shrapnel" to infantry on the other side?!? Really now...

The only place that argument doesn't make sense is hiding behind a LR/Rhino/Pred/etc. Like so many have said, an AV12+ vehicle seems to break most of the fluff arguments along this line of reasoning.

SwordJon
04-06-2008, 22:49
I think you're exactly right Xurben... like playing COD4, BTW... argh, to be shot through a wall by a SAW! A bolter round which is fusion of bullet and grenade doesn't have a possibility of taking out a huge chunk of wall and making it "shrapnel" to infantry on the other side?!? Really now...

The only place that argument doesn't make sense is hiding behind a LR/Rhino/Pred/etc. Like so many have said, an AV12+ vehicle seems to break most of the fluff arguments along this line of reasoning.

I think their other explanation is that just because it's your shooting phase doesn't mean the enemy isn't technically moving; so while they're rushing out from behind their cover a little too early, you're gunning them down like the fools they are.

Or something like that. Meh, I'll buy it though.

Warp Zero
04-06-2008, 22:55
They were shot before they got behind the tank? In the end its an abstraction for simplification. Same reason why the game is turn based and not real time.

This is a battle game after all, and certain rules are sweeping generalization.

-Chris

What if the direction they were running from was obscured by the tank?

The rulebook explains it as a few things.

1.) Shots going through cover to hit guys behind as well.

When its okay: the guys behind cover are hiding behind ruined walls with a few holes in it already, they're behind trees, thin ramshackle huts, etc.

When its not okay: when the guys are behind a Land Raider, fortress seige walls, anything so heavily armored and thick that you can't imagine anything less than strength 8 going through it.

2.) Shots ricochet

When its okay: when there's enough terrain around the squad that your mind thinks, "yeah...I can see ricochets happening in that alley". GW wanted 5th to be more cinematic and matching what you see on the table right?

When its not okay: when there's no other terrain around to even think a ricochets would be happening.

3.) Models aren't static, they represent guys moving around and moving up into position.

When its okay: I guess if the Marine squad in the OP's example was on its way forward and they were going to break out from cover the next turn anyways, you can think that maybe THAT'S when the plasma shots got 'em. The moment in time after that "freeze frame" in time left by the Marine player on his previous turn.

When its not okay: When the Marine player had no future plan on moving that squad because they are holding an objective nearby. And why would guys behind the corner move up when the other guys are getting slaughtered at the front of the line?

One could say, that one guy wanted to drag his buddy that got killed/wounded back into cover and in turn got shot too. But then why would the third guy get shot? Why would the fourth guy get shot?

Its like Ted is the only one in the open at the corner of a wall. He gets shot. Bill yells, "Ted!" runs out and grabs him, tries to pull him behind the wall, then Bill gets shot. Then George, who was third from the front, yells, "Bill!" Then runs up to try and drag Bill and Ted behind cover, but gets shot too! Then Estaban yells, "George!" He runs out and tries to drag Bill, Ted, and George back into cover but also gets hit. The Frank yells, "Estaban!" and .....

It just gets kinda silly.

I know what the new rule is meant to represent and most times the rule will not create a problem. Its just every now and then there's gonna be a "WTF?" moment. When it happens, it'll take you out of the game and the moment. Won't happen often, but it'll come up.

Oh, and how come we have plenty of people willing to discuss it in this thread but when I brought up months ago during the first leaked PDF no one cared? All people wanted to talk about back then was how tanks sucked now or whatever. Guh!

tarrin
04-06-2008, 23:13
I personally think that this is going to be the worst aspect of the game.

You cant justify rules like this using things like "moving around". If we start this i want to know how a bassie can fire 12" targets with a gun designed by the look of it to chuck a shell a mile or so. You need metagame rules, like cylinders, area cover and such like to stop people taking advantage.

The stupidity of this came up in a game test last week. A squad of guardians were hiding behind a 6x8" steel; and concrete bunker. The arm of the spotter for the weapons platform could be seen and was checked by 3 ppl in store. The tau (not mine i hasten to add) lit up the squad with 4 markerlights, 3 to remove all cover and 1 to increase the squad of stealths BS at 15 " away who were one the other side of the bunker. 1 dead squad with no reply.

Now i challenge anyone here to say that they would be happy with that if you were the eldar player. I can guarantee that any of you, whatever you feelings are in the rule, would be frakked off.

Its like the england football (soccer for yanks and aussies) team. Looks very good on paper, but under performs at every opportunity to the coaches dismay.

EarlGrey
05-06-2008, 00:33
The stupidity of this came up in a game test last week. A squad of guardians were hiding behind a 6x8" steel; and concrete bunker. The arm of the spotter for the weapons platform could be seen and was checked by 3 ppl in store. The tau (not mine i hasten to add) lit up the squad with 4 markerlights, 3 to remove all cover and 1 to increase the squad of stealths BS at 15 " away who were one the other side of the bunker. 1 dead squad with no reply.

Now i challenge anyone here to say that they would be happy with that if you were the eldar player. I can guarantee that any of you, whatever you feelings are in the rule, would be frakked off.

I wouldn't care. If I left a guy exposed, I pay the price. :)
It's the way the rules work, and as has been pointed out in a good number of posts it does make sense 95% of the time.

Strey
05-06-2008, 00:53
It seems like everyone is interpreting this as a bad thing if you are the one trying to stay in cover, but I guess I don't get it.

As I see it, you can leave your best ranged weapons (plasma guns, las cannons, etc.) exposed so that they can shoot, and the models in the unit that ARE in cover (obviously) receive a cover save. Therefore, when your vulnerable models receive returning fire, you can assign the wounds to your regular guys (bolters, etc.) - and they still receive a 4+ cover save. Even if they fail it, your exposed plasma gun or lascannon is still alive and shooting the next turn.

In my opion, the unit in cover is still at an advantage. Unless, of course, you are not allowed to allocate the wounds to your guys in cover.

Battle-Brother Wags
05-06-2008, 02:00
It seems like everyone is interpreting this as a bad thing if you are the one trying to stay in cover, but I guess I don't get it.

In my view, the frustration comes from the seeming arbitrariness of when calls are made according to TLOS and when they're called based on an abstraction. I was so hoping they'd max out the one and minimize the other. It is not realistic to say you can do totally one and not the other, because there is ALWAYS going to be abstraction in a IGOUGO system. The models themselves are an abstraction. And so when so much emphasis is placed on seeing that particular model as it is modeled for TLOS purposes and that leads to an abstract result, it just leaves me scratching my head, especially when the book designers literally say, "In Warhammer 40k we use true line of sight." There is a very real dimension to that statement that is completely and utterly false.

Anyway, just trying to clarify some people's thinking. In the scenario described, I would not have been mad at my opponent, but I would definately say it was a lame-@ss rule. And honestly, I would say it no matter which end I was on, and so I do now.

rebmonk
05-06-2008, 02:16
Just for clarification and the people that didn't read the rules entirely:

The LoS is drawn from the shooter's head (aka eyesight). If he is in range and can see the "body" (which they clearly define as head, torso, arms, and legs) you can shoot at it. Then they go on to say you cant shoot at banners, guns, wings, cuz they aren't considered body. But ya, you see a raised hand you can shoot it.

Sorry, was reading earlier posts and people were debating over something they hadn't read yet.

And to go to that prone guardsman guy: ya, your guys if they cant see over that wall cant shoot over that wall. However if theres a stray hand somewhere im shooting.

I don't see why anyones complaining. In any of these situations you get a 4+ cover save, which is fine with me, and it makes sense fluff wise.

Although i admit im a tyranid player and i will be re-gluing my genestealer and tyrant arms so they are a bit more tucked in.

Strey
05-06-2008, 02:31
In my view, the frustration comes from the seeming arbitrariness of when calls are made according to TLOS and when they're called based on an abstraction. I was so hoping they'd max out the one and minimize the other.

Fair enough, and I agree to an extent.

I just disagree with those that are saying that the rule is unfair and gives an advantage only to those who have all their models exposed and able to fire.

tarrin
05-06-2008, 11:29
I was in the shop on the way home and one of the fellas there has made a IG with a periscope, for hiding behind walls yet still been able to see.

made me laugh.

I am still of the opinion you should only be able to kill what you can see. Gw never get it right do they?

Ravenous
05-06-2008, 12:05
I was in the shop on the way home and one of the fellas there has made a IG with a periscope, for hiding behind walls yet still been able to see.

made me laugh.

I am still of the opinion you should only be able to kill what you can see. Gw never get it right do they?

Its because GW uses the teeter-toter method to game balance.

Its either one extreme or the other there is no happy medium, its like asking them to get you a beer and they come back a month later with a warm two-four.

samiens
05-06-2008, 12:05
Incidentally, I would say that GW is losing tons of money because there's less expendable income and by losing loads of money you must mean losing value- we have no idea on the actual profit margin.

I think GW has this rule right- its the best balance between sniping and hiding in plain sight

Wenemun
05-06-2008, 12:07
sheesh, read the whole rule further down it says "Models that are completely out of sight of all of the firers are not counted in either category, and they cannot be hit."

MrBigMr
05-06-2008, 12:27
sheesh, read the whole rule further down it says "Models that are completely out of sight of all of the firers are not counted in either category, and they cannot be hit."
No one can argue the rule to be worded poorly. GW has finally realised that common sense is about as common as civil war is civil.

rakath
05-06-2008, 13:09
sheesh, read the whole rule further down it says "Models that are completely out of sight of all of the firers are not counted in either category, and they cannot be hit."

Umm, was that line in the final rulebook or in the leaked pfd?

If that's true, it just makes matters much worse.

Fred_Scuttle
05-06-2008, 14:44
"Models that are completely out of sight of all of the firers are not counted in either category, and they cannot be hit."

Umm, was that line in the final rulebook or in the leaked pfd?

If that's true, it just makes matters much worse.


Can SOMEONE please confirm this? Can models out of LOS of the firing unit be hit or not? I've not held the official book yet but I know many of you have.

PLEASE - just confirm this. Seems QUITE Black and White. Either they CAN or CAN NOT be taken as casualties.

If they CAN NOT I'll be all :D :)

If they CAN I'll be all :confused::wtf:

We plan on playing a 'Get used to 5th edition' game this Saturday and I'd like to know FOR SURE one way or the other.

We plan on using:
the new Vech Damage Chart
Can Run D6- May not Assault or Shoot After Running

And would love to try to get used to 'J-LOS' but this sticking point on out of LOS models being woundable or not is a major question.

Is 1 guy exposed 1 guy woundable or ALL guys in the unit woundable?

Thanks,
Fred

rakath
05-06-2008, 15:14
Checked the pdf - in those rules everyone in unit could be taken as casaulties. Even the ones out of range and out of sight.

So.. that quote must be from the final rulebook, if true.
This is the first time I've heard about this, though, so a confirmation would be nice.

Oh man.. In the few 5th ed test games the "everyone can die" rule worked perfectly.
In most shootouts it was the heavy weapon being the only one with clear LoS to the target.
Example pic (http://maktah.googlepages.com/maastokuva1.jpg/maastokuva1-full.jpg)
No biggie, when you got shot at, just allocate wounds to the bolter marines. But now .. if you want to shoot with your heavy, it's probably going to be the first one to go.
Either you'll have to keep it hidden, or position your troops so that every one of them is in clear LoS of the enemy. And your enemy is going to position his units so that only thing he'll see is your heavies/PF-sergeant.

Man. Makes the game completely not fun anymore. It's a small thing, but a very important one.

johno
05-06-2008, 19:04
Actually, the PDF has a contradiction in it.

The section on Allocating Wounds says that everyone can be hit, even if out of sight/range, but the section on Units Partially in Cover says they cannot be hit.

If this contradiction has made it into the final version, then GW's editing regime is clearly as robust as ever...

johno

Bunnahabhain
05-06-2008, 19:51
If this contradiction has made it into the final version, then GW's editing regime is clearly as robust as ever...

So they are remembering to feel the proofreading chimpanzees then...

SwordJon
06-06-2008, 04:07
The rulebook does not have this contradiction that I can see. Units out of LoS and/or range can still be killed, if part of their unit can be fired upon.

Fred_Scuttle
06-06-2008, 04:31
The rulebook does not have this contradiction that I can see. Units out of LoS and/or range can still be killed, if part of their unit can be fired upon.

Well......That's teh suck. I can't say I've had a bad play experience with it.......yet.

Just not something I'm looking forward to bending all logic into a triple helix pretzel to try and justify.

Perhaps the rest of 5th's changes will more than make up for it.

In for a penny - in for 40K pennies....

Fred

SwordJon
06-06-2008, 04:34
My personal opinion is that the reasoning they give is quite sound. Though I don't think people will fall prey to this more than a few times before they catch on... (unless they play Orks and just don't care how many boyz die, WAAAAGH!)

EmperorEternalXIX
06-06-2008, 06:55
I just disagree with those that are saying that the rule is unfair and gives an advantage only to those who have all their models exposed and able to fire. I agree to an extent. Mainly because this is not all that dissimilar from saying in 4th Ed, "WTF! That's not fair! THis game totally favors guys who stay in or behind cover!"

I think the bottom line is they are trying to raise the value of transports and cover saves, and I think they want to take away the ability of a unit to be unable to be attacked if positioned correctly. In this logic, I think it makes sense from a gameplay perspective...virtually any game of 40k can be won pretty easily if you hide some stuff in a safe place and wait to pounce on a wounded army. Part of the problem with that is if both players adopt such a strategy you would end up with Warhammer being a very dull game of "Wait for a player to get annoyed and move up." Now of course this never happens in practice, but still...

I feel like it has a good vibe. Assault armies, for example, once they make assault, are going to assault at full effectiveness, barring casualties (which these new rules encourage you to minimize with transports). Shooting armies, however, have a lot of "okay I have 20 shots but only 3 of them can reach you" type situations. You can assault an independent character but can't pick him out for shooting; you can assault a powerful shooting unit and silence it indefinitely; you can even assault things that are inevitably going to assault you, denying them a charge and a juicy target in favor of more expendable ones. The best part of being an assault unit is the fact that your only major weakness -- shooting -- cannot even ATTEMPT to harm you once you hit assault. Worse yet, you can even block LOS with assaulting in 4th, rendering shooty armies further gimped.

Shooty armies -- the main people who use LOS -- suffer a lot in all of these scenarios. The new rules, I dislike them just because they aren't terribly realistic...but they help balance out horde CC armies.