Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[Jolemai]

Line of Sight

[SkimaskMohawk]

That's how it works already...

[Ishagu]

You sure about that? I've played against shenanigans where a character that was closest but out of LoS prevented others from being the target.

[Gentlemanloser]

There is character shenanigans.

 

Put a unit in CC. Like a Culexes Assassin.

 

Any characters further behind that CC simply cannot be shot at. As they are not the closest target.

 

And unless you're using pistols you can't shoot the unit in CC either.

 

The wording needs to change from visible target to viable target. Or similair.

[Mekhitar]

Not just characters in cc - a couple of tac marines (or a rhino!) in cc will shield characters beyond.

 

I am hoping they fix the rule where characters prevent other characters from being shot if they are in a ball. Nothing like hiding a company commander behind an astropath, and your land raider can’t split fire between the two targets with its giant array of guns...

[Panzer]

The Character LoS change is probably just that the "can't target unless nearest unit" now excludes units that are closer but not within LoS or something like that.

[SkimaskMohawk]

You sure about that? I've played against shenanigans where a character that was closest but out of LoS prevented others from being the target.

The rules say "...can only be chosen if they are the closest visible enemy unit..." so yes, I am sure.

[Closet Skeleton]

Characters just shouldn't block you shooting at other characters full stop, but the wording for that might be too complicated for 8th ed's current direction.

 

There is character shenanigans.

Put a unit in CC. Like a Culexes Assassin.

Any characters further behind that CC simply cannot be shot at. As they are not the closest target.

And unless you're using pistols you can't shoot the unit in CC either.

The wording needs to change from visible target to viable target. Or similair.

 

Then you get nonsense like using the fix bayonets order to engage a unit and then suddenly being able to fire basilisks at guy hiding behind a wall on the other side of the board.

 

Why should charging body guards let you be able to shoot characters?

Edited November 22, 2017 by Closet Skeleton

[Gentlemanloser]

Why should a culexes assassin in CC stop all your guns, from every other unit, shooting the inquisitor standing in the open in los to all the rest of your army?

[Bryan Blaire]

Why should a culexes assassin in CC stop all your guns, from every other unit, shooting the inquisitor standing in the open in los to all the rest of your army?

Because presumably you don’t want to shoot your own personnel and trying to shoot someone in the middle of a hand-to-hand/melee/grappling fight is hard to do without hitting the person on your side.

 

That one is at least somewhat logical on top of the fact that it’s a game rule that may not be a perfect simulation of reality.

[Ficinus]

In Third edition, wasn't there a rule that you couldn't target a character if they were within x" of a unit? If there wasn't, it was certainly a rule in Fifth ed fantasy. It seems to fit well with what they want to simulate, better than the current rule. Why should a character standing out in the open on one side of the board be invisible because a tank thirty inches away from him is 1" closer to the firing unit?

[Panzer]

 

Why should a culexes assassin in CC stop all your guns, from every other unit, shooting the inquisitor standing in the open in los to all the rest of your army?

Because presumably you don’t want to shoot your own personnel and trying to shoot someone in the middle of a hand-to-hand/melee/grappling fight is hard to do without hitting the person on your side.

That one is at least somewhat logical on top of the fact that it’s a game rule that may not be a perfect simulation of reality.

It stops being logical when you remember that closer doesn't care about directions. The cc with the assassin could be south of the shooting unit and the inquisitor north of it and you still wouldn't be able to shoot at the inquisitor if he isn't the closest.

[Kilamandaros]

The current iteration of the character rule is utterly ridiculous, hopefully they bring wholesale changes.

[Ficinus]

 

Why should a culexes assassin in CC stop all your guns, from every other unit, shooting the inquisitor standing in the open in los to all the rest of your army?

Because presumably you don’t want to shoot your own personnel and trying to shoot someone in the middle of a hand-to-hand/melee/grappling fight is hard to do without hitting the person on your side.

 

That one is at least somewhat logical on top of the fact that it’s a game rule that may not be a perfect simulation of reality.

I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't about why can't you shoot the assassin, but why can't you shoot the Inquisitor standing in the open. Imagine Guilliman standing alone in the middle of the table. If a single assassin is in combat with, say, 10 terminators and that combat is closer than the primarch, then the primarch cannot be targeted, presumably because everyone is so terrified about the outcome of combat that they just watch with great apprehension instead of shooting the giant dude standing alone in the middle of the battlefield, right out in the open.

[Bryan Blaire]

I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't about why can't you shoot the assassin, but why can't you shoot the Inquisitor standing in the open.

Yes, I did, since it sounded like the Assassin would have been engaged with the Inquisitor.

 

I guess the games I’ve seen played and how I read it have interpreted that differently than y’all, since a character engaged in hand to hand is no longer “visible” as a Target and therefore wouldn’t be the nearest visible target. Generally your units are blocking LOS to a character engaged in hand-to-hand.

 

I also think y’all are forgetting that this is an abstraction based game, and the concept of someone just “being out in the open” on a battlefield probably isn’t what is really happening - the person is probably running around, doing his/her level best not to present themselves as a target, moving behind units, coming out in front of them, possibly moving through them, etc. Most of an army/force isn’t generally paying attention to/hunting for that one lone person either (unless it is known to them that there is in fact only one lone guy), so it makes sense that they wouldn’t always just be looking for one person to target. They are going to be looking for the larger groups of enemies.

 

In the grand scheme of things though, abstraction, not simulation. Does there need to be some additional caveats, yes, obviously the rule isn’t perfect, but to say that it completely doesn’t make sense also ignores things. Truthfully, True Line Of Sight in an abstracted game is a pretty silly rule, and is why other editions made more sense with rules like this: they didn’t use True LOS. There was abstracted LOs as well.

 

And a tank is usually a really bad single human sniper.

[Ficinus]

They would be visible for the purpose of psychic powers even in combat, though, right? I think the distinction most would make is between visible and targetable with shooting. Edited November 22, 2017 by Ficinus

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

I think you misunderstood the question. It wasn't about why can't you shoot the assassin, but why can't you shoot the Inquisitor standing in the open.

Yes, I did, since it sounded like the Assassin would have been engaged with the Inquisitor.

 

I guess the games I’ve seen played and how I read it have interpreted that differently than y’all, since a character engaged in hand to hand is no longer “visible” as a Target and therefore wouldn’t be the nearest visible target. Generally your units are blocking LOS to a character engaged in hand-to-hand.

Generally you only need to see .001% of a model to gain vision, which is so much easier this edition when every part of a model counts. This is especially true of the newer characters who are scaled up a little bit or have swirly stuff going on which now counts for los

[Withershadow]

The LOS stuff is the dumbest thing about this edition (and the last one).

[Bryan Blaire]

Generally you only need to see .001% of a model to gain vision, which is so much easier this edition when every part of a model counts. This is especially true of the newer characters who are scaled up a little bit or have swirly stuff going on which now counts for los

See above for my comments on the silliness of using True LOS in a game like this and saying that .001% of any model is enough to have an enemy be “visible”.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea I read it, and it didn't read as a critique of tlos, since you say units block characters from LoS in melee. Just sounded like you misinterpreted what visible to viable

[Bryan Blaire]

Yea I read it, and it didn't read as a critique of tlos, since you say units block characters from LoS in melee. Just sounded like you misinterpreted what visible to viable

Well, interpretation is interpretive. Not sure you read all of my post.

 

But yes, the issue is resolved rather succinctly by simply having characters in melee no longer visible.

 

I get that people want the rules fixed, but sometimes there is an “interpretation” issue about why something is wrong and then there are things actually wrong. True LOS in an abstracted game is wrong. “Why can’t I shoot that guy out in the open” while ignoring that obviously people in battle aren’t so stupid as to just be standing without moving for hours on end, but in a game where people are running a model from one place to the next during a turn that is a finite real time thing but wouldn’t be “in-game world time” is an “interpretation” thing.

 

Personally, I’d rather they handle the stupidity of True LOS once and for all rather than trying to piecemeal sixty thousand rule exceptions for it into a game. It’s a game, with miniatures, stop claiming it isn’t a simulation and then put something like True Line of Sight into it like it is, GW. That’s the real correction you need to make.

[Antarius]

Yeah, one of the great mysteries of GWs current gamedesign is why they seem to think TLOS is easier than measuring base-to-base. TLOS is probably the thing that's caused the most trouble and timewasting in all my games combined.

[Plaguecaster]

I'm looking forward to all these point changed seems like it should deal with some of the major spammed options which should never of been that cheap in the first place can't wait to get my hands on it hopefully Preorders are up this weekend

[Lagrath]

Yeah I miss the terrain / building levels / LOS / measuring rules from 7th (other than toe in cover for GMCs). More details, but way less arguments or odd situations. Now we are in a weird world of people in different areas playing things differently with levels of buildings and etc., including an unpublished, unofficial ITC house rule that , despite what RAW says in the main rulebook and GQ FAQ, keeps flying non-infantry models from entering enclosed buildings or moving up and down floors other than the roof for enclosed buildings (i.e. the 4-sided buildings that the FLG guys behind the ITC sell on their website).

Edited November 22, 2017 by Lagrath

[Thorakitai]

Most of what has been shown so far is huge buffs to Primaris Marines and Death Guard, and small to massive nerfs to everything else, plus a very mixed bag of additions for armies without codices. Does anyone else get the impression that GW intended for the two new armies to completely dominate the game, and is now swinging a huge hammer trying to make it so? Edited November 23, 2017 by Thorakitai