September Big FAQ speculation and wishlisting

[Lexington]

The guy who stuck his boot out revealed the position of his squad. Perfectly fitting that wound spill over.

Yes, the one Ork who moved his toe out of cover definitely tipped everyone off to the otherwise stealthy advance of 30 Boyz, thus allowing the Space Marines to fire their Bolters around the corner of a building. Let us marinade in this finely-forged narrative. :p

[Vermintide]

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

[chapter master 454]

To be honest, I tend to use more of an honesty system when firing LoS, I would tend to say that a tiny part of the model showing doesn't really count unless its reasonable (A boot isn't, however an entire leg would be more reasonable. Same goes for the head, if that's showing then fair game there too).

 

I also tend to have Areas defined when I play with my opponent, thankfully most terrain at my club tend to have bases put on them that gives you a good area to work with and know when you are in cover.

I do however agree with the 50% silliness. I get the idea but...come on. Then again I suppose how else do you work it because it doesn't make sense otherwise.

[Wulf Vengis]

I'm not looking to actually change it just offering my suggestion towards its possible mechanics.

[Panzer]

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

 

It was never different though.

[Vermintide]

 

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

 

It was never different though.

 

 

People are suggesting they want it to be different.

[Panzer]

 

 

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

 

It was never different though.

 

 

People are suggesting they want it to be different.

 

 

No they really don't.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

The old rules where wings didn't count as the model, etc were absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Being able to shoot someone because the hem of his cloak is visible through a window is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Having anything less than 100% coverage be meaningless doesn't even deserve to be called a system at all.

[Wulf Vengis]

So a +1 cover bonus for partial cover and +2 cover bonus for full cover?

 

I'm not sure this is a fix. Wouldn't this just lead back into different types of cover with different bonuses as more simple method?

[Watcher]

I would like to see some new additions to Deathwatch and some point changes for Space Wolves (minor tweaks *cough - Blood Claws - *cough*).

    Wasn't too happy when they said "New units for Deathwatch, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc." but all they got was datasheets the armies already possessed and Deathwatch only got the Repulsor Executioner. 

I know Deathwatch wont have a new codex for awhile but if they allowed us to use the new datasheets as well, it would be awesome. 

[Panzer]

 

 

The old rules where wings didn't count as the model, etc were absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Being able to shoot someone because the hem of his cloak is visible through a window is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Having anything less than 100% coverage be meaningless doesn't even deserve to be called a system at all.

 

 

Yeah, if anything GW should have done the opposite. As soon as a model is obscured in ANY way it gets a cover bonus.

[kombatwombat]

The guy who stuck his boot out revealed the position of his squad. Perfectly fitting that wound spill over.

 

It's a skill based game, be better in positioning!

Come on man, that’s an extraordinarily long bow to draw and you know it. As I actually said above, it could be a situation where you didn’t quite have enough movement to get the tenth (or 30th) model behind the LoS blocker, or maybe you made a minute error in judging LoS and part of one model was sticking out. That one model caught out should die, sure, but it does not justify bullets suddenly turning 90 degrees to kill the other 29 models.

 

I would hate it if they changed wound allocation. Sure, it doesn't always make perfect sense, but it's easy and simple right now. I'd rather lose a few models out of LOS sometimes than slow the game down even more by mucking around with something that works as is. I don't see any benefit in changing it.

It’s a quality of life upgrade - it doesn’t manifestly change the flow of the game, but it eliminates anti-thematic situations that break immersion and can leave a bad taste in players’ mouths. I don’t see this change as adding any complexity - after all, you have to measure range and LoS every time you shoot a weapon anyway, it isn’t a huge stretch to go from ‘you can see the unit and are in range of the unit’ to ‘you can see five models and are in range of all of them’. Most of the time it’s quite obvious, but on the occasional time where you actually need to check LoS and range you add a second or two in deciding how many models you can see as opposed to whether you can see any.

 

 

 

 

 

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

It was never different though.

People are suggesting they want it to be different.

I don’t see any call for that to be different.

 

Personally, I’m calling for ‘bullets won’t turn 90 degrees mid-flight’. And frankly I’m astonished that it’s in any way a controversial opinion.

[MegaVolt87]

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

 

I never really had issues with this in the past with 40k, as before deployment I would always talk to my opponent as what cover was what with what save when cover rules were more in depth. Never had arguments because its hard to change your view if it was already settled beforehand. I think new cover rules and LOS changes would be too big a mechanics change for FAQ/ CA. Maybe in the next edition I guess. Could be reading the room wrong, though it seems we actually want a new edition with all these major mechanics changes more than "revisions". 

[Wulf Vengis]

I know i sparked this and then kind of backed out on agreeing whether it SHOULD be changed but IF it were to be addressed/changed just add a tagline to LOS, COVER, or WOUND ALLOCATION that says "wounds can only be allocated to models in LOS". It's that simple really.

You could even go one step forward and say "any left over wounds are to be allocated to models within the same unit up to 2 inches away". Now you get SOME spill over to represent the other members of that unit trying to recover their fallen friend.

[Tyriks]

 

The guy who stuck his boot out revealed the position of his squad. Perfectly fitting that wound spill over.

It's a skill based game, be better in positioning!

Come on man, that’s an extraordinarily long bow to draw and you know it. As I actually said above, it could be a situation where you didn’t quite have enough movement to get the tenth (or 30th) model behind the LoS blocker, or maybe you made a minute error in judging LoS and part of one model was sticking out. That one model caught out should die, sure, but it does not justify bullets suddenly turning 90 degrees to kill the other 29 models.

I would hate it if they changed wound allocation. Sure, it doesn't always make perfect sense, but it's easy and simple right now. I'd rather lose a few models out of LOS sometimes than slow the game down even more by mucking around with something that works as is. I don't see any benefit in changing it.

It’s a quality of life upgrade - it doesn’t manifestly change the flow of the game, but it eliminates anti-thematic situations that break immersion and can leave a bad taste in players’ mouths. I don’t see this change as adding any complexity - after all, you have to measure range and LoS every time you shoot a weapon anyway, it isn’t a huge stretch to go from ‘you can see the unit and are in range of the unit’ to ‘you can see five models and are in range of all of them’. Most of the time it’s quite obvious, but on the occasional time where you actually need to check LoS and range you add a second or two in deciding how many models you can see as opposed to whether you can see any.

 

 

Dunno, I might just be waving my walking stick in the air but I feel like the current and indeed, very vague rules for LOS and terrain are actually an advantage. It allows you to use whatever you want as cover and abstract that away using the vague rules- It doesn't matter if you have an upturned cereal box or a £50 painted model of an imperial outpost. You and your opponent can just say "Hey being in here means you have cover. Cool?" I remember things getting a lot more complicated and involving a lot more disagreements when you actually had like a dozen different specific types of cover and you had to argue about which one your upturned cereal box actually was.

It was never different though.

People are suggesting they want it to be different.

I don’t see any call for that to be different.

Personally, I’m calling for ‘bullets won’t turn 90 degrees mid-flight’. And frankly I’m astonished that it’s in any way a controversial opinion.

Except it's not going to add a second or two. Its gonna add thirty seconds in the movement phase per unit as people rearrange to keep their special weapons safe. Its gonna be three minutes of someone trying to say you can't see this one specific guy, or that the lascannon should be safe. It doesnt improve the quality of anything, it will slow gameplay down in my group, and personally I find the entire game immersion breaking, so I dont have any reason to care about one more twig on the fire. I would MUCH rather have fast, easy gameplay over weirdly specific nitpicking mechanics anyday. No, bullets dont go around corners, but soldiers also dont stop in concert with each other for half an hour at a time to let their enemy shoot them.

[Wulf Vengis]

@MegaVolt: It's not really a core mechanics issue this LOS/cover/wound allocation debate that's just Ishagus way of telling us they don't want a change to those rules.

 

As i said above, a simple tagline adding this to the current rule in question will suffice.

 

Even the way cover works doesn't have to be a drastic and major change to the core mechanics. Instead of a -1 to the firing units to hit roll an increase to the targets armor or allow for the unit in cover to reroll failed armor saves.

 

Or with light/hard cover a -1/-2 to hit roll penalty or +1/+2 target armor bonus.

 

Nothing has to be hard about changes to the rules.

[kombatwombat]

Except it's not going to add a second or two. Its gonna add thirty seconds in the movement phase per unit as people rearrange to keep their special weapons safe. Its gonna be three minutes of someone trying to say you can't see this one specific guy, or that the lascannon should be safe. It doesnt improve the quality of anything, it will slow gameplay down in my group, and personally I find the entire game immersion breaking, so I dont have any reason to care about one more twig on the fire.

That’s a pretty gross exaggeration. We’re not talking a return to ‘remove the closest models first’, we’re just talking an uncommon edge case where the front models are in range of the enemy guns but the rear models aren’t. Even in those uncommon cases, it’s a matter of move the bolter guys, and when you move the Lascannon guy you don’t put him out front, you leave him at the back. Arguments about which model is or isn’t visible aren’t significantly different to arguments about which unit is or isn’t visible. This isn’t really creating much by way of arguments you aren’t already having.

 

I get that the benefits don’t matter to you specifically, but to a lot of people immersion is important - if it wasn’t, we’d be playing with numbered tokens rather than models. We are talking edge cases here, and it’s a question of whether it’s worth potentially costing a matter of seconds - or even, to be extraordinarily generous, minutes - on an uncommon basis in order to not sour people’s experience of the game in those situations.

[kombatwombat]

Someone in my local group likened the rules and FAQ situation of 8th Ed and a potential 9th Ed to sculpting a marble statue.

 

We’ve had the last couple of years chipping off minor imperfections until now the surface is smooth and we’re running out of things to clean up. That doesn’t mean there aren’t major internal flaws and cracks that we can’t clean up with a chisel. Also, if the statue is a horse when we wanted a man, that isn’t something you can fix with small adjustments. At that point, your best bet is a sledgehammer followed by a fresh block of marble.

 

It’s the same here. FAQs and updates have smoother over what needed smoothing over, and we’re pretty much done with that. The remaining issues are so fundamental to the ruleset that you’re talking a new edition, and plenty of people want changes to make the game something different, which also requires a new edition.

 

At this point I wouldn’t expect much from Big FAQs. Enjoy 8th Ed in its final, polished form, and pray for 9th to come along one day and fix the rest.

[Wulf Vengis]

Uhm, the changes i suggested aren't anywhere close to requiring a full mechanics overhaul. They're minor tweaks to existing rules that would be simple to put into practice via an FAQ or Chapter Approved.

[kombatwombat]

Oh for sure Wulf, the changes I’ve suggested are also doable in an FAQ imo. I more meant that we’re running out of FAQ-able issues rather than there can’t be any more FAQ fixes.

[Wulf Vengis]

Oh ok, whew. I thought I'd missed something and was worried.

[Lexington]

Except it's not going to add a second or two. Its gonna add thirty seconds in the movement phase per unit as people rearrange to keep their special weapons safe. Its gonna be three minutes of someone trying to say you can't see this one specific guy, or that the lascannon should be safe..

Overall, isn’t this kind of a wash? With the current LoS rules, you’re moving a squad or a single model to avoid LoS, just doing it differently in each instance.

 

Also...I dunno, I’ve met a lot of 40K players, and not one of them - me included - is so regimented and efficient in their time that the extra five minutes is just gonna ruin their day.

[Closet Skeleton]

 

Except it's not going to add a second or two. Its gonna add thirty seconds in the movement phase per unit as people rearrange to keep their special weapons safe. Its gonna be three minutes of someone trying to say you can't see this one specific guy, or that the lascannon should be safe. It doesnt improve the quality of anything, it will slow gameplay down in my group, and personally I find the entire game immersion breaking, so I dont have any reason to care about one more twig on the fire. I would MUCH rather have fast, easy gameplay over weirdly specific nitpicking mechanics anyday. No, bullets dont go around corners, but soldiers also dont stop in concert with each other for half an hour at a time to let their enemy shoot them.

 

 

In the current rules if I want to hide a unit I have to spend 5 minutes looking at the board from every angle adjusting the unit until it can be seen from as few a points as possible. If a model is waving his sword in front of his face I have to turn him around so he's not letting all his friends be murdered.

[Ishagu]

Sounds like you need bigger terrain pieces on your board.

[kombatwombat]

Sounds like you need bigger terrain pieces on your board.

That... has zero bearing on what he said.

 

Please stop trying to make every complaint out as ‘8th Ed is wonderful in every way, any issue you’re having is your own fault because you aren’t skilled enough/don’t have enough terrain’. It’s a reasonable bet that some of the people making these complaints are better and more experienced players and use more and better terrain than you do.

 

Actually, do you play exclusively Zone Mortalis games? Because that would explain a lot of your views.