Annoying wargame mechanics

>>44218588
You can't just say that one mechanic is objectively terrible without the context of a specific system, some times things fit, some times they don't.

The biggest time-waster is probably alternating rolls for things that don't involve making any decisions.

Example: I roll to wound your guys, then you roll to save. It doesn't matter who rolls, the outcome is the same, and it eats up extra time to take turns getting the dice out.

My other pet peeve is adding exceptions and special rules rather than having them be core rules.

warhammer 40k is probably the worst example of this where every army seems to have their own special rules that some times more or less are meant to represent roughly the same thing but work differently for everyone.

It's usually not worth the extra hassle to have 3 different armies be fearless or disciplined or dangerous in close combat in 3 different ways, just narrow it down to a few universal rules that can be shared across factions.

All of aos

>>44218588
TLOS

Warhammer and 40k have always struck me as having one too many rolls in combat. Hit, wound, save just seems excessive- hit and wound is sufficient, surely?

>>44219931

Either this or randomized move distances.

40k cover saves being exclusive with armor saves. Ditto with invulnerable saves. Why not just do the fantasy thing and make cover a shooting modifier and invulns stackable with armor?
Indirect fire weapons.
Artillery pieces on the table.
Unit based hit allocation. Character sniping.
Limited pre-measuring. If you ever allow a player to measure something, they're going to cheese it. Just let anyone measure everything.
Full non-interactive player turns. Games aren't fun if I can run to subway while you're taking your first turn.
Rules bloat, or factions that just ignore a large chunk of rules.

>>44220267
Oh, and spammy lists. Here's a fix for 40k:
All units have an availability number, usually 1 or 2. You can take up to that many of that unit for the normal cost. Every one you buy after that costs a cumulative 25% extra points. 125% for the first, 150% for the second, and so on.

>>44220381
Having 0-1 or 0-2 units was a really common thing back when I played 40k (3rd and 4th edition). Is it not anymore?

>>44220046
Nah, hit and save.

B2B.

It simply doesn't work for some minis and terrain.

>>44220412
Nope. With the large number of formations to choose from in lieu of the old force organization chart, you too can spam the most powerful unit in your army while getting an extra bonus for doing so!

>>44218811
>Example: I roll to wound your guys, then you roll to save. It doesn't matter who rolls, the outcome is the same, and it eats up extra time to take turns getting the dice out.
No it doesn't. You roll to wound, I pick up the successes and roll to save

>>44220046
You'd have to scale the wounds up, but you could do it

>>44218588
IGOUGO turn mechanics with nothing to break it up, like reactions or opposed rolls for resolving things.

Warhammer used to be massively bad about this, in normal sized games a lot of the time during the opponent's turn could be spent doing something else because there was literally nothing for you to think about whilst the other side was working through their moving and wheeling and formation changes, even charge reactions were not needed for most things.

Sure you might have to remove figures occasionally but for the most part, the game's slow pace (aggravated by many special rules and circumstances) just made decent sized games to large games pretty damn dull. And magic phase card games just broke the flow of everything, so add in significant systems that completely conflict with the rest of the game to the list.

Stacking up modifiers to rolls is pretty bad but the tolerances of it depend on the setting/game style. Some games have far too many situational modifiers to remember or reference quickly, usually compounded by bad layout.

Really though it's less about specific mechanics and more how they are used. Straight up IGOUGO turn systems can be ok, but they're very easy to fuck up by making the rest of the process too slow and complex. Stacking up modifiers can work ok if you've got a nice easy to read reference sheet with them, they all make sense and all stick to the same kind of formula. For instance, working out to-hit modifiers would be best if all passive terrain modifiers applied to the shooter's roll, rather than splitting them out between whatever the shooter and the target's rolls are. If you can accurately guess the rules for something in a system whilst playing rather than having to memorise the game, because the rules are consistent and logical, that is good game design.

>>44220267
You'd have to rework everything to have stacking saves not be broken

>>44218588

Wargaming Systems that have a really deep ruleset that simply got lost over time due to all the rule creep and model bloat.

I'm talking systems that are either mechanically powerful and deep or systems that have this really cool "thing" that sells them but end up getting lost in the powergaming struggle or the simple bloat that comes with a long running system.

Stuff like the Focus system in Warmachine, that eventually gets obsoleted or relegated to pure infantry buffing despite the really strong focus on Robots in all it's Demos.

The stone system in Malifaux that ended up getting super simplified and stripping a lot of the character from the system.

Phase system. Forcing models to move before taking any sort of actions. It's tactically limiting, rigid and just annoying.

It's ten times worsebwhen bolted to a shitty IGOUGO system.

>>44220917
Nah, that'd add too much tracking. Just reduce the chances of to hit and damage ('armour save' can incorporate the abstraction that is toughness of the model) to fit the average casualty rate you require.

I've seen things that would have multiple wounds replaced with a damage chart in other games. That meant that whilst there was still a chance to instantly pop something, doing damage was a bit more variable with options for the target to escape unharmed, have their skills reduced or become easier to hurt if hit again later. That's more of a small game thing though than an average 40k blobfest.

>>44221047
The trouble is you lose a lot of possible results and 40k has a large variance in units

>>44220954
Am pretty sure any attempt to actually fix 40k at this point inherently requires a serious gutting of the system, like what happened with the switch from 2nd to 3rd edition.

The game is just too bloated for tweaking and patching to work.

>>44221087
40k could stand to lose some of that variance with the scale the game is apparently supposed to be played at these days.

Switching up dice to larger than D6 would help though if you want to keep a good spread of possible results. Going to D8s, D10s or hell, even D12s if going crazy would broaden the spectrum nicely.

Not that using anything other than D6s would have an icecube's chance in hell of being accepted by anyone.

Gonna turn it around, since I'm working on a wargame at present: What features would you like to see in a wargame?

Fast paced trench assaults with mecha and simultaneous turns, if anyone wants to tailor their suggestions to what I'm working on.

>>44221278
>Fast paced trench assaults with mecha

u wot

>>44221338
Mecha I justify with rule of cool and a few differences from real world physics. Other than that, it's a world whose tech level runs from 1870s-1930s, depending on which field you look at.

The mecha are used to open breaches in trench warfare and allow for a large scale assault by the army. Thus the game's name, Trenchbreaker, is the function of the mechs.

I can talk more if you're interested, or show off the rules.

>>44221423
>I can talk more if you're interested, or show off the rules.
Please do. I am specially interested because I am investigating rules mechanics for game design at Uni.

>>44221151
Saves are really the least of 40k's problems

>>44221568
Alright, well, the basic idea for the game is simultaneous turns, similar to X-Wing in that you plan out your whole turn ahead of time, then execute that turn the same time as your opponent does.

One of the critical conceits is that the table you two are playing on is No Man's Land, while the edges of that table that you control are the trenches you're trying to capture. The main way to win is by moving your infantry across the opponent's table edge, into his trench, which scores victory points. This idea roots from a few years back, when I tried to take the concepts from a lanepusher like League and turn them into a tabletop game. Trench Warfare was the most sensible fluff for that. Since then I've abandoned the lanepusher concept, but using infantry as a unit to score points and mecha to defend them is an idea that's stuck with me.

>>44221697
>you plan out your whole turn ahead of time, then execute that turn the same time as your opponent does.

To be honest, I freaking HATE this mechanic.

>>44221697
Hmm, so the goal is basically to get your infantry to the other side of the board, using mechs to halt your enemies advance and punch through larger groups?

Sounds interesting, although I think it might work better as alternate-activation rather than simultaneous.

>>44221734
Having played 40k, X-Wing, and Wooden Ships and Iron Men, I prefer the simultaneous approach. It forces you to think about what you'll do and what your opponent will do, which real military commanders have to do too.

>>44221697
Man, good luck with that. I'm having enough trouble just trying to port master of magic to TT.

>>44221771
That's the basic goal. There's three factions at present: Chivalrous Knights in nuclear mecha, reasonable gun-platform quadrupeds, and "What if Nikola Tesla was Pharaoh of Egypt?"

File: Vanguard Final.png (2MB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1200px

>>44221782
>>44221771
In case anyone's interested, here's one of the mechs. Astarian Knight model 181 "Vanguard" equipped with the Guardian rig. This is from the Chivalrous Knights in nuclear mecha faction.

>>44221774
It works much better with restricted fields of movement, otherwise you can end up with a 'ships passing in the night' issue.

When wargames switch their dice mechanics.

Take Warmachine, it's all 2d6, and 90% of the rolls high = good, but command and skill checks are low = good. It's just a little thing, but it can slow a game down as you try and read the dice wrong naturally.

Same thing with Warhammer's system(though at least it has single d6s versus 2d6 for command) Similarly for d66 rolls, where you have to reread the dice.

>>44221786
>>44221806
Sounds neat. Were you planning on most of the versatility and variety being centered on the mechs, or would there be different types of infantry to mix things up that way?

Furthermore, about how many mech models versus infantry models would a typical force have? Could you go all out-with a mech heavy list, or forgo them entirely and just lean hard on heavy-weapon infantry?

>>44221828
I want to make this primarily a mecha game. To that end, at the present state of ballistics, there are no man-portable anti-mech weapons. Anti-tank rifles, panzershreks and bazookas, etc. Infantry are entirely unable to damage mecha, but they're fairly good at fighting each other. There are three types of infantry in the rules at the moment, and I've written it to make it easy to add more to the game.

The game is built around matches with 200 points, and a single infantryman costs 1 point, so if you built a pure infantry list, you could field about a company, 200 men. By contrast, Mechs range from 15-30 points, with the one pictured >>44221806 here being a medium 20 point mech. Mech heavy lists are expected to be the standard.

If you insist on playing an infantry heavy army, I plan to later on introduce the nation of Nzemya, which can be summed up as "Communist zulus in power armor" and uses said power armor exclusively in place of mechs.

>>44221774
I like a modified form, where you do it on a unit or group basis, instead of everything at once.

>>44221806
I wasn't interested before, but now I am fully erect.

Who's the artist?

>>44221871
If infantry can't damage mechs, what's the point of them?

>>44221825
This is actually to help reduce the impact of anyone cheating. Or at least, that's what the designers I've talked to have said.

>>44221423
Is it going to be mostly about the mechas or mixed mecha and inf?

Because I like the idea of a game where you have a limited number of mecha that are at once powerful, but vulnerable.

It reminds me of playing computer FPS wargames, like project reality, where you have to babysit your tanks, recce ahead, clear out AT emplacements, etc. because they're worth so many points and have a ridiculous re-spawn timer.

But its so worth it when tanks get a good position.

Very few strategy games capture that strong yet vulnerable feeling.

>>44221903
I feel like that's a ham fisted method to trying to solve an issue.

>>44220797

Better yet you just make it easy to wound basic troops and harder to wound more elite troops.

But when they suffer a wound they are dead.

You cut out the middle man.

Like, i roll to hit with my bolters. with a bolter i need a to roll X to kill a guardmen and Y to kill a space marine. maybe a roll of 6 then another of 4 to kill a termie.

>>44221871
Hmm...well, depending on how you have the damage system set up, I think man-portable anti-mech weapons could be a decent addition.

If if was single-shot rockets, and a single rocket couldn't one-shot a mech, it gives them a small way to try and fight against them, or at least disable them.

Without infantry being able to at least disable mechs temporarily, you're going to get lists that inevitably spam mechs in an attempt to kill any enemy mechs. Then they can just use their immunity to infantry to steamroll any remaining troops, overpowering more balanced lists.

Having non-mech anti-mech weaponry increases strategic depth. Like, say you have an anti-mech weapon that's fairly strong and can take them out in a few shots, but it's an immobile manned turret.

While you could send a mech in and tank it, you then have the strategic option to send normal infantry at it, who would be less vulnerable to the specialist weapon and could help clear the path for the mech.

>>44219931

Go read the LOS rules for 4th ed... it will make 40k seam like a game of chess compared to todays game of what amounts to checkers.

>>44221916
>Very few strategy games capture that strong yet vulnerable feeling.

That's because people always make tanks or their equivalent too weak

>>44221782

You are trying to port Master of Magic to tabletop?

Do you need help? Are you looking for a tactical or a strategic kind of game? I've been trying to do something similar, albeit for an RPG system, not a battle tabletop one.

>>44221895
boswatcher.tumblr.com. A man I met on /tg/ when discussing this game. Commissioned it from him; was excellent to work with and will definitely be buying more art from him as time goes on.

>>44221900
They're the only way to score Victory Points. Fluff justification for this is that mechs have a limited time they can operate before running out of power or having their pilot pass out from heatstoke, so they're useless for holding territory. You need to bring up infantry to do that, since the objective is not to destroy the enemy army but to capture the enemy trench and move the front lines deeper into enemy territory.

>>44221916
Most of the gameplay is about the mechas, but the strategy will be mostly about how you use your infantry. Does that make sense?

As a note: Artillery also plays a role in the game. It's purchased as part of your Support section, along with unique commanders, and can't be destroyed by enemy action, so it's very reliable, but mecha can put much more ordinance on the field than artillery can, and much more accurately.

>>44221950
Aside from Artillery, non-mech anti-mech weapons are firmly in the "maybe" category, something I'm willing to introduce if infantry are useless in the game itself at first.

>okay, you beat their armor rating!
>now you need to beat their toughness!
>magical saves next!

retarded. Points have also seriously been overplayed right now

>>44220381

You should look into highlander format tourneys.

"There can be only ONE!"

sure you can take a riptide... you get one. no you cant take more but you can fill up your other slots.

It sucks for sisters who rely on having 3 exorcists. but hay, i played someone one time who dident know what penitent engines did in CC and did not ask me untill i was charging.

>>44221982
But if infantry can't do shit against mechs, how do they hold territory?

>>44220412

every tau list i have seen in most tourneys has 3 riptides in it.

40k is all about spam now more then it ever was.

>>44221982
>non-mech anti-mech weapons are firmly in the "maybe" category,

Fair enough. There are plenty of ways to make them limited enough to not obsolete mechs though. Making them stationary defenses or have limited shots are the simplest way.

>>44221278
factions with different base shapes and thus faction specific formations

>>44221992
>Points have also seriously been overplayed right now

What do you mean?

>>44222008


Not him, but apparently the mechs fall apart after a while. It's like asking how if infantry can't do shit against cruise missiles, how do they hold territory?

>>44221982
>boswatcher.tumblr.com

link goes nowhere. I want to commission him as well, damnit.

>>44221981
Just the tactical part for use as a broad system to play with a wide variety of miniatures. I don't really need help with it, as the system basically exists, but its just a bit of a slog finetuning everything so it runs smoothly when you have to do everything manually.

>>44222028

a cruise missile will blow up and be gone. A mech will stand there and shoot untill its out of ammo then start stomping things.

If nothing can hurt it then it has nothing to fear.

>>44222028
Ok, so your mechs and infantry fight the enemy and move forward and then...your mechs fall apart while your infantry get curbstomped by enemy mechs.

>>44221001

You're an idiot who knows very little about the games you claim to enjoy. Neither of your complaints are true, even vaguely. Soul Stones are still literally crucial for numerous purposes, just not turning every match into a slugfest between the Masters (thus giving the game more character, you slackjawed chucklefuck). As for Focus, that was true of the latter half of MkI and hasn't been true since. 'Infantrymachine' existed for a few years, true, but it hasn't been the case for literally over half a decade, so get the fuck over it.

>>44222011
40k used to have defenses against spam in the form of percentage-requirements for various force organization slots (50% of your points HAS to be troops, no more than 25% can be elites, etc.) or by having more strict caps on certain models.

Of course, GW threw all that out, since they wouldn't be able to sell as many models. Why limit riptides to 1 when limiting them to 3 means more people will buy 3? And now they've moved it up to 9, since they can be taken in squads now. Same with crisis suits, since they're up to 9 models max per squad.

>>44222008
Mechs are rare, with most countries having less than a hundred.(Think WW1 tanks) Once your side's mecha have defeated the other side's mecha, they shut down and it becomes an infantry war. By the time you can

>>44222051
The mecha can only operate for a limited period of time. After it's forced to shut down by technical reasons, it's vulnerable to artillery strikes and satchel charges.

>>44222057
By the time you've finished getting your mechs ready to react to the enemy assault, he's dug into the trench he just captured and gotten his mechs reset for the next fight. Congrats, another game of Trenchbreaker begins. Have fun.

>>44222033
Try emailing him at [email protected]

>>44222079
>By the time you can
*Ignore this line, got cut off when I responded to something else.

>>44222022
I mean the point buy in system for wargames. I've seen it way too many times now to be excited - it places the onus on the player to make an interesting order of battle, often without any sort of outside limiting factors that would deepen the strategic experience

it feels very tired. I would appreciate a more directed approach allowing for interesting incidental factors rather than just lego

>>44218588

I used to have this boardgame (it's probably still in my attic somewhere) called the Hammer of Thor. Kind of neat, a pseudo-RPG on a board game, where you take one of the Norse major mythological figures, adventure around, and try to score fame points for things like collecting followers, magic items, and slaying famous enemies.

Whomever had the highest score and whose side didn't lose Ragnarok at the end won the game. It was pretty neat.

But you had this big pile of "offspring" cards, of people who were born into later generations (especially mortals). And at the beginning of every player's turn, you were supposed to roll a die and add that many offspring to the regular decks.

At the very least, my group and I always forgot for turns on end, and then wound up just chucking a bunch of them into the decks. And since the offspring aren't that categorically different from the "first generation" dudes, it really doesn't make that much difference if they're in at the beginning or not. I never understood the entire thing, desu.

>>44222099
If you can come up with a way to balance this that isn't just giving your players prewritten lists, I'd love to hear it.

>>44222070
It wouldn't be a problem if 40k units had proper balance and roles.

>>44222114
you don't need to rely on points to balance a game and in many cases equivalent buy ins are not equal at all. The metagame strategy of buy-ins often decides the match before it's played, and that's stupid

I'd say something like equivalent company structures also limited by supply factors. But I suspect campaign strategy goes over the heads of most miniatures aspies

>>44222079
whats the point of the trenches if the infantry can't do anything to stop the mechs?

Look at it this way: tanks largely obsoleted trench lines once they were invented. And they're vulnerable to infantry. Your mechs fill the same role as tanks.

>>44222143
People are always going to try and spam the best thing, no matter how marginal the advantage is.

>>44222165
Stopping large infantry forces, and slowing down the mechs enough for artillery to nail them.

>>44222170
That's still true of percentage limits as well

>>44222184
why do you need tranches to stop large infantry forces if mechs can do it?

>>44222070

Wait what the fuck... riptides are SQUADABLE now?

fuck that shit im out.

Ill stick to LOTR and blood bowl untill GW revamps them and shits all over the game by doing stupid shit like it has done with 40k since 5th ed.

>>44222202
Mechs can't do it. They operate for very limited times, have strict limits on how much ordinance and especially how much ammunition they can carry, and once they run out of power/overheat are vulnerable to capture or destruction. Moreover, they're so difficult to produce that building a defensive strategy for a thousands-of-kilometers long border around them would be downright suicidal. One mech per 200 kilometers is not a good ratio.

Mechs are extremely specialized weapons, existing solely for the purpose of creating breaks in trench warfare. That's why the game is called Trenchbreaker.

>>44222192
If there's a 25% point cap on the Elite slot, then you can't take 3 riptides in an 1850 point game. You barely take 2 at 1500 points.

Just saying that no more of your force than X% can be Y cuts down on spam a lot. Never-mind more direct limits

>>44222250
They're still just going to take the best thing in slot every time. Better balance and roles would go much further in army variety.

>>44222250
>>44222274
For an example: X-Wing. Despite having three factions and no list division like 40k does along Troops/HQ/etc, X-Wing's competitive meta is pretty diverse. This year's world tournament saw the most popular list type taking up only 5% of lists.

>>44222274
>>44222308

Tau have a very internally balanced codex as it stands. It's not that the other Elite slots aren't worth taking. Crisis suits are great, and Stealth suits can provide excellent support.

It's not like other armies where there's only one usable option in the slot. Crisis suits and Riptides are both very good for their role, but Riptides have long range and are more durable, meaning people jumped on them because they're tactically easy. A crisis team can deep-strike and slag a tank in one turn. A riptide can just sit across the board and do it in 3.

Between armies, balance is definitively bad, but even within a single army it's difficult to strike a perfect balance between all options.

I'm not saying percentages or more restrictive slots would solve everything, but they could definitely help cut down on spamming problem units.

>>44222035

Just curious, how are you going to handle the flying limited ammo problem?

I've got a bunch of sprites. You've got a bunch of dwarven infantry. I shoot your guys up, but run out of ammo before I can do significant damage. You can't hit me as long as I stay in the air. In the original, the comp would usually do something stupid at this point, but I doubt a human would rush the sprites into hand to hand like that.

>>44222349
Riptides don't have a very clearly defined role though, as they have good firepower, mobility and durability so they can do the job of pretty much anything else in the codex.

>>44222379
Objectives basically. The sprites can sit around and be untouched, but they can't contest while doing it.

>>44222415

So then how are you going to preserve the balance between the fast, mobile, whittling forces and the slower, "heavier" ones? I used to take a lot of places early by picking off a unit or two at a time with something that couldn't easily be caught.

>>44222395
It being versatile would be okay if it wasn't also so cheap for what it does. If it was able to fill those roles at a higher cost, people would be more likely to only take one and fill their list with more efficient specialist units.

>>44222469
Probably with the judicious use of wargaming mechanics like terrain and LoS. Objectives would probably also be counted at the end, so fast units can't get quick captures. Other than that, it's just tweaks to make sure the numbers work out, and the player to make good use of his spells and unit selection.

>>44221278
>simultaneous turns
This always calls for some sort of bidding/bluffing mechanic. Have you got something like that?

>>44221825
On that note: All-or-nothing morale systems. Especially since creating a better system is so incredibly easy.

>>44222548

Coolness. This is something I'd like to see one day.

I'll pit my 1 man Torin army against everything you've got.

>>44221088
>Am pretty sure any attempt to actually fix 40k at this point inherently requires a serious gutting of the system,
You mean like what happened with AoS?

>>44222552
Order Cards are placed face down, then flipped face up in order of the mechs' Seniority. Other than that, not really. Got anything in mind?

>>44221806
>>44221786
>>44221697

This is actually cool as fuck, anon. I don't really have anything to add other than encouragement. Finish this, it looks quite entertaining.

>>44222601
You can read more of the rules here >>44156197. Game is about 75% complete.

>>44222592
Sounds very X-Wing to me, but not in a bad way.

>>44222062

... I don't even know how to respond.

I get the Malifuax Soulstone simplification, but the artstyle also shifted greatly around the reboot as well. The local groups dropped it as well and promptly looked for another game to latch onto. What drew me to the system was the masters before, so once that got toned down I opted for other games.

I still see Warmachine getting played. I still see loads of infantry aside from Troll players which seemed to have switched to spamming beasts. Cryx is the same. Cygnar is the same except a huge base model. I mean... If I were to go to a Warmachine game day, I would still see loads of infantry more often than not. Maybe the game has moved on in the last year or so... But I started playing around the turn of MK2. The only thing that changed was the stat that was emphasized the most, going from def to arm. Only a handful of jacks are actually played in a game where every demo is big robutts.

Both games are mechanically solid, so unbunch your panties. It's just that they drifted from what they originally represented to my game groups. I can't stand to play against randos in Warmachine, and Malifuax has no one playing locally enough for me to invest.

>>44222627
Strangely, I developed this before learning about how X-Wing worked, but since then I've gotten into X-Wing. Nothing wrong with using a good idea.

>>44220046
Still quite simple but far more deep?

>>44222622

Cool, I'll do that tomorrow. I've never seen you post before but I take it you do so at least semi-regularly, so I'll keep an eye out in the future.

>>44222665
Yeah I've just realized that I need to hit the sack too. Thanks for being interested. You can usually spot me in the Homebrew threads, but anytime you see the phrase "trench assault mecha game" or the like, that's probably me posting, though I don't usually have my name on.

>>44222633
>I still see loads of infantry aside from Troll players
It depends on which half of the game their faction is from. In general the Warmachine factions will prefer playing more infantry and only 1-2 warjacks. On the Hordes side, it's mixed. Most playstyles are valid. As it turns out, the Focus system is not working as intended and might need an overhaul.

>>44222656
>Nothing wrong with using a good idea.
I totally agree. You might want to take a look at the Influence system Guild Ball for inspiration. It's alternating activations though.

>>44222574
All or nothing morale systems are only really super, super bad when there's factions that ignore them, which just blows my mind.

They're bad already, but when everyone plays by the rules they are least are equal. But when you have factions that ignore morale it's just insane.

>>44222070
If I see my opponent unpacking 9 Riptides I know I have good odds at winning because he spends so many points on a mediocre unit.

Git gud, /tg/.

>>44222819
I agree... The system will gravitate to those not hindered by the crappy system.

>>44218588
Rolling for each individual model instead of designing the game to allow a fewer amount of dice to be rolled in representing larger groups.

>>44222819
Factions ignoring morale wouldn't be a problem at all, if morale had its positive side. Here's an idea for a morale system:

Each unit has a morale stat that starts at 0. When certain conditions are met that stat can rise or fall within the bounds of +3 to -3. For each point above 0 the unit gets certain bonuses and for each point below 0 they get certain penalties.

There. Done.

>>44222836
So all skirmish games are bad?

>>44222870
Skirmish games don't usually handle large groups of models

>>44222870

You're being deliberately obtuse. The anon. is clearing referring to situations like the 40 soldiers in a unit whacking away at another 50 soldiers.

TLOS and IGOUGO are some really bad offenders.

One that's always annoyed me personally is the magical range limit for projectiles most games do. I know its for simplicity, but its still annoying. Especially when you look at ranges in something like Warmahordes, where guns can't hit anything farther than 3 yards away.

Also too many rolls. Just bloating down play with more and more checks.

>>44222819
I'm not too familiar with the term 'all or nothing morale systems'. I'm assuming you mean something like Warhammer's, any examples of not all or nothing systems?

>>44222941
All or nothing morale systems are ones where a single morale check often controls if the unit gets to do anything or not.

Warmachine is one of the worst about this, I think, because a single failed check is enough to stop an entire unit from doing anything for a turn. In a game where you usually only have 5-6 units and your standard competitive level game only lasts 5 or 6 turns, having an entire unit(especially if it's one of your workhorse units) simply not do anything because of a single failed check can change the entire balance of the game.

And it's even worse because several factions simply ignore morale as a rule. So all of a sudden only a single player is rolling these checks that can straight up lose him the game, and he has no way to affect the roll.

More complex morale systems often simply impose penalties on the units instead of simply causing them to do nothing. I can't remember the name of the system off the top of my head, but a Skirmish WW2 system had units that came under fire take a suppression test, failure meant that they lost some movement(as they were hunkered down) but they could still shoot back and actually do stuff.

>>44220046
LotR had armour and toughness rolled into "Defense", which meant only rolling to hit and to wound.

>>44222836
This does help offset weird variance. A roll of 1 on a d6 causing a unit of 40 to miss is equivalent to 40 rolls of 1 when you roll a d6 per person.

>>44220381
But if you are penalized for taking more than one of a unit

You won't buy more than one.

Do you want GW to fail, anon?

>>44223070
When you shorten the amount of rolls, you can increase the complexity of the dice, and thus, the ability to add modifiers to them.

If you're only rolling for a single unit, for example, why would you do it with a single d6?

File: 1444721727414.png (356KB, 820x541px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 820x541px

>>44221997
> Play fluffy Farsight Enclave list
> "Lolno you can only have 3 Crisis Suits"
> No riptides in my army, no ghostkeels either, and I even got so far as to buy XV15 for stealth suits to fit the "Doesn't have access to new tech" thing
> "Now excuse me as I field my 80 Space Marines. Oh, yeah, look, I can, because they wear slightly different armors"

>>44223082
>Somebody else got XV15s to represent a lack of new tech

You're a cool dude

>>44221278
/tg/ is probably the worst place to ask for advice on this kind of thing.

You'll never get a straight answer, but if you did, it would be something the vast majority of wargamers wouldn't like anyway.

Basically, /tg/ shouldn't be seen as representative of the wider wargaming public.

the wider wargaming public actually enjoys playing wargames rather than playing them as a form of stimulating self-flagellation

>>44223011
Hmm, I'm currently using something like that in my game. Maybe I should change it to degrees.

>>44220267
Stackable saves would make 40k unplayable, can you imagine how long itd take to roll through a large unit in cover *shudders*

>>44221997
Fucking stupid fix- most players would just switch to a deathstar- like 10 thunderwolves or something awful

>>44222865
Too complicated- in 40k morale does help some units- space marines with ATSNNF can do some neat tricks- whilst tyranids are gimped when they have no hivemind. Your ld +3/-3 stuff can just be represented by special rules, like DE got with pain tokens.

>>44222070

It's good they threw percentages as at least requirement in the trash, that is one of the things in my opinion which made Fantasy not even worth looking into as a game.

>>44223418
>represented by special rules, like DE got with pain tokens
Which are essentially a second morale system. Good job GW. I'm thinking more of smaller games than 40k. Warmachine or smaller could use such a system.

>>44223082
I like you.

Playing battles with a good amount of fluff is what I live for.

>>44223560
GW has always sucked at internal balance. They've had to rely on their force restrictions to ensure anyone used the chaff units.

>>44222079
Start your own thread and fuck off.

>>44218588
People flipping the table when they lose.

>>44224612
6 hour burn.

>>44220951
I go you go is actually really good when the turns don't last an eternity, KoW being the prime example for that.

>>44224648
Its still a clunky mechanic that's not hard to replace. If the game is quick, like KoW, yeah, its tolerable, but generally you end up with things like Warhammer/40k, or the worse offender, Warmahordes. Anything that cuts down non-interaction with the game time is a good thing.

>>44224787
I agree in general, but alternating activations wouldn't work for WMH, due to the importance of support pieces and the emphasis on predictability and mid-term planning. It's not really that big a deal, because if your opponent plays somewhat fast-ish you can use that time to plan out your next turn. There isn't really any downtime.

So, while I like alternating activations, it's not the best solution for every game.

>>44224811
No, but its not the only solution. WMH for example, could be improved if you changed it from IGOUGO for the whole turn into what GW did in LOTR, where its IGOUGO for each phase; I move all my units, you move all your unit, I shoot, you shoot, etc.

Though I know it would kill some players, since the people that take a long time to plan out their turn would take longer, now that they have to incorporate what their opponent is going to do in the phase you are in, instead of waiting for the whole turn to finish.

>>44224787
Warmahordes is bad about that? I though fixing that aspect of 40k was the whole point.

>>44224872
I think Warmahordes is suffering bloat. When small, its not bad, because you just go BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM all the stuff is activate on my side. But the system bogs down when there's more models on the field, and the push has been for more and more on the field. The attempts to make jacks/beasts viable have made them cheaper in Mk II, so you can field more stuff, and you still get more infantry on the field, though lately its shifted to multi-wound ones, due to the single-wound hate available.

Add in that they took out one of the big clogging points for 40k, the separate phases for everything, and replaced it with another clunky mechanic that slows the game down, the need to resolve every attack separately, and its still a time consumer.

Placement of models is another big one, since things need to be more precise than 40k, since you target each one separately, instead of attacking the unit as a whole. Mk II has made it a little easier, with most special attachments being able to be replaced in the unit if the model dies, but there's still quite a few things that don't and the shorter ranges in the game make those shifts noticeable.

>>44224848
>WMH for example, could be improved if you changed it from IGOUGO for the whole turn into what GW did in LOTR, where its IGOUGO for each phase; I move all my units, you move all your unit, I shoot, you shoot, etc.
Are you sure you mean WMH and not WH40k? Because that would be terrible.

>>44222941
>One that's always annoyed me personally is the magical range limit for projectiles most games do. I know its for simplicity, but its still annoying. Especially when you look at ranges in something like Warmahordes, where guns can't hit anything farther than 3 yards away.

Go play a naval historical game sometime. Something like General Quarters 3, or Harpoon. If you play it on a table big enough so that you're "out of range", you're playing on something the size of a gym floor (or a living room, for WW2 navals). If you play it on a table small enough that you can actually reach the models, which are 1-2" long to be in scale with their weapon ranges, you're so close together that there's practically no point in actually moving.

True-scale weapon ranges are almost always a terrible idea. With that said, Warmahordes DOES take it too far in the direction of "gun are so short-ranged they're basically useless"; IMO they need to add between 6"-12" to the range of every gun in the game.

>>44224983
Its not a Band-aid fix, a LOT of shit would need to be changed, like when any big rule change is added to a game. But its would help with the downtime between player's turns. I've had plenty of games where I could've left the table during my opponent's turn, gone to get a pretzel from the nearby foodcourt, come back, and it still would be their turn.

>>44225019
>IMO they need to add between 6"-12" to the range of every gun in the game
No I don't think they should sacrifice gameplay for realism. Short-ranged guns increase the importance of good positioning significantly.

If you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong game.

>>44225019
Oh yeah true-scale doesn't work on a wargame, there's so many things you have to take liberties with.

I think it was AT-43 that had a system where there was no range limit, it just got harder and harder to hit the further away it was, until the roll became impossible. It still creates a range limit, but one that's more believable than "I can hit anything up to 24" perfectly fine, but past that is impossible".

>>44225020
>a LOT of shit would need to be changed
Even a full-caps "LOT" does not nearly descibe the change necessary to make this work. Activations are the core element of the game. The game without it would be like our Universe without Atoms. Maybe it could work, but it would be an entirely different game.

That said, in the games of WMH I've played over the last ~2 years, there has been close to no real downtime. There's always some plan to work out, some probability to calculate or some options to weigh out in your head.

>>44218588

Dice Rolling

>>44225058
>AT-43
You made me sad, anon. It was such a neat range.

>>44226296
There's still plenty of content to absorb anon. That and now everything is pretty dirt cheep!

>>44226979
Ebay? Are thay still selling them?
Man, I need to get some.

>>44222585
40k needs rebuilding from ground-up.

GW is not good at rebuilding games from ground-up.

Both these things are true.

>>44220381
>Unit limitations

Were the exact thing that lead to today's horrible formation / play what you want game because everyone moaned about it.

Personally % of army points made more sense mechanic wise allowing you limited spam but also allowing fluff.

Otherwise the mechanic that annoys me the most are randomized reinforcements. Some of the FOG style games are tactically great because you predetermine when units rock up meaning a mis-timed cavalry show-up can really change the game.

>>44224983
WMH needs activation's to function correctly since attack lanes for caster assassinations are one of the key elements of the game. With phases you nearly eliminate the possibility because each phase is final.

>>44231254
The FOG was one of the beast ideas of 40k and is pretty much the one thing that is held high as a good design element in 3rd.
Of course, no good things can last with GW.

>>44231254
>Personally % of army points made more sense mechanic wise allowing you limited spam but also allowing fluff
That's one of the things (the core tax, especially) that turned WHFB to shit trough.

File: coa-fleet.jpg (100KB, 580x333px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 580x333px

This is going to be fairly specific, but the boarding mechanics in Dystopian Wars are just shit.

Every aspect of boarding is an exception to the rest of the game rules.

First, if you board, you can't shoot at the target. Fair enough, you can't just throw marines at a ship you're concurrently shelling to shit.
Then you divide your AP into boarding groups (?). This is based on how many ships you're boarding with. Why not pool them together? Who knows. Why can't a battleship divide its marines into multiple groups? Who knows.
Then your opponent assigns AA. As an exception to every other rule and form of shooting in the game, you can split your AA dice between the boarding pools as you wish. Defending ships can link their AA.
Any AP that gets onto the opposing boat then fights the defending AP. They still stay in their groups, so the defending AP has to split between the boarding pools. Any hits a defending group makes can only hit the group they're defending against, and excess hits are lost. Attacking AP's excess hits spills over and can kill AP of other defending groups.
Then you work out results. If all of one side is dead, that side loses. If it's the attacker that's dead, then you have to go put a pile of 0AP counters on the attacking ships. If it's the defender that's dead, then the attacker can prize or derelict the ship. If they prize it, grab a fuckton of AP tokens to record how many AP each ship has, and how many are left on the prized ship as the prize crew.
If there are AP left on both sides, add up the number of hits each side got. If the attacker got more, they sabotage the ship and cause a critical hit. If the defender got more, they drive off the attackers and get to go through the AA rigmarole from before again.

It's just far too complicated, because instead of balancing AP numbers for ships that come in squadrons, they just made the mechanics convoluted as fuck. Why not just all AP added together, shot by linked AA, then fighting defending AP?

>>44218588
Cover in 40k is retarded. A vehicle must be 25% obscured, a 25' tall Monstrous Creature has a toe touching a piece of terrain? In cover.

Ive hit the point in 40k where the rules and balance are so bad, Ive just lost all desire to play.

>>44221278
Trenchbreaker guy, I'm guessing.

If not, I know 2 people working on something like this, and one posts on /hbg/ if you want someone to compare notes with.

>>44222165
Tanks? In wargames? That's absurd!

Nah, seriously though, I don't see your point

>>44232782
For those of us that don't play, What the fuck is AA and AP?

>>44232782
AA= Anti Aircraft fire
AP= Armed Personel

Actually I dunno if you are playing with 2.0 or not but its based on the whole activated squadron or unit as you will. a battleship can initiate an offensive boarding action against multiple ships of the same squad if you have the AP for it. but it only applies to a squadron ed ships

>>44232914
The distinction between vehicles and monstrous creatures in 40k is terrible. GW needs to just give up on trying to make their vehicle rules work.

>>44234178
Why not just... the AP of all Ships of one side in the Clusterfuck vs the AP of all other Ships and drop all the other bullshit?

>>44224872
>>44231254
What's the FOG mechanic?

>>44233062
The point is that his mechs are even better than tanks, but people are still using trenches, which were obsoleted by irl tanks.

There's no point to the trenches.

File: IMG_4388.jpg (624KB, 1600x1334px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1600x1334px

>>44234622
It does happen that way if said ships in the clusterfuck are from the same activated squadron,(I.E 3 Sigurd cruiser that have 6 AP per ship but are a squad do an aggressive boarding action against a British Avenger Fleet carrier has 8 AP) Then my 3 ships that declared said boarding action pool all there AP onto the ship.

Now say the avenger was initiating the action against the 2 cruiser. then he has to treat each ship individually because the men on board the ship arnt attaching the same target. the game also has offset bonuses for what type of crew you have. this is were it balances out abit more

Power/model creep in general.

Also, not a wargame issue, but i hate how speshs mahrens are just slightly less shitty guardsmen.

>>44221935
Makes the game more random and arbitrary, and less averaged out.

>>44234731
How long were horses obsolete while still in use?

>>44234731
>but people are still using trenches, which were obsoleted by irl tanks.
Trenches are still used today anon.
One famous modern use of trenches was during the six day war.

>>44222941
>One that's always annoyed me personally is the magical range limit for projectiles most games do.

Trenchbreaker again here. In what I'm working on, cannons have unlimited range, because the game takes place on a board about a hundred meters across.

Lightning Guns and Heat Rays will have limited range though, for balance and because energy weapons fade out a lot faster than kinetic weapons do.

>>44234731
Pretty simple.

>Enemy has 32,000 infantry and 400 artillery pieces in his army, is ready to invade
>Dig trenches to stop him, forcing him to wait to attack until he can bring up mechs to break through
>Buy several weeks while he transports mechs up by train/skyship.

>>44235826
Also this.

>>44222633
>The local groups dropped it as well and promptly looked for another game to latch onto.
That has nothing to do with the art shift, or even the rule shift and everything to to with Wyrd being a shit about putting out rules and models in a manner that makes any sense at all. We had models released toward the tail end of 1.5e that didn't see rules for two years into 2e. We had new characters and rules released in the core book of 2e, whose accompanying models did not hit shelves until this year.

Wyrd shot themselves in the foot with their release schedule and rather than play with only half their collection or proxy models that we only had art for, most of the Malifaux players said "okay, we'll wait for that stuff to come out. Can't be that long, right?" Now it's been over two years and the game has a tiny fraction of the players it held in 1.5e, despite the better ruleset.

>>44219931
>TLOS
Fuck yeah. TLOS can die in a fire.

>>44221957
4e is what got me playing 40k. It was fun, unique, the term 'fire lane' actually meant something, and every board featured different approach avenues and kill zones.

5e turned every game into a misty day on planet bowling ball and it was so bland I couldn't stand to play the game anymore.

Then they brought TLOS to Fantasy too and it killed it for me as well.

TLOS is the worst mechanic. The absolute worst.

>>44235742
that implies horses are obsolete. And horse cavalry were dropped when they became obsolete - machine guns, modern artillery, and the introduction of tanks rendered them largely useless as a strategic active arm.

>>44235826
Trenches, sure. But not trenches in the style of WWI, which is a different beast altogether. And that's because of tanks.

>>44235997
Why the fuck didn't he have his mechs with his invasion army? Why don't you have yours where the invasion is coming? Is everyone in your setting retarded?

>>44236323
What alternatives to TLOS do you like?

>>44236376
I'd like to know this as well. Plenty of wargames use TLOS, so what exactly is the problem here, other than butthurt 40fags not liking changes to their game?

>>44236375
Do you think surprise invasions happen in a pre-radio world? You seriously can't mobilize an army without your enemies getting word and setting up defenses.

Try doing some actual studying. Armchair strategy is well and good, but you'll get more out of really reading shit than just guessing based on what seems to be obvious. Tanks didn't instantly render every trench in the world useless the moment ten of them were introduced.

I don't play any wargames, what is TLOS?

>>44236500
*Forgot to have my name on

>>44236502
TLOS is "True Line of Sight", basically where you look from behind the model's head or along the barrel of its gun to see what it can it. Lots of wargames use it because it's a simple and intuitive compared to systems based on numbers.

>>44236502
True Line-Of-Sight
AKA check line of sight from your model's viewpoint to see if they see any of the opponent's model.

Easy fix is just using the base of the model to check if something is in enough cover if normal infantry/troops and then for the truly large stuff just check off of the size of the model.

>>44236500
Yes, actual armies did manage surprise attacks

And you're ignoring the WW1 counter to tanks, artillery (also rough terrain, mechanical issues, gas, etc) but...

It's really not credible that you could mass an invasion force, leave the mechs at home, and count on that not giving the game away

The idea sounds interesting, but it needs work. And you need to be less of a prick, because nobody wants to work with an asshole.

>>44236376
Full Abstract LOS or Hybrid LOS with Magic Cylinder mechanics.

Look at 4e 40k's terrain rules. It treated fully modeled terrain as TLOS, but anything that was too difficult to model and still be traversable by models and useable as game terrain was labeled Area Terrain and worked differently. Clouds of smoke, broken ruins, forests, etc. You defined an area on the table that qualified, assigned a cover save and height category to it and you were done. It wasn't difficult and was super easy. Height 1 stuff gave saves to man sized models and fully blocked LOS to and from swarms. Height 2 blocked LOS to man sized models but vehicles and monstrous creatures could see over it. Height 3 blocked LOS for everyone. Area terrain in general prevented LOS through it, though you could see some distance into it. This meant you actually had to position so you had good sightlines.

In 5e and later anything that isn't fully modeled can't block LOS. A forest base with some trees provides no sightblocking at all. this is especially egregious in Fantasy, where the Forest is not only the most common terrain piece, but there is an entire army whose shtick was hide in and behind forests, and to move forests around to block lines of attack. Comepletely shit all over Wood Elves.

Warmahordes uses a hybrid system which I like - still keeps Area Terrain mechanics, but for TLOS purposes, your model's actual height is determined by it's base size, and the height marks are printed right on the templates, so if ou need to know if a model can bee seen over a wall or other no-Area TLOS obstacle, you plop that sucker down next to the terrain and see if you can see the arrow. Super fast and easy, no arguing about whether banners or wings, or helmet decorations count.

>>44236592
>And you're ignoring the WW1 counter to tanks, artillery
Artillery is in the game and very useful, especially against any mech that holds still, and is indestructible because it's off the battlefield entirely.

Try actually reading the rules I posted. >>44156197

>>44236624

I really like the way Infinity does it. Where every model has a 'Silhouette' stat. If there is an issue with 'Can X see Y' get out the Silhouette for it. So you don't run into the issue of 'I can't model how I like because it will let people shoot me'

>>44236435
I should qualify - I don't hate TLOS as a concept, I hate absolute TLOS, which is the way 5e and later 40k and 8e and later Fantasy handle it.

TLOS is the most intuitive way to handle LOS, and it's pretty easy to accomplish, and for things like buildings, low walls, barricades, and such, it works fine. However there are a lot of things that you can march through with an army that are impossible to place a miniature on if modeled to properly block LOS. Things like copses of trees, forests, smokey ruins, dust clouds, etc. For things like this, it's best handled in an abstract fashion. Most games sensibly include a section on Area Terrain that covers these exceptions. Typically, one cannot see through area terrain.

The end result is that on a battlefield with area terrain, some small forests, smoke clouds or ruins create LOS blockers that can still be moved through by units, making interesting avenues of approach and cover, and fire lanes and positioning much more important than in an absolute TLOS game where it doesn't matter how you position your guys, they're going to get shot at with a -1 modifer/5+ save. The first type is especially egregious if not all shooting even rolls to hit.

>>44236815
>copses of trees, forests

Pretty sure there's rules regarding these sort of terrain features even in the current edition book.

>smokey ruins

How does a smokey ruin differ from a non-smoking one?

>Typically, one cannot see through area terrain.

I haven't come across that sort of rulings. Usually it's forests and such pieces of area terrain that have a certain amount of distance you can see through, but like the ruins of a building or puddle of mud don't block LOS just because they're area terrain.

>absolute TLOS game where it doesn't matter how you position your guys

If you got terrain that can't block LOS without rules tinkering, then it's shit terrain, init? Make hills and buildings that actually block LOS and then you shouldn't have problems with TLOS anymore.

File: fire.jpg (121KB, 736x680px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 736x680px

>>44237243
>How does a smokey ruin differ from a non-smoking one?

>>44219931
what is TLOS?

File: 32_Impulse_Chart.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>44218588
Mother fucking 32 impulses, each made up of 22 phases, for one single game turn. All to simulate simultaneous movement. No wonder I can't find anyone who wants to play a game.

>>44221960
>>44222552
>>44221992
Man do I love mobile frame zero

>>44232914
ditto. i've watched the game go from a so-so sci-fi skirmish to a badly realized sci-fi mass battle and the bits that remained that i liked have been slowly scrubbed away. I don't want to ditch the models but i'm loath to take the time to pull them out and set them up again.

>>44237243
>Pretty sure there's rules regarding these sort of terrain features even in the current edition book.
Yes, and they blow goats because despite being the most common terrain piece in the wargamer's catalog, they do not create meaningful fire lanes or variations in play. Boards with forest terrain are dull as fuck to play on, when previously, jungle and forest boards were just as fun to play on as city boards.

>>44237243
>How does a smokey ruin differ from a non-smoking one?
How high up it blocks LOS. Smoke can block vehicles and big critters beyond the modeled height of the actual buildings, ruins or craters.

>>44237243
>I haven't come across that sort of rulings. Usually it's forests and such pieces of area terrain that have a certain amount of distance you can see through, but like the ruins of a building or puddle of mud don't block LOS just because they're area terrain.
"Typically blocks LOS." Under the rules I'm familiar with, your common forest, ruin base, and smoke cloud prevents LOS from being drawn through them, though into them is fine. Mud puddles/pools/swamps are a pretty rare instance of area terrain - but one that I will absolutely grant does not generally block LOS.

>If you got terrain that can't block LOS without rules tinkering, then it's shit terrain, init? Make hills and buildings that actually block LOS and then you shouldn't have problems with TLOS anymore.
So I guess you just don't use forests at all then? Or maybe you paint a box to look like a forest, so that you can put dudes inside without being able to draw LOS through it or into it? Looks like absolute shit though. The thing that bugs me the most about TLOS is the invalidation of the most basic gaming terrain.

Absolute TLOS makes it very hard for people to play with cheap terrain, since Area Terrain is the easiest stuff to make. My FLGS had terrain boxes that had a couple cool centerpieces, and the other 80% of the box was forest & ruin bases and occasional water.

>>44234826
other way around. at least the guardsmen aren't paying a point tax on armour and weaponry that rarely matter.

>>44237786
True Line of Sight. Get down to the model's level and check and see if you have sight from it to the model targeted. Also covered by both >>44236542, and >>44236544.

Most games use a hybrid system, but GW's current flagship games use a strict adherence to TLOS.

>>44218588
>obligatory beta in fez.

>>44237981

There's three in that shot. All wearing pink shirts. I imagine they're the officials.

>>44220954
try getting into close combat with anything that cant fly.

>>44237939
Add 40k's AP system to the list of annoying as hell game rules.

>>44237912
>How high up it blocks LOS. Smoke can block vehicles and big critters beyond the modeled height of the actual buildings, ruins or craters.

Smoke doesn't always rise up. Nor in the age of enhanced visions and targeting arrays, does it affect your ability to engage the enemy as much. Not unless you're deploying specific smoke screens, which aren't just your average burning refuge smoke in a can.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the smoke and everything to do with the rules themselves. If you want a piece of "burning ruins" to block big creatures, add a wad of cotton to it. There, now it has a big billowing cloud of smoke blocking LOS. All without a magical "lets imagine a big cylinder over here that you can't see through".

>rules I'm familiar with

What rules are these?

>So I guess you just don't use forests at all then?

Forest is the most common terrain we got and nobody is being a little bitch about it.

>TLOS is the invalidation of the most basic gaming terrain

To me it sounds like you have not played any other game with TLOS than 40k, because I've played plenty of wargames that used it and were also able to, for example, implement stuff like forests blocking LOS through certain distances.

I remember my first game of WHFB with TLOS. Battery of repeater bolt throwers opened up on my knights despite me thinking I was being so smart in putting them behind a forest to prevent just that. "TLOS man, I can see you through the trees". Beginning of the end there. Oh well, Warmaster was always the better game for tactics anyways.

>>44221423
>>44221278
You want art made for you? Sounds like a neat setting.

>>44223978

The problem is GW is really two businesses: a wargame company (where a well designed rules system requires you more-or-less have limits on best and worst and work within the limits) and a modeling business (especially one owned by fucking shareholders - worst decision GW ever made) which relies on selling the new hotness (and, because of the shareholders, ever-increasing quarterly results).

At very best, these goals are orthogonal.

>>44238247
>Smoke doesn't always rise up. Nor in the age of enhanced visions and targeting arrays, does it affect your ability to engage the enemy as much.
Because we're only talking about sci-fi rulesets, clearly.

> If you want a piece of "burning ruins" to block big creatures, add a wad of cotton to it
See, this is what I could do in the old days - put some cotton wads down on a piece of ruins - it was a burning ruin and my opponent and I would agree it'd block LOS at Ht3. 5e ended that, forcing me to completely ring the ruin in cotton wads up to the height of any actual model I'd like it to block LOS to, otherwise it can't block LOS in any meaningful way.

>What rules are these?
Warhammer Fantasy 7e and 6e, Warhammer 40k 4e, Warmachine & Hordes, Malifaux. Infinity.

>Forest is the most common terrain we got and nobody is being a little bitch about it.
Good for you. 40k 5e is a straight up inferior game to 4e though. If 6e or 7e brought back more of a hybrid system so it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, please tell me, but 5e 40k and 8e WFB's TLOS systems are absolute shit.

>To me it sounds like you have not played any other game with TLOS than 40k, because I've played plenty of wargames that used it and were also able to, for example, implement stuff like forests blocking LOS through certain distances.
I've played plenty of games with TLOS. I haven't played a single other game that relies SOLELY on TLOS. Every game other than 40k or WFB that I've played either has an abstract system or a hybrid system that allows the designation of zones of cover, curtailed or blocked LOS or something similar despite otherwise clear TLOS.

>>44218588
Tau markerlights. Just give all their shit skyfire bs5 and ignores cover so I can just skip the match and move onto the next.

>>44239502
>Because we're only talking about sci-fi rulesets, clearly.

Well, when you complain about 40k's TLOS, how else am I suppose to interpret that? Or would you like to complain about another game where smoking ruins don't block LOS?

>my opponent and I would agree it'd block LOS at Ht3. 5e ended that

How? Show me the rule in 5e that says "thou shalt not agree about jack shit with your opponent".

>5e is a straight up inferior game to 4e though.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sorry it touched you in your forbidden forest of LOS.

>I've played plenty of games with TLOS.

And I doubt you thought TLOS made those games absolute shit and was the worst part about them.

>>44239502
True line of sight appearing in rules comes back to Alessio Cavatore. Most of the games it turns up in have him involved, the guy gets around like lice in a submarine.

I personally hate true line of sight because from the perspective of games design, it fucks with the abstractions involved, and still doesn't prevent arguments as without some sort of tiny periscope it's still impossible to get a 'true' model's eye view.

For the abstractions, it means that every figure is effectively locked in whatever pose they're modelled in. It means that everything is exactly as seen on the table. It straight up reduces any wargame it's in to the toy soldiers on the model board because the only thing the system could be simulating is exactly that, not what they supposed to be representing. It's even worse for terrain because terrain is a cartoon all of it's own in terms of how structures and forests work, even if discounting the usual scale dickery. Terrain absolutely has to be abstracted out in some manner because playing on something that would accurately convey terrain to the same level of detail as we get on miniatures means getting to the point of super-detailed, highly impractical railway board type set-ups.
Which still won't properly do things like block line of sight because miniatures can't duck or lay down unless modelled that way permanently.

Start adding in things like reasonable assumptions like that troops use the cover around them rather than get stuck in the position they are glued in and you might as well not even have TLOS as a system because it needs so many work-arounds to get even the slightest simulation aspect back in the mechanics it bloats the whole thing more than just using a decent system in the first place.

It's not simple in practice, It doesn't prevent arguments, it fucks with the simulation aspects of any wargame it's added to (even 40k is trying to simulate combat within it's setting to a degree), it pissed on my dog, it's shit.

>>44218588
true line of sight, like 40k tlos
>I can see the tip of your gun i can shoot it

>>44218811
Well you know dem orkz dun wanna be compared to no humies, dig?

File: large young frankenstein blu-rayx3.jpg (268KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1920x1080px

>>44239885
Are you actually reading my posts, or just trying to get me to concede a pedantic point?.

>Well, when you complain about 40k's TLOS

Post number fucking 1 in this chain:
>>>44236323
>Then they brought TLOS to Fantasy too and it killed it for me as well.

Also:
>>44236815
>I should qualify - I don't hate TLOS as a concept, I hate absolute TLOS, which is the way 5e and later 40k and 8e and later Fantasy handle it.

>How? Show me the rule in 5e that says "thou shalt not agree about jack shit with your opponent".
There are no fucking rules for area terrain blocking LOS outside of their being modeled . I can houserule shit all I like, but designating terrain sizes and conditions is a fucking thing in a lot of games and straight up isn't in 5e 40k and 8e WFB do not have any kind of 'LOS blocking but able to move through' option. It's area terrain rules are the weakest I've ever seen, especially in Fantasy where they have zero effect on many spells and weapons.

>And I doubt you thought TLOS made those games absolute shit and was the worst part about them.
Sure, lets look at what I've been saying:

>I haven't played a single other game that relies SOLELY on TLOS
> an abstract system or a hybrid system
>Absolute TLOS makes it very hard for people to play with cheap terrain
>I should qualify - I don't hate TLOS as a concept, I hate absolute TLOS

You want me to concede the point that the way 5e 40k or 7e WFB and later isn't technically absolute LOS because it acknowledges that area terrain exists? Done.

You want me to concede that I don't actually hate TLOS, I hate it's implementation in 5e 40k/7e WFB? Pretty sure I already did it, but I'll do it again all official like. Done.

But this is a thread about shit that annoys us in games and given the choice between a poorly implemented TLOS system and a purely abstract system I will take abstract every time. I might hate all the random tables in Battletech but it's terrain and LOS system is excellent.

>>44240281
You do realize that guns and decorative pieces are not parts you can target in 40k, right? And if you can see, say, the tip of a model's toe, then that model can also target you.

Also, how is that so different from "I can see the corner of your base, I can shoot it"?

File: Brorkfist_by_Ragathol.jpg (245KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1000x600px

>>44240053
>It's not simple in practice, It doesn't prevent arguments, it fucks with the simulation aspects of any wargame it's added to (even 40k is trying to simulate combat within it's setting to a degree), it pissed on my dog, it's shit.

>>44240352
>Post number fucking 1 in this chain:

And the post I replied to talked about blocking vehicles. So sorry if I assumed you were talking about 40k in that instance.

>There are no fucking rules for area terrain blocking LOS outside of their being modeled.

If you were able to agree with your opponent before 5e, agree with them after 5e.

>>44236435
>>44236376

Plse see

>>44221957

The jist of it was...

Class 1 terrain did not block LOS at all but provided cover to foot slogers

Class 2 blocked LOS to foot troops but not tanks. However it provided cover to tanks.

Class 3 blocked LOS.

so a 1 inch hill, fences, hedges ect ect would be class 1. a 2 -3 in hill would be class 2, and big stuff like giant buildings would be class 3.

4e LOS rules were the best 40k has seen hands down because you could not pull bullshit cross map shots because you guy can see through a crack in a joint from a bad glue / build job, under a dreads arm through the brances of this tree, through a hole from a missing brick in that wall and shoot into the side of your tank.

The LOS rules basicaly said "Hay we know it would be super impractical to have a real fucking forest here and make it impossible to move minis around so it blocks LOS"

I have yet to see a table at adepticon and the nova open that is not primarily an open killing field with very little LOS blocking terrain.

>>44223945

Why would you play a fluffy list in a tourny though? That sceen is full of hyper competitive assholes and you are giving your money away.

Play friendly games.

>>44231334
And that's only one part of it. Correctly chaining activations is key to the gameplay in every way.

>>44240489
So, because the terrain is shit, the rule is shit?

Ok.

>>44237795
Holy crap. Which game is that?

>>44221821
I'm curious about this. In what way can you restrict movement without putting ships in what amounts to separate ponds?

>>44240552

Yes the rules are shit because it require the terrain to be impractical for gaming.

If you want a proper TLOS forest template then you need to cram trees into every nook and cranny you can.

TLOS is bad for static minis.

>>44240716
TLOS can have area terrain. Even 5e has area terrain.

It's not the game's fault you make an inch tall hill and expect it to hide a dude twice its height behind it. Everyone I know just stacks two hills on top of each other and makes new hills that are taller to get all the LOS blocking they need, along with ruins that aren't just the corners of a building, etc.

>>44240798

Cant have ruins at all now and expect them to block LOS.

>well i can see through this "forrest" because it has 2 trees on it
>i can see through the glass of a window on this building.
>and thorugh a small hole from a missing brick of the ruin your tank is behind
>so ill hit it on a 3+ with my lascannon
>but its ok because you get have a 4+ cover save

Yeah sure a 50/50 chance at making the save from a shot even a vindicare would have to take a good bit of time to line up is totaly legit.

>>44240851
>Cant have ruins at all now and expect them to block LOS.

Not "ruins" that are a few pieces of chest high wall and a corner, no. But, again, shit terrain is shit terrain. Make ruins that have some substance to them. A mostly intact wall or two. More than one level. Stuff like that.

Wish I had saved that pic of a Space Marine, Gaunt, and Nid Warrior showing just how bullshit the TLOS rules were. It showed how, no matter how you placed the Gaunt, it wouldn't give a cover save to the Warrior for being in the way of the Marine, but it could actively hinder the Warrior.

>>44240915

Having proper TLOS terrain would fix a lot of issues.

But sadly i dont think the major tourneys like adepticon, nova open ect ect have all the stuff required to make 500 tables of terrain to the higher level of quality that TLOS demands in order to function.

>>44240915
Holy crap it must be terminal brain cancer. What that anon is trying to say is that you CAN SIMPLY NOT have terrain that for example has a smallish window for decoration if you want it to block LOS. That you can't have your mini in an extravagant pose or you'll risk it being shot from 5 blocks away through a beyond unlikely angle. GW's TLOS is bad for the game and bad for the hobby. If you can't see that, maybe apply for a position there. You seem like their kind of retard.

File: 146762_md-Humor, Killa Kan, Marine Abuse, Rhino.jpg (97KB, 800x1066px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x1066px

Wouldent you love to face off vs an army full of shit modeled like this?

It would be fun as hell thats for sure.

but this guy is shoting himself in the foot when it comes to TLOS because nothing will block LOS to it.

He is being punished for doing cool shit with his minis that gives him no advantage what so ever.

Other the other hand you have the dickbag who put all of his guardsmen laying down on their bases so they can hide behind 1 inch hills.

TLSO is bad. 4e 40k had LOS down pat. nothing was wrong with how it worked.

>>44241168
Whoa. Only Orkz could make such a model stand on such a tiny pin.

>>44241094
And you're the sort of jizz stain who parks a baneblade behind two trees and says "can't shoot me, cuz of teh ruuuurs".

Sorry the rules doesn't cater to your whims, anon.

>you can't have your mini in an extravagant pose or you'll risk it being shot from 5 blocks away through a beyond unlikely angle

You mean like having a HW team in some cover, but having the corner of a base peaking behind the corner and allowing the enemy to unload on you thanks to abstract base-to-base LOS?

>>44241168
Yeah. TLOS really discourages action poses. I've rarely seen any riptides that weren't bent at the knee to lower their profile as much as possible.

It makes modeling for advantage a real issue

>>44241225

>You mean like having a HW team in some cover, but having the corner of a base peaking behind the corner and allowing the enemy to unload on you thanks to abstract base-to-base LOS?

Far better then being shot through 2 forests only to get a 5+ cover save.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/08/editorial-how-true-line-of-sight-is-killing-our-games.html

>ITT: 5th edition just came out

Next we should start complaining about the lack of IG doctrines and SM traits.

>>44241249
Here's a hint: Find better cover.

>>44241225
Those two trees, if they count as a forest, are going to be representing a full forest, rather than just two trees. Not being able to see a baneblade through a forest isn't unreasonable.

If you have a Heavy weapon team in cover, wouldn't you rather be able to see and know exactly where the edges of the terrain are so you can make a good decision on where to place them, rather than having to hope there isn't some strange angle they're going to shoot through to get line of sight?

File: Forest_Edge_Habitat_Kibale_National_Park.jpg (880KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 2272x1704px

>>44241267

Hay look! I found a TLOS forest template!
Have fun moving minis around in something modeled like that.

>>44241252

Its a thread about stupid shit game makes did to wargames. of course TLOS is going to be at / near the top.

However you bring up a valid point about them taking away doctrines and traits. That allowed you to add a lot of character and flavor to your army.

>>44241297
Look, if you want to stick to your guns and hide behind a few bushes pretending to be a forest, instead of just adapting and finding new ways to block LOS, I can't help you.

>>44241317
To people who only knew 3-4e and can't let go even after all these years.

File: korra derp.jpg (265KB, 749x701px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 749x701px

>>44241249
>And you're the sort of jizz stain who parks a baneblade behind two trees and says "can't shoot me, cuz of teh ruuuurs".
Wow you're a fucking peach. When someone plonks down a green felt base with a couple of trees in it, that's supposed to represent a dense cluster of trees. Actually having a dense cluster of trees as a terrain piece makes placing models in it an impossibility, so we abstract the cluster of trees to a border saying where they are, and a couple of trees to remind us 'this abstract area is full of trees.' The rules then allow us to play as if that area was actually full of trees without being an unplayable morass of wooden sticks. Abstraction in terrain is apparently a concept you revile as much or more as several of us revile TLOS and exacting representation.

If a tank is between two clusters of trees and you can't see it, you can't fucking see it. It's not 'two trees' it's two copses of wood that are thick enough to block LOS,' you imagination bereft mongoloid.

>You mean like having a HW team in some cover, but having the corner of a base peaking behind the corner and allowing the enemy to unload on you thanks to abstract base-to-base LOS?
Except the HW team is in cover. In cover is a separate thing from LOS, so it gets cover. If you were trying to hide your HW team, it's easier to do in partially abstracted systems than in GW's current TLOS system. If you were just trying to get cover as per an older system, the fact that they can draw uninterrupted LOS to some point on the base doesn't mean they don't get cover. They're in cover. That's a status that's granted to them just by being in B2B with cover or inside area terrain. Having a corner of a base peeking out doesn't remove that.

So your example is shit, just like you.

>>44241249
This >>44241412

Even if you did make a solid chunk of modeled trees to block line of sight better, removing the ability for models to walk through it, odds are you'd still have tiny gaps through it that TLOS would let you shoot through at minimal penalty.

Why is having a rule that says 'no, your troops don't have X-Ray vision' a bad thing?

>>44241412
>Abstraction in terrain is apparently a concept you revile as much or more as several of us revile TLOS and exacting representation.

You do realize that TLOS and area terrain can coexist, right?

I just find it funny that people demand that any patch of trees is thick enough to absolutely block all sight through it. And is high enough to hide even big monsters and vehicles.

>If you were trying to hide your HW team, it's easier to do in partially abstracted systems than in GW's current TLOS system

Actually, by TLOS you're only hiding two kneeling guardsmen. With abstraction you're hiding a 65mm cylinder.

>Having a corner of a base peeking out doesn't remove that.

No, but it does remove them not being in enemy LOS. Purely because the big base the dudes are on happened to peek a little behind the piece of wall they were hiding behind.

>>44241366

Is there a tank behind this?
Are their troops behind it?

I dont know. Why dont i know? Because it blocks my line of sight because its a forest.

There is a difference between "2 bushes" and a forest.

You look at a forest template and see 2 or 3 trees.

I look at the same template and see pic related.

Its a game of little plastic men annon, imagination is key.

To me i am not charging my little plastic army men into your little plastic army men. The commisar just bellowed out an order to fix bayonets and charge in the name of the emperor!

My vindicare dident kill your HQ because i rolled a hit a wound and you failed your save. He has been hunting your HQ down for weeks and had anticipated his part in this battle to come and turned his head into red mist with 1 well placed shot.

File: WISI_1380458.jpg (1MB, 3072x2043px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2043px

>>44241569

fuck forgot my pic.

>>44241451
Why is everyone looking at GW's TLOS and assuming that's what it's for everyone?

I've played games where if you saw enemy models, you could shoot at them, but still it implemented area terrain and LOS blocking woods.

File: hero-enterprise.jpg (176KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1920x1080px

>>44241569
You got shit imagination if every bunch of trees is an impenetrable thicket.

>>44241585
Because that's what people were complaining about originally.

>>44241605
>Trees in front
Within 2" of the terrain edge
>Trees in the back
Past 2" of the terrain edge

>>44241630
>Because that's what people were complaining about originally.

In this thread or just in general? Because >>44219931 just shits on TLOS in general.

>Trees in front
>Within 2" of the terrain edge
>Trees in the back
>Past 2" of the terrain edge

So where is the 2" from the terrain edge in >>44241577?

>>44241605

>someone who understands that putting a real forest on a forest template is not good for gaming and while there may only be 3 trees on the template he can imagine that the forest template is really a forest.

>someone who thinks since a forest template has 3 trees on it it only had 3 trees on it because thats all thats there.

one of these people has a shit imagination annon.

>>44241585

Having LOS blocking woods is not 100% TLOS though.

This thread is making me realize that a lot of people should study board games, especially European ones. If you can capture the feel of a game theme with just rules and wooden blocks, you'll know how to make good abstract rules.

>>44241675
Those two bushes in the front. Realistically, you could probably make out people moving past those first few trees, especially as they move into position to shoot you.

>>44241225
Nice of you to reveal your ignorance of wargame design basics. Abstraction exists to make games playable. Claiming it makes for bad rules basics is just the kind of retardation I expected.

>>44241679
It's nice to appeal to "imagination" when all you care about is your LOS blocking forests.

>>44241693
Is area terrain 100% TLOS?

>>44241675

>So where is the 2" from the terrain edge

It would be in and among the first few trees.

You do know you used to be able to shoot through 6 inches of forest right?

The only issue i had with 4e LOS ruling on forests was that when some dickbag made a forest template a foot long and 1 inch thick it would block LOS to stuff on the other side but if you set foot in it you could shoot.

But those special kind of assholes were few and far between in 4e. however from the tourneys i have been to from 5E and on they have grown in number.

>>44241269
>Those two trees, if they count as a forest, are going to be representing a full forest
Just like a small plastic dude can represent a superhuman monster clad in the hardest metal known to mankind. Yet terrain abstraction is too much for some people's imagination.

>>44241749
Claiming abstraction makes for best rules basics is just the kind of retardation I expected.

>>44241726
>Realistically, you could probably make out people moving past those first few trees, especially as they move into position to shoot you.

Maybe on a clear day, without any fog, smoke or rain, while you aren't getting shot at by lasers and fire from 50 other directions.

Battlefields aren't exactly known for letting you take your time to take in details.

>>44241756

I care about all terrain being more game friendly because i have a lot of time and money put into my minis and i dont want my shit to break or have paint chip because terrain has to be modeled for TLOS.

>>44241756
>Is area terrain 100% TLOS?

Yes. if you can see your target though the 2-3 trees that make up your typcial "forest" template you can shoot and its all cool because they get a 5+ cover save from your guys who have x ray vision.

>>44241767
>You do know you used to be able to shoot through 6 inches of forest right?

Yup.

Which is why I find it so amusing for people to cry about "muh LOS blocking woods" when there had to be a pretty fucking big forest to block LOS completely.

>>44241585
Yes, TLOS becomes workable once you attach a bunch of exceptions to it. But as stated before in this very thread: At that point, having an actual LOS rule is both easier and less ambiguous.

>>44241775
Read this post. Read it and laugh.

>>44241767
I'm going off of Warmahordes, which does 2". I don't really remember 4e, never got into 40k other than a few games back in 3rd.

>>44241775
You're a special kind of special, aren't you? The kind that needs a handler when you go to the store?

>>44241726
Fucking bless you for your sanity anon.

>>44241805
>TLOS blocking terrain destroys minis

Oh come on!

>Yes.

If I have two ruined corners of a building on a base that's considered area terrain, but I can draw an uninterrupted LOS to my target between them and they still get the cover save from the area terrain, that's not exactly 100% TLOS. So, if we already agree that this area X provides a cover save even if there's nothing truly in the way, how is agreeing that you can't see through it magically against the concept of TLOS?

>>44241815

It was all about how you positioned your troops.

You had to use forests to deny the other guy shots while at the same time being able to get enough of your own off.

with TLOS almost every table i have ever seen from my local store to the largest of tourneys were just open killing fields of piss poor cover saves.

If they want to keep LOS then they need to throw in a +1 modifier for every obstruction you shoot through to my cover save. and cover saves shoudl go back to a base of 4+.

shooting me though a forest? 4+. shooting me through a forest and over a hill? 3+. ect ect. if it ever gets to 1+ then it becomes a 2+ with a reroll. if it gets to 0+ then its 2+ with 2 rerolls.

then again that bogs down the game with another table.

so why not go back to the system that worked in 4e?

>>44241844
>>44241867
I'm sorry I need abstract rules to play a game and don't go around bitching about a change that was made years and years ago like it was some life ruining moment for me.

>>44241867

>I'm going off of Warmahordes, which does 2"

Ah ok then. 2 inches in would be the reasonable amount of space back where you could begin to see troops moving into position to fire.

Yeah it would be more logical for a warjack to be spoted further back but eh. more tables and charts means games get more bogged down.

>>44241900
>shooting me though a forest? 4+. shooting me through a forest and over a hill? 3+. ect ect. if it ever gets to 1+ then it becomes a 2+ with a reroll. if it gets to 0+ then its 2+ with 2 rerolls

Shouldn't that be 2+ with a 6+ reroll?

>>44241900
>with TLOS almost every table i have ever seen from my local store to the largest of tourneys were just open killing fields of piss poor cover saves.

So because they got shit terrain, it's the fault of the rules?

>so why not go back to the system that worked in 4e?

Why don't you? I'm perfectly fine with adapting to the current rules.

>>44241880
I had such high hopes for this thread originally, since /hbg/ doesn't get a lot of wargamers, so discussing mechanics is near impossible. But then we got the guy that is okay imagining his little plastic men were power armored super solders shooting aliens with machine gun rocket launchers, but imaging that a piece of terrain with 3 trees was a forest with more than that is impossible.

>>44241895

I have had minis fall off of buildings that were built for TLSO and break.

And i have had paint chip trying to work my way around forest templates build for TLOS

>>44241909
>I'm sorry I need abstract rules
You don't even know what that means.

>>44241942
I'm pretty sure at this point its just someone taking the piss out of the thread.

>>44241867
>I'm going off of Warmahordes, which does 2".
3" actually.

>>44241917
>it would be more logical for a warjack to be spoted further back
Which is why Colossals (the largest of warjacks) can be seen across any kind of forest or cloud.

>>44241929
Not everyone is going to go through the effort to make perfectly scaled forest terrain that will block line of sight exactly how a real forest well, then do that 10 more times for all the other terrain, and then find out some way to have that all work while still allowing infantry to move through it.

Why is having the abstraction such a problem? It's not like you can't model the actual forest if you feel like it. It just means there are less rules-arguments in tournaments and pickup games, since they can lay out a piece of terrain labeled forest and everyone can agree on what it does.

>>44241961

So Warmahords has LOS that works? I would play it but the local group for it by me is full of hyper competitive dickbags that judge your worth as a human based on your ability to win the game ill have to pass.

I tried once with a cygnar army painted with green instead of blue and the press ganger there told me cygnar uses only blue man you should strip those and start over or else you will never score much on your paint score.

>>44241940
>I have had minis fall off of buildings that were built for TLSO and break.

How is that different from a building not built for TLOS? Is it just two chest high walls you pretend is 3 stories high?

>>44241932
>I had such high hopes for this thread originally

A thread that's made purely for people to bitch about stuff and you're surprised it ended up being just that?

>imaging that a piece of terrain with 3 trees was a forest with more than that is impossible.

Or the guy who can't deal with the fact that hiding behind few trees no longer makes him immune to everything.

File: 11215726_10154088444846840_685459954674375404_n.jpg (59KB, 700x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x527px

>>44241929

>So because they got shit terrain

Do you not understand how much effort goes into making the terrain for large tourneys and cons?

We are not talking about a game store with 4 tables here. Adepticon has several hundred tables.

also goddamn this thread... im going to see the new star wars in 6 hours and i havent gone to bed yet. waiting for sleeping pills to kick in.

>>44242007
>How is that different from a building not built for TLOS?

Presumably, they can be made to be easier to stand on, shorter, and models can be put in more stable positions since you don't need to know exactly where every brick of the building is.

>>44241998
LOS in WMH is a bit overcomplicated, but it works just fine once you get the hang of it.

The game itself is a lot of fun if you're the kind of person to enjoy it. You don't have to play 1000% super serious all the time, but it is generally expected that you try your best to win. it's more of a competition and less of a simulation. If that sounds fun to you, give it a try.

Also, kick your PG in the teeth. Custom paint schemes are good for the hobby and PGs should encourage them.

>>44242007

>a few trees
>a forest

do you not see a difference here?

>>44242007

>How is that different from a building not built for TLOS?

Instead of cramming 50 trees onto this template i will put 3 or 4.

This makes it easier to move minis around.

With TLOS i now need to cram 50 trees onto it.

>>44241971
>Not everyone is going to go through the effort to make perfectly scaled forest terrain that will block line of sight

Then use any other LOS blocking terrain. Forest is hardly the only terrain available.

Or houserule that X" into the forest is no LOS. Even 5e has area terrain rules, so if it could abstract so that a piece of terrain, even if it didn't get in the way of the target and the attacker, could confer cover, surely the same system can adopt LOS blocking as well.

>It's not like you can't model the actual forest if you feel like it. It just means there are less rules-arguments in tournaments and pickup games, since they can lay out a piece of terrain labeled forest and everyone can agree on what it does.

I'd like to know what sort of assholes you've been playing that TLOS has been such a massive burden on your life. I have never had any arguments over it. If you can draw LOS from any part of a model to the target, you can see them. There's no argument there. You don't have to agree on any terrain, if it blocks or interferes with LOS, then it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. That's pretty fucking simple to me and everyone I've played so far.

>>44242007
>A thread that's made purely for people to bitch about stuff and you're surprised it ended up being just that?
No, its just you. There was actually some discussion going on, but you obviously can't see that saying something negative can lead to positivity when instead of screaming "You guys are wrong and suck dicks!", you actually look at the problem and explore alternatives.

You had the guy offering fixes to spammy lists in 40k, and Trenchwarfare guy who was using the topic for research, to name a few.

But all you can do is claim that someone that has an issue with a rule is just a shitty player with badly made terrain, instead of looking at the rule itself.

>>44242046
Ruleswise, no.

>>44242068
Why are you cramming a building full of trees to block LOS?

>>44242007
It's 6 inches of terrain that represents a forest, marked as a piece of felt with trees on the edges, because forests aren't impassable terrain, which means they need to be designed so models can move through them and stand in them.

Really, the same effect would be if you printed out a picture of a forest and placed it upright all along the edges of the terrain. Would you say that shouldn't count, and insist on cutting out each tree perfectly so that you can snipe someone between two leaves?

>>44242073
>houserule
So the rule is okay, because you can houserule it away?

>>44242073
I've had someone draw line of sight on the tip of a model's wing. Said model was behind a solid wall, and only the barest hint of a claw was visable over the wall.

By Raw, that's just a simple cover save. Even though my model could easily fold up their wings or bend their knees slightly to avoid getting spotted, or the fact that shooting at that part isn't going to hurt them in any meaningful way.

But because they can 'see' it, they can shoot it.

>>44242088
>No, its just you.

So I'm arguing with myself now?

>you obviously can't see that saying something negative can lead to positivity when instead of screaming "You guys are wrong and suck dicks!", you actually look at the problem and explore alternatives.

It's hard to do when everyone just hates TLOS in all its forms.

>>44242127
>It's hard to do when everyone just hates TLOS in all its forms.
Then would you mind naming a single merit of the system?

>>44242124
With abstract base-to-base rules your entire model can be hidden, but if a corner of the base is sticking out, they're a prime target for shooting.

>>44242162
Usually they work by volume based off of base size, in my experience.

>>44242127
>So I'm arguing with myself now?
Honestly, I'm not sure at this point.

>It's hard to do when everyone just hates TLOS in all its forms.
And yet there's plenty of people talking about hybrid systems, only really bashing the 100% TLOS.

The last 3 hours of this thread has gone like this:
>I don't like 100% TLOS, its stupid
>Well, maybe you should try using other terrain, stuff made with TLOS in mind?
>I don't want to, its stupid
>WELL FUCK YOU, TLOS OR GO HOME, GET OUT OF MY HOBBY, YOU SHITTY PLAYERS!
Over and over again. Offering one solution and then attacking anyone that doesn't agree with it isn't a discussion.

>>44242162
And with TLOS, the enemy doesn't even need to bother moving their units around the terrain to get a shot off, since there's likely a hole in it anyway.

At least with abstract rules you know exactly what you're dealing with, and don't have to examine the terrain with a magnifying glass to make sure your models are perfectly hidden.

Honestly, the fact that you can shoot someone by getting an angle on the forest they're hiding behind is just the system working as it should. It doesn't matter if you modeled your guys all against one side of the base huddled in a ball, they can still be shot at anyway, which means you don't need to worry about people trying to edge out an advantage.

Being able to play the game with just felt and bases means the system is a fair abstraction. There's no gotcha moments where someone fails to notice a window, or weird modeling where anyone who does something cool gets punished and everyone is encouraged to make their model as small as possible.

>>44242207
I don't know who you think I've been in this, but I've stated several times that TLOS can and has used area terrain and LOS blocking. A hybrid system is just fine and I have never, ever said 100% TLOS is the only TLOS and all other LOS can fuck off.

Just because GW can't do it right doesn't mean it's an utterly useless system. But people can't get over their hatred of 5e.

>>44242162
Well yes. That is how it works in any game that makes sense. The base represents the base of the cylinder the model takes up. Being able to see part of that cylinder means you can shoot the model. And guess what: That cylinder is the same for any model of the same base size. I can attach banners, wings, base decoration however I see fit and it grants me no benefit or detriment in game terms.

>but it's dumb that you can shoot a model when you can only see part of its base
It's equally dumb to be able to shoot a model when you can only see the tip of its claw. You have to pick your poison, because no system is perfect. However there are systems that work and make sense and there is TLOS.

>>44218811
>Example: I roll to wound your guys, then you roll to save. It doesn't matter who rolls, the outcome is the same, and it eats up extra time to take turns getting the dice out.
If dice can be modified post-roll by either player, this is a good thing, it allows tactical choice.

Take X-Wing, for example. Players can spend tokens to modify dice, so if the attacker modifies to have more hits than his opponent can dodge, the opponent may be better off saving their tokens to use on a different attack.

>>44242267
>You have to pick your poison, because no system is perfect.

Exactly my point.

>>44242261
I'm arguing with whoever it is that's been pissing himself over the idea of tanks hiding about trees. I apologize to you, I misread a post earlier in the chain.

I will say, I have actually gotten some use of this thread. When someone mentioned all or nothing morale systems, it made me rethink my game's morale system, and I ended up changing it to varying degrees of failed morale.

>>44218811
>it eats up extra time to take turns getting the dice out.

Have you played a game where your opponent rolls your saves? Because I can totally see the psychological effect of you rolling your own saves vs. your opponent rolling them. It also gives you something to do, rather than just sitting there and taking it for the entire turn.

>>44242375
>pissing himself over the idea of tanks hiding about trees

That's worse than the claim that TLOS destroys the modelling aspect of the hobby?

I have to admit, WIP threads just haven't been the same since 5e came around. Terrible static models modeled for maximum cover in mind. No creativity to be seen.

>>44234825
No, AP remains as separate groups all the way through the boarding action. They're all part of the same boarding action, but for the purposes of AAvsAP and APvsAP stages, they remain as separate groups.

>>44234178
Models can only declare a boarding attempt against one model per activation, so that battleship can't initiate boarding against multiple ships.

>>44242443
I'm fully behind abstract LOS.

It also doesn't help that GW loves the over-the-top poses and sizes on their models lately, but insist on 100% TLOS.

>>44218811
>Example: I roll to wound your guys, then you roll to save. It doesn't matter who rolls, the outcome is the same, and it eats up extra time to take turns getting the dice out.
Often the player can choose between a few different saves. Usually it's armour vs cover or invincibility.

>>44220046
Remove to-Wound roll and simply improve bulky model's Wound count.

Reinject roll-variety into the system by modelling saves like BS. Score of 1-10, 1 is a 6+, 2 a 5+ and so on. 6 is a 2+ with a 6+ reroll and such. If an attack's AP is equal to or higher than the target's armour, third the armour value rounding down. So 1 and 2 disappear, 3-5 become 1, 6-8 become 2 and 9 and 10 become 3.

You can implement this in a lot of ways in Warhammer actually and trim down on rules and tables. Make it so extreme S>T attacks make multiple (weaker) to-Wound rolls, each of which causes 2 wounds if S=2T, 3 if =3T and so on.

>>44242532
One thing I've found that's important to a game is that it makes the defending player feel more involved if he gets to roll. If the opponent rolls to hit, to damage, and then armor, he feels like he had no involvement at all in his model's death, while if he gets to roll the dice, he feels like he had a chance.

It doesn't affect the odds, but people will enjoy it more.

>>44222155
>I'd say something like equivalent company structures also limited by supply factors.
That would work if the game was based around a large campaign. But for regular games point buy/availability limit is the simplest and most efficient way to decide army strength before game.

>>44242544
>If an attack's AP is equal to or higher than the target's armour, third the armour value rounding down.

Why not just reduce the AP from the save and have the enemy roll against that? So if you got Sv. of 6 and a weapon had AP1, 6-1=5. So you need to roll 5 or under to save.

>>44234913
The only think it does is making the game more lethal and less of a lenghty grindfest.

Again, see KoW.

>>44242608
You'd have to switch from high-is-good to low-is-good armor.

>>44222633
>Only a handful of jacks are actually played in a game where every demo is big robutts.
Maybe it's because warjacks are butt-ugly.

>>44242608
40k would benefit a lot with a switch from current stat blocks to AoS style statblocks.
If they want to increase the model count 3 fold or more over the last few editions they could at least do something to speed up the gameplay as well.

>>44242552
An interesting take I've seen is in Dark Age, where your opponent rolls the "To Wound" roll. They took out to wound rolls, so you roll to hit, and then your opponent rolls an armor save. Its the idea of rolling armor saves into toughness, but without the other player being cut out from interacting.

>>44242658
>40k AoS

Well, I guess I can always play older editions, like with WHFB.

>>44220381
That's an interesting mechanic. I'd also do over the FO chart in general. Both 40K and Fantasy have their advantages. I came up with some weird complex hybrid of the two about a year or more back, which allowed units to occupy multiple slots and thus count as a Troops and a Fast Attack choice or two Heavy Support choices. The slots were:
Leader
Veteran
Core
Fast
Heavy
Support
Honestly I had no idea what to do with Lords of War however. Making them occupy many Heavy and Veteran slots didn't quite cover it. The last time I brought it up I got a wave of weird bitching about it, but Kings of War's system is the best of any I reckon I've seen. It acknowledges that armies are based around major fighting units and that smaller or weaker units are useful satellites around it, not some kind of begrudging tax.

That said, it is a Fantasy system and may not work for a more modern or futuristic setting outside of big tanks and Guardsmen/Ork/Nid/Necron blobs. Non-Fantasy probably suits a more skirmish friendly system; given that 40K is just space WW1, something that actually resembles a 30-strong infantry platoon for each army would be great. Three seven-man sticks, each with a squad of of 3 riflemen, a heavy gunner and ammo-rifleman with a petty officer as spotter, and a junior officer with a submachinegun. Independent roaming mortar-and-ammo team and an anti-tank team, and the command block. Quick runner and messenger, newbie/officer-in-training, batman record keeper, veteran/staff sergeant hard-guy and the senior officer with his submachinegun and power weapon.

>>44242614
Or just arrange the numbers the other way around.

File: Infinity_314_Ariadna_9th_Wulver_Grenadiers_MK12_Grenades.jpg (41KB, 599x410px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 599x410px

>>44236677
Considering some of the silly stuff they used to do, it's the only way for it to work.

>>44242680
There's a group at my FLGS that still plays 40k2E for some godforsaken reason.

>>44242689
>OSCAR MIKE OSCAR MIKE

>>44241168
>>44241246

Iirc TLOS takes in consideration this type of conversions and the "all my guards are crawling".
It considers this type of miniatures like they are standing straight, so it should be no problem

>>44242680
I'm not saying go full AoS. Keep the 40k rules and keep a point system but use the statblock style from AoS. get rid of the BS, WS, STR/T charts and speed the game play up.

>>44242707
Go KoW with some of the stuff, though. Put the to wound roll on the model, not the weapon, and use universal special rules to cover the strength differences of weapons.

>>44242700
So instead of using a template you arbitrarily choose to have some models represented by an imagined template?

All of this confirms pretty well that any attempt to make TLOS work is just a more complicated version of a better system.

I was under the impression that TLOS took into account things like model poses by assuming every model is standing straight, and forests, by assuming that a certain area of the board is "the forest" marked by a few trees. Am I wrong?

>>44242764
>I was under the impression that TLOS took into account things like model poses by assuming every model is standing straight
Not RAW
>and forests, by assuming that a certain area of the board is "the forest" marked by a few trees. Am I wrong?
Right

>>44221278
Simultaneous planning and action resolution. I came up with the system independently after a frustrating early-teen experience with Inquisitor and found it works for almost any game, and since having been reliably informed it already it exists in games I promote its spread. 40K's scale makes it something of a problem but then 40K could do with either a reduction of game size or a reduction of model and score scale in any case.

1. Each player records 1-3 actions for each of their units in secrecy. Units can usually move 3" in one action, can shoot (no more than twice per turn without special rules), go to ground, take aim, set up for Heavy and Salvo weapons, aid another unit regroup or attempt to suppress a pinned or routing enemy unit, or prep an action for a possible situation (ie if an enemy comes within 6" of the unit after this action is performed till the unit next acts otherwise, interrupt their action and shoot at them immediately). Targets for actions can be made very specific - if that target isn't available the action fails - or looser, which runs the risk of a unit running after an enemy they can't hurt.

If the game allows each unit 2 or more actions, then units that make only 1 action recieve an Initiative bonus.

2. Once both sides have planned their unit's actions, they reveal the results. Both sides roll a number of dice equal to the turn count, and after inspecting their enemies order may secretly add each dice roll to one of their unit's Initiatives for the turn (one dice per unit tops). Then the fastest unit resolves it's action first, then the next and so on. In ties the side with more units at that Initiative step resolves a unit first and then they alternate, if that's a tie then the side with the most units leads. If units get multiple actions then the system can either let each unit resolve all its actions at once, or each action after the first recieve -1, -3, -6 and so on to their Initiative.

>>44221771
It feels like a cousin to Advance Wars, in which the swiftest and most satisfying and practical way to win most games is to use a cheap, ubiquitous infantry unit to capture the enemy's HQ.

Speaking of which, interbleed between Advance Wars and 40K would be awesome for either series.

>>44242764
>assuming every model is standing straight
That is abstract LOS.

>certain area of the board is "the forest" marked by a few trees
Not in 100% TLOS.

You CAN do both of those in a LOS system based on TLOS, but then you're at the point where there's hardly any T left in your LOS and you might as well ditch it completely.

>>44222395
If we're thinking about it, what role would a Riptide fullfil?

- Lead unit, designed to occupy a majority of the points and deal the majority of damage/impact? If so it would need either a modest reduction to both its mobility and range, or a surprising range reduction to make it a close-range bruiser by Tau and its own price's standards. We're talking 30" tops, and most effective within 12". Either way a lead unit should be hard-hitting but fragile for its cost, and currently the Riptide is both. The latter can be remedied by raising the price of the unit, or reducing its saves and reoffering them at a premium.

- Is is a support unit, designed to take up a modest proportion of a force and stopgap major vulnerabilities of a lead? It'll definitely need its attack power lowering. As Tau are a predominately ranged army, support units tend to be again more close ranged, but if defence is reduced it could act a bit like a giant Warp Spider. Just one of range or defence needs a hit, but power will have to drop; demoting its big gun to a common weapon like a twin-linked HLMP and reoffering the ion-majigger for a premium would go a way.

- Is it meant to be a utility unit, a unit occupying a fractional cost of the army to conveniantly resolve army-wide concerns? This is unlikely given the high base cost of Riptides and the centrality of its high offensive punch. But at least the high mobility and defence wouldn't need adjustment, given that Utility units are meant to be convenient.

- Payload- is a Riptide like Terminators in a Land Raider or a Deathstrike Launcher, devasting if afforded prep space and time? This could allow for interesting adjustments beyond range and stat mods, such as requiring its guns to charge for 1+ turns, with each turn upping the shot count or range.

- The last role, a Nexus designed to boost other units and act as a lynchpin, obviously doesn't fit. Though it is an idea for an other large battlesuit.


From my analysis, adjusting

>>44222395
>>44242970
Riptides to fit the Payload role would be the most interesting path to balancing the unit, with Support as the second place for taking the pressure off its current spam role. Utility is a poor fit and Nexus a non-fit altogether, but Lead is boring and drags Tau too far from its core, riflemen and buzzy battlesuit jetpackers.

Regardless, the Riptide needs reshaping. Its a Lead, Support and Utility all in one, or a Payload without the limitation or drawback. Unsurprising that it's so overused and indeed spammed - any unit that can do any role will see massive overuse. Simply overpricing an alrounder user isn't the solution either, as Tactical squads amply prove.

>>44222548
How about units have to test to capture an objective, with tests against factors related to its defence, reflecting its endurance and ability to cling on to a point. Units that pass many tests or a test well can leave a point and enemies will have to un/recapture it to claim its bonus.

A lot of different objective marker mechanics could be implemented, incidentally.

>>44222819
My main concern for morale is that it covers both self-preservation and discipline/patience in one stat.

I reckon at least two stats are needed - a Leadership stat representing the self-control side, and a neutral value for Fury, Battle-Eagerness, Viciousness/Bloodthirst etc. versus Self-Preservation and Wariness. This stat acts as a positive or negative modifier depending on the Morale test - for a normal rout test, Eagerness is a positive benefit while Wariness is a negative. But if a unit with lesser mass

- and this is where I interrupt to introduce another mechanic that needs more use, unit's mass. Count the total number of models in a unit, with Bulky counting as 2, VBulky as 3 and EBulky as 5. Walkers and Monsters count as double their wound count, and other vehicles count as treble. Super-Heavies have their own Mass values related in their stats. This is useful for many weapons and morale purposes. Back to the leadership stats -

- if a unit with lesser mass is within weapon range or charge range, units must take a Ld test to NOT attack them over doing nothing or attacking a better target. Wariness is a positive modifier but Eagerness is a negative.

This is an easy way to vary different subfactions of an army. Chaos Space Marines from an Iron Warriors warband will show different values to a Night Lord. Orks will naturaly be the poster boy for hardcore Eagerness; mob rule works by improving Ld by 1, and shifting Attitude towards Eagerness by 1, for every six points of Mass. Imperial Guard are probably the high Wariness lead.

>>44223123
Pray tell, what serves as a better sounding board? Warseer? Bell of Lost Souls?

For all these sites, negative nancies with no contributions rank aren't welcome.

>>44242608
>Why not just reduce the AP from the save and have the enemy roll against that?
That would take away the R-P-S aspect of saves, which I think is interesting. If Space Marines weren't so ubiquitous that all the values in 40K were skewed massively towards 3+ and AP 3, it would be basically great.

When people take units for the 2+ armour save or buy that for their commander, they want to see that in action, not see almost every weapon in the game reduce it to a 4+.

>>44241246

No, faggots make modeling for advantage a real issue.

If you have a cool model/pose and some cumrag says yeah but I can see his sword poking up so TOLS LOL. Then he will invariably be a faggot about other things and noone will play with him. Same as the faggot who has all his guardsmen lying down.

If you cant realize/explain that distinction then I dont know what to tell you.

Since the LOS thing seems to died out, and the thread has slowed, figured I'd try to pitch my game and see if there's anything that people don't like. Latest version is here >>44223354

Quick setting explanation is its Hellgate: London, but without the mediocre shooter attached. Humans discover magic, end up abusing it, blowing up holes in reality. Monsters start invading from these holes, everyone thinks they are demons and they created portals to Hell. The factions are the Knights Templar, military formed to protect humanity and fight back the demons, uses power armor and the best weapons available; the Cabalists, while Templars use brute force to fight back, the Cabalists turn to fighting fire with fire and focus on arcane research to kill the demons, less armor but more magic and heavier guns than the Templars; Cults of the Damned, Apocalypse cults and militant groups looking to profit from the Apocalypse, weak weapons and armor, but numbers and larger access to command upgrades; and the Infernal Legion, the demons, more elite focused with all the weird stuff.

Mechanics, where the real meat is, is a skirmish level game, each model activates separately and uses an action point system, and is D12 based.

Attack resolution is each model has an attack and defense stat. When making an attack, you roll a number of D12's equal to the attack stat and select the highest rolled, while the defending player rolls a number of D12's equal to the defense stat, choosing the highest. After modifying the rolls with bonus and penalties for range, cover, positioning, etc., you subtract the defense roll from the offense roll. Damage is determined by the difference between the rolls. Each weapon has 3 numbers, if the result after subtracting the defense roll is '1' or '2', the the first number is dealt as damage, if its 3-6, the second number, and if the difference is 7+, the the last number.

Pretty standard actions, with counter-charges and overwatch standard.

>>44243181
Oh it's that "argument" again, claiming that any problem with the game must be a problem with the player. Here's a hint: If every solution of every problem is "don't play" then that's pretty damning for the game as a whole.

How do you tell whether someone is being a "cumrag" or honestly thinks model A has LOS to model B? Where do you draw the line? I like to have rules do that for me. Determining what is allowed in a game and what is not in an unambiguous way is what rules are for.

>>44243230
That doesn't sound too shabby. Reading through that synopsis I have two major gripes:

1) Dice rolls involve too many steps. determining target numbers for two opponents, then rolling off, then checking how many results are left and then checking on an (although simple) table just seems like 1-2 steps too many. WoD has learned in it's second incarnation that dice pool systems work best with a fixed target number.

2) What made you choose D12? If you're going for a dice pool system you want to use dice people actually have large numbers of. That's either D6 or D10.