Size rules and area terrain

[lowlygaunt]

This was a discussion about a month or two ago, that started when I mentioned that my local GW store labels vehicles and hills as having a "size" rating. Some people questioned why and even insinuated that they were idiots to do so. . I have the rules and their explanation. I have created my own thread to see peoples takes on it. Now this discussion only really applies to those who make their own scenary and terrain and know the inconsistancies that take place. If you are a chess player who plays 40k by RAW only and not common sense (and do not even think about claiming that RAW takes into account common sense please, that would truly be an example of no common sense, just look at the thread on guns and ranges), don't care about the fluff or creating your own boards, ignore this, as it is a discussion involving translating the modeling side of the hobby into common sense playability on the table, not truly an argument over the rules.
As to the "size" issue I mentioned earlier, it had to do with giving vehicles a size rating as well as your terrain a size rating to equivalent it, page 7 explains size 1,2 3 models for LOS, and yes the way you play RAW that is all they apply to, but for a lot of stores and players who realise not all terrain can be modeled perfectly (for example, most hills are modeled in steps etc and therefore do not represent true size, same with many buildings, and oh yeah the vehicles themselves are NOT modeled to true size, just try to fit 10 marines in the cargo area of your rhino to prove it) they use the 1,2,3 size rule for describing the "size' of their area terrain:
The bottom of the last paragraph states "All you need to remember is that if an observor or the observedis of a greater height category than anything in betweenthan it has clear line of sight". Since many features used to portray area terrain do not truly represent it (say a flat set of fish tank bushes representing a forest) it is often easier to describe the forest as Size 2, and therefore blocking LOS for anything size 2 or below, since in reality, an overscaled chaos lord can draw LOS over a modeled tree on most terrain boards.
Specifically one of the issues the Store i played at in northridge ran ionto, was a player who had modeled his vehicles 12" tall, with their weapon on the top sio they could almost always claim LoS over even the tallest set of model trees. the store solved it by giving terrain and the vehicle a "size" rating as described on page 7, eliminating the players somewhat ridiculous attempts, and hopefully curtailing copycats in the future.
Am i the only one this makes sense too? Am I the only one here with modular built terrain that can create these types of confusion? i know the simple mantra "just draw LoS" seems to work, but it does not in the vagueries of games, where terrain is representational and not modeled exactly to scale.
So the real point i guess is to see who feels this is viable as a simpler and more common sense solution, as well as see if others have any ideas on the same subject. I can if you want to argue about it give a dozen examples where the built terrain looks great, is modeled well, but because of scale issues direct LoS say with a string does not work, please don't make me, that is not what i am looking for.

[Overread]

Personally, I think conversions are great, but when a person does so like in the example you sight he deserves to be hit round the head with his rule book and then have a new rule added that everything in the room can target his titan sized tanks!
LOS works fine in many cases - and most arguments in battles could be solved by a laser pen (you often cannot get your head and eye down to model level)
That said, a numerical based system can work - but such systems must also take into account basic LOS factors - numbers are great for a square slab, but get more complex with, say, and undulating hill.

[coredump]

You are confusing the rules.

There are two types of terrain.

Regular terrain, and area terrain.

Area terrain *does* come with a size, and it is compared to assigned model size.
So if you take a piece of flat cardboard, and say it is area terrain of a forest, size 3, that 12" tall tank still can't see over it.

But the game is meant to be more than a 2 dimensional representation. So normal terrain is WYSIWYG, and you simply draw line of site (string,whatever) This is one of the benefits of playing a miniature game, you actually get to try and fit you guys behind a real hill.

Things to keep in mind.

That tank can be *seen* from anywhere
Since it is so tall, even when behind cover, it will often not count as 'obscured'
size 3 area terrain still blocks LoS

I am not sure what troubles you are having with terrain that warrents changing the rules.

As for the Tank guy. When a douchebag tries to cheat, instead of changing the rules of the game, just tell him 'hey douchebag, stop cheating.

And when he won't stop, just stop playing him. If the store is willing to change the rules of the game, why can't they just ban that tank instead. (But seriously, why isn't that tank dieing on the first turn every game, since every lascannon can see it.)

[zzapper]

I have this problem with a guard friend, when my Tyrant (size three), can technically see over the Size 2 terrain piece. Therefore, I can't shott his guard peeps. But said I had to do that at reduced BS...

[Aux]

zzapper said:

I have this problem with a guard friend, when my Tyrant (size three), can technically see over the Size 2 terrain piece. Therefore, I can't shott his guard peeps. But said I had to do that at reduced BS...

that's bull

[lowlygaunt]

I am not confusing the rules Coredump, I am discussing a situation where the rules you have quoted do not work well for common sense on the table. Sometimes the rules cannot cover every contingency to the satisfaction of the players. Clearly they do for you, for my group they do not. I shall try to explain why. Which is what i was trying to explain in the paragraph in my first post. I did not want this to become a part of the RAW vs Common sense rules debate, alas it has.


This is one of the specific examples. When creating a building on the table, it is often easier and more realistic to decrease its size slightly, so that ruined walls on a building that is meant to be two stories high in the game are often NOT 5" tall (scaled on a marine, who is 2" tall so a 10 foot for each floor building is 2.5 times the mini's height) on the table. This is because on our table, buildings built with ruined walls this tall are broken off within a game or two. So to solve this problem, you shrink their size slightly (say making these walls in the 3-4" range). Often this reduced building scale means some things modeled on a cool base or even just a typical oversized GW miniature (like my chaos lord, who is supposed to represent a 7 foot tall guy, but in reality in this scale looks closer to 13 feet on his oversized base) can see over these walls.
Same thing with trees, if i built true scale 30 foot trees onto my table, they would be 12 inches of real distance, cannot be done because with 10+ people moving around the table, reaching, rolling etc they get broken. So, the response is to make a tree (or trees) 4 inches tall, which is less likely get broken off, and say it counts as a "size 3" obstacle.

This is one example of where modeling and WYSIWYG true LOS laser pen style does not work at all. because gamer geeks like us are generally clumsy, and destroy terrain. Same goes with my ravine board. For purposes of moving models and such it was not possible to truly build these canyons 8 inches deep, so they are say 3-4 " deep on the table (two layers of sheet foam). Often, a model like the eldar farseer who stands on that funky base, can see over the edge of what is supposed to be a 30 foot deep canyon, same with things like the chaos lord etc. It is not feasible to build the terrain larger, nor is it common sense to let the 6 foot tall farseer see or be seen when he is in a 30 foot deep canyon (or even a 10 foot deep one) in scale. Same happens when the surface of your boards is modeled. often a piece of scattered rubble or a an irregularity in sand results in 3-4 feet of in scale change in what is supposed to be a foot of slope in scale. But modeling a true foot of scope in rubble is a nightmare, when even a cut sprue piece is 1 foot in scale.
So for these reasons, often true LOS cannot be used, ignore the idiot with the tank above, i do not want to punish my eldar player because his howling banshees are modeled with a 4 foot (in scale) helmet and hair on their heads. that is an artistic thing that should not punish someone on the table. My howling banshees cannot hide in a ravine i cut a full 2.5 inches into my table. . under true LOS, so, we label the canyon as "size 3 deep" and get on with it.


Does this make more sense as to why there are times we have to label stuff this way? I suspect most people do not get to play on a completely modeled board, that is modular etc. I have over 35 2' by 2' boards now, and for me keeping them all on the same exact correct scale was not feasible or my interest. I do not want a farm building to be in scale, as in scale, a barn that is 60 feet by 40 feet and say 30 feet high would, on a 6 foot by four foot scale, be roughly 2 feet long, and that is a TINY barn in the area I live in. heaven forbid a military barracks modeled,a s it would cover half the table.

Coredump wrote:
"But the game is meant to be more than a 2 dimensional representation. So normal terrain is WYSIWYG, and you simply draw line of site (string,whatever) This is one of the benefits of playing a miniature game, you actually get to try and fit you guys behind a real hill."

A normal tree would stand something like 3 feet off the table in scale, a "real" hill as you put it, that is say 40 feet high would stand 15" or so, does the terrain you play on really stand that high? or are all your hills scaled to be 12 feet high (2")? We want mountain ridges that "represent" 40 foot high slopes, etc.
We have a 12 foot by 6 foot table for games of say 2 v2 or 3 v3, so larger terrain is a factor.



One last thing on the RAW vs Common sense argument over rules. .
Warning: Next paragraph is my teacher mode for the post, so feel free to ignore it:

First, remember, these games are about using your brains, interpreting rules to make more sense, to portray the game in the manner you and your friends see as closer to the "fluff" as you percieve it, is OK!!!!!!!!!!!! being creative, imaginative and solving problems is what gamer geeks do! Do NOT be a slave to the RAW rules if all involved agree they do not work for you. the key phrase being all involved, if the rules cover an area you cannot agree on, use the RAW.
(I do not think GW has ever claimed that the CRB covers every contingency in the game at all, and if they have they are being foolish. Notice how all the good roleplaying systems and tabletop battle systems have a paragraph where they say the GM should interpret things, since the writers of the rules cannot cannot? If players are finding themselves having issues coming up with reasonable solutions to issues that all involved can agree on, you need to look closely at why you can't come to an agreement, and if it is because the compromise does not give you the advantage you want it too, or it is your opponent who can't agree because he/she wants a greater advantage. . re-think why your playing. Playing is the fun part, not winning, think about how many people don;t even get to play, like Striogi)

I teach college, the most significant thing anyone will ever learn in their life, at college or wherever, is to think for themselves, and solve problems! memorising the rules and quoting them back by page and paragraph. . is not the same as taking 2 +2 and getting 4, or 5 ot IOIOIIIOIO (i made that up, i don't know binary. . ). Re-gurgitating someone leses idea, even at a perfect level, is still worth far less than creating your own idea.


Ooops sheesh sorry, noticed how long this got after. teachers talk too much, its a common trait, and it applies to discussions like this, bear with me and forgive my foibles!

[barbedsparky]

From reading this, I think you gentlemen are actually saying the same thing. Lowly you are saying that true LOS doesn't appear to be sensible when using your crafted tables in certain situations and this I believe is where the area terrain rules come into effect as Coredump was saying. For example your 3-4" modelled forests would count as area terrain and therefore unable to be seen over regardless of model size and actual LOS. A 3-4" hedge or ruined wall or whatever, not classified as area terrain uses true LOS. The example of your ravine is again simple, use the area terrain rules, but invert them.

Lowly: If I am interpreting what you are saying correctly then you can use the actual RAW without compromising your tables and scenery. I have had many discussions about LOS and area terrain (some quite heated) with a few of my playing friends and basically the rules seem to cover most bases. Unusual scenery and terrain can still be left open to some interpretation, but dealing with this before battling mostly sorts it all out. Whether declaring said piece(s) as area terrain or whatever.

As far as the thinking aspect goes, I am lucky in that my people are thinkers and things can be sorted with relative ease and understanding, without having to resort to the icky 4+ dice roll to decide anything at all.

[lowlygaunt]

Good summation Barbedspiky, thanks, your pretty much right on there. I didn;t mean my post as an argument, just a clarification as to why, since Coredump had asked for one.

As far as the thinking aspect goes, I am lucky in that my people are thinkers and things can be sorted with relative ease and understanding, without having to resort to the icky 4+ dice roll to decide anything at all.

That fits my group as well, I just run into way too many people at my local GW stores and such who play RAW or go home, I chose to go home and play on my own tables with my own game club.