Wednesday, 3 November 2010

True LOS may have ruined my plans!!!

Just a quick post to see what the 2 other people who read my blog think.

I was considering getting a Vampire Count army in the future after I have finished my Wolves and Lizardmen but my plan to make it a nice good to look at army has made me think about how true LOS will affect this. If I wanted to place say for instance my Varghulf on a nice scenic base like a collapsed pillar or big rock to make him stand out and look cool, I would actually be screwing myself over in game terms. I now have to choose whether I want him to look good on the table or be safe from mass enemy shooting, which I don't think any gamer should have to do. With Fantasy being a more tactical game each unit being assigned a role to achieve to earn their points back or make them worth the point investment the last thing I want is my oppo being able to shoot things more easily because I have placed them above the height of most of my army. You rarely have points fillers in Fantasy at least less than you do in 40k so my 100 - 200 point monster normally standing about the same as cavalry height would be able to be shot by anything that's in range due to true LOS so now I dont think I want to make him look suitable awesome by making his base cool. Other systems use TLOS but now I think it does not suit WHFB as much as I first thought. You don't have big metal boxes (tanks) like you do in 40k which have little movement other than forwards and backwards, instead you have living creature which bend and flex and move all around. Now Warmachine represents this by having a volume and only 3 base sizes. Small bases take up block the size of the base and 1.25" up, medium bases 2" up and large 2.75" up (this is possibly slightly wrong but I cant be arsed to go get the rulebook and it gives you the gist). Now this system while a little more complex lends itself more to the flexible nature of living models and helps you imagine the movement they clearly dot have as inanimate objects. I'm not saying this would work in WHFB but I dont think TLOS works either IF you want people to be more creative and put some effort into putting the army centre pieces on impressive bases.

Anyway this is just 1 mans opinion but I do think its something GW should have taken into account as it seems the choice between game-ability and look-ability is an unfair one we should not have to make. I wouldn't want my Vargulf dying to shooting every game just because I wanted him to stand out and have nothing big enough to give him some cover.

7 comments:

  1. Or, from the other point of view, your vampire could see over the intervening models for magic shooting attacks. Or have him detachable from the scenic base and mountable on a normal base for LOS checks. I wouldn't think that anyone at your local club would have a problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vamps have no shooting apart from the Banshee attack and most vamp magic doesnt need LOS as its all about raising the dead and they only have 1 damage spell really. I would never put a normal vamp on a scenic base but I had planned to the Varghulf which is a Vamp but a big bestial one which deserves a decent rock to stand upon especially as his pose really lend to that rather than being on foot. The multi use base sounds complicated but might be good way of doing it at club

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well to be honest with the size of a Varghulf I'd expect to be able to see it over the heads of a bunch of zombies anyway... if someone modelled theirs sneaking along the floor hiding under a rock I'd say they were being a bit shady with the rules to be honest :oP

    I haven't the rulebook to hand, but is there any sort of benefit for cavalry sized models to stay behind infantry? Counting as in soft cover perhaps? If your scenic base put him far above and beyond the infantry level, I'd still allow you to count him as the size he should effectively be.

    The two bases wouldn't be too hard to achieve and is a pretty good idea. Though at our club I don't think you'll have too much of a problem with a scenic base, if you get the army book out and it says this model is roughly cavalry size/infantry size whatever then it'll be quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was bugging me so I dug out my rulebook :oP

    P41 Cover
    If the majority of the models in a target unit (or, when firing against a single model, more than half of the target model) is obscured from the shooting model's view by other models (friend or foe) or by terrain then an additional To Hit modifier is applied.

    Target Behind Hard Cover
    ...We also count intervening units as Hard cover...

    So, in summary, I'd say your Varghulf on a normal base should be big enough to be seen behind a unit of zombies, but he'll be at -2 to hit. If you put him on a rock that makes him more obvious over the zombies, I'd still give you the -2 based on what size I'd normally expect him to be. Most people should agree, and if anyone gives you trouble I'm happy to argue your corner on this one :oP

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think units just give you -1 but I didnt think this would be a huge problem in our club but in general i think its one that will hamper the tourney scene, do you make and army to play well and win games or one that looks good and wins kudos?? Just text you about the steam tank rule being removed from FAQ although I agree it should not be affected by it but hey when do GW listen to us

    ReplyDelete
  6. It says, intervening units are hard cover. That's -2.

    And my phone is still buggered, what's this steam tank rule change?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its not imoon to pit of shades anymore its not in the v1.2 FAQ apparently, I cant find it anyway and lil rich pointed it out on the blog. kinda seems pointless they make a £40 model only to make it instantly killable in the game lol. I thought that it was but scott when was playing him said was only -1 and I couldnt be assed to look up something else as hed been making me all game as never believes me even when Im right and not just claiming I am and know Im not lol

    ReplyDelete