There are a couple of aspects that make it a bit finicky: visibility from the head and where the points that allow NRS are, specially when operatives have different base sizes. As a rule of thumb, same base sizes put the obscuring point at half the distance, whoever is closest to the point is the obscured one, larger base sizes require the smallest base to be much closer to be able to be obscured. It's much easier to see with charts
Original Line of Sight Video everyone needs to watch: ua-cam.com/video/t4wmh_rxBwA/v-deo.html&t Consider supporting me for more frivolous content: www.patreon.com/GlassHalfDead Jump into my Discord for Kill Team chat: discord.gg/2fX26B9HS5 Kill Team Player Locator: padlet.com/DiggaAl/KillTeamPlayerLocator And check out my 40k channel that I SOMETIMES post on, primarily to call people crumpets: ua-cam.com/channels/VmdZksO_AUKVv1FAkdQF4g.html
Legitimately awesome and helpful video. I’m ~10 games in with Kommandos and still struggle to remember non-reciprocal shooting. Appreciate the knowledge.
Did you recently change your mind about non-reciprocal shooting? If so, why? I ask because you mentioned in passing that you thought it was frustrating in the last balance pass video.
Yup, coming from Warmachine and having heard how neat KT rules are from its proponents, I was quite surprised to see how clunky they really are and how many gentleman's agreements the game needs to run at least half-smoothly. In Warmachine you get rules and you play according to them, and are appreciated for it. GW games can't manage to shake this philosophy that a player who plays correctly and uses the rules to his advantage is the bad one, the "rules lawyer" and the proper way of playing is to bend the rules arbitrarily in random ways at random points.
I know this rule exists, but I’m just never big brained enough to do it 😂 is it bad that I’m just not motivated on either side of the debate? It’s just a feature of the game. And totally agree with your conclusions at the end! Hope you’re feeling better soon buddy!
Thanks for this video. A great job of explaining the mechanic. I tend to agree that NRS would be much less of a problem if the rules had discussed the mechanic, with diagrams. The whole “feel bad” thing has more to do with player behavior than the rule. If you make a point of letting your opponent know what you’re setting up, then there’s a lot less ill will than if you purposefully exploit a person’s misunderstanding of the rules.
Question: This is a bit specific but not entirely off topic. In a game with Farstalker Kinband and Hierotek Circle... Does anyone know if the Kroot Pistolier can select a Cryptek/Apprentek, that is acting as the line-of-sight-model for the for a respective Apprentek/Cryptek's "Magnification Conduit", for it's "Quick Draw" ability? The ability refers to 'that enemy operative' and as far as I can understand, it means the one making the attack... Intuitively, I thought the pistolier could shoot the line-of-sight-model. But looking at the ability wording, I don't think it can..? Anyone else come across this?
I think GW could end up ruling this either way, but from my initial read if I was a TO and had to rule it, I'd say the pistolier cannot shoot at the model which is the magnification conduit.
New player here, im struggling to understand why an operative more then 2" from heavy cover is obscurred? Surely theyd need to be closesly tucked into it to benefit from the cover?
The benefit of cover is retaining 1 of your defence dice. Heavy or light, they both give you that. You need to be within 1" for that. Heavy terrain ALSO provides obscuring. Obscuring only happens when over 2" from it.
@Glass Half Dead how come you have to be over 2" to benefit from obscuring? Surely if an op is within 2" thematically theyd be ducking behind the obscurring terrain if you lnow what i mean.
@@Bingham15 You're thinking of being close and on a conceal to that terrain. Really hugging in tight to it. Obscuring is more like a guy running around 10 metres away from the wall. the guy shooting at that might see movement, but it's really just a blur as they dash between crates and doors. And then it doesn't matter if the one doing the dashing around so far behind the front face of the gun line is shooting or keeping quiet, as it's really just on the periphery.
What you mean is Cover. Obscuring means your silhouette is difficult to track when it just passes somewhere in the background and you only see it for a moment through windows and holes in walls that are in the way.
Are you wispering???? good video, but your usual demeanor seems more upbeat and louder. In this video, it's almost as if you are trying to not wake someone who is asleep nearby lol
I realise I'm replying to this far too late, but I had JUST gotten over a chest infection and my voice was wrecked. I was legit whispering into the microphone as I couldn't do much else vocally :P
I was led to believe in a recent tournament the FAQ changed LOS. In one of my games I was at board level targeting a unit standing on the big Moroch landing pad like piece. I was told because my line of sight crossed heavy terrain (diagonally through the base of the structure) that was 2 inches from my target I could not see him. I cited the blurb on page 72 of the core book "the operative cannot use parts of the vantage points terrain feature that is lower than the operative as cover." I was unanimously turned down by the TOs and opponent that the current FAQs changed the way LOS treats cover lines but I still can't find it anywhere. That's what is ruining LOS for me, everytime I feel like I understand it they change something or someone else has a completely different understanding of the same sentence. The orders are one of my favorite aspects of the game and they truly make it feel unique but sometimes I just wish LOS was as simple as in most miniature games.
Just off the top of my head, you are correct in that situation. However, it's possible you came up against bad timing because there was an FAQ that lasted about 2 weeks, where they changed how vantage points worked. I can't remember what exactly they changed because they very clearly went back on it quickly.
But… it’s not an exploit, the game is just more intricate then at first glance Imagine a call of duty type game where to throw a grenade you have to press both triggers simultaneously. The game does tell you, but it’s on the last screen of a 10 tab text based tutorial that everyone just presses skip. You and your mates are happily playing in blissful ignorance until someone stumbles across the button combination (either through external source or by accident). It’s only a grenade. Just an extra tool that helps in a very specific situation. Its not op. It’s easily dealt with by an opponent. It’s not an exploit, just another part of the game. But still, it’s only toy soldiers so you do you
Its core of competitive play, but its actually pretty terrible for the game casually. Its a NPE when its a gotcha and when its not. Thematically, it also makes no sense. The model is mostly in the open on the table, and if we go so far to pretend the situation on the table was really happening, the target model would still be shooting the area where the shots came from anyway. Does it ruin the game? No of course not, but I don't think we should pretend its good for the game.
@@Optix334 I profoundly disagree. If you want to think thematically it’s the guy ducking around a corner to shoot then ducking back into cover. It’s actually treating ‘your guys’ as intelligent, well trained soldiers rather than caricatures. The idea that ‘your guys’ are just the static statues they are represented buy is pretty asinine when you think about it. That the rules support the idea that they are not is really great from both a competitive and casual/narrative perspective.
@@majortom7186 but that's not how intelligent soldiers act. Not sure if you've seen war, but soldiers shoot at the direction fire is coming from even if they can't see who is shooting. That's like 90% of the gunfights. If they wanted to make that realistic, then there should be a suppression mechanic that benefits the first shooter, but there shouldn't be a blanket "you take 0 return fire". This even contradicts other mechanics like Melee, where even experienced melee specialists can somehow still get poked to death by bayonets. The game has tried to minimize actions that have no tradeoff, and we're going to pretend that NRS is intended? Let's be real here. And again, moving back to the game and playing the game, there are 0 situations where this feels good for anybody but WAAC players. Even in this video, Glass has a "well shit" reaction. I have more than a few anecdotes through running my own casual campaigns if you really want to hear them too. There is no reason to pretend this is fun or good for the game. it feels exploity at best (cause it is tbh) and at worst, as Glass said, it's actively pushing players away. This should be obvious by the fact it relies on you making millimeter adjustments to your movement to make sure it happens. Nobody outside of the highly competitive crowd wants anything like that in a game.
@@Optix334 your experience of playing the game directly confits with even the casual players in my local scene who are entirely happy trying to set up scenarios where they can get shots off but not get shot back unless the mini they are shooting at moves 🤷♂️ This isn’t a competitive vs casual thing, it’s a straight up how the game works thing and it certainly can be fun for people at all levels.
Voice shot? I just assumed it was 3am and you were trying to not wake up your roommate 😂
There are a couple of aspects that make it a bit finicky: visibility from the head and where the points that allow NRS are, specially when operatives have different base sizes. As a rule of thumb, same base sizes put the obscuring point at half the distance, whoever is closest to the point is the obscured one, larger base sizes require the smallest base to be much closer to be able to be obscured. It's much easier to see with charts
Original Line of Sight Video everyone needs to watch: ua-cam.com/video/t4wmh_rxBwA/v-deo.html&t
Consider supporting me for more frivolous content: www.patreon.com/GlassHalfDead
Jump into my Discord for Kill Team chat: discord.gg/2fX26B9HS5
Kill Team Player Locator: padlet.com/DiggaAl/KillTeamPlayerLocator
And check out my 40k channel that I SOMETIMES post on, primarily to call people crumpets: ua-cam.com/channels/VmdZksO_AUKVv1FAkdQF4g.html
Legitimately awesome and helpful video. I’m ~10 games in with Kommandos and still struggle to remember non-reciprocal shooting. Appreciate the knowledge.
What video game is that?
Did you recently change your mind about non-reciprocal shooting? If so, why? I ask because you mentioned in passing that you thought it was frustrating in the last balance pass video.
I find the KT community has a real hard time admitting the game has problems, and flip flops frequently.
Yup, coming from Warmachine and having heard how neat KT rules are from its proponents, I was quite surprised to see how clunky they really are and how many gentleman's agreements the game needs to run at least half-smoothly.
In Warmachine you get rules and you play according to them, and are appreciated for it. GW games can't manage to shake this philosophy that a player who plays correctly and uses the rules to his advantage is the bad one, the "rules lawyer" and the proper way of playing is to bend the rules arbitrarily in random ways at random points.
I know this rule exists, but I’m just never big brained enough to do it 😂 is it bad that I’m just not motivated on either side of the debate? It’s just a feature of the game. And totally agree with your conclusions at the end!
Hope you’re feeling better soon buddy!
Thanks for this video. A great job of explaining the mechanic. I tend to agree that NRS would be much less of a problem if the rules had discussed the mechanic, with diagrams. The whole “feel bad” thing has more to do with player behavior than the rule. If you make a point of letting your opponent know what you’re setting up, then there’s a lot less ill will than if you purposefully exploit a person’s misunderstanding of the rules.
Question: This is a bit specific but not entirely off topic.
In a game with Farstalker Kinband and Hierotek Circle...
Does anyone know if the Kroot Pistolier can select a Cryptek/Apprentek, that is acting as the line-of-sight-model for the for a respective Apprentek/Cryptek's "Magnification Conduit", for it's "Quick Draw" ability?
The ability refers to 'that enemy operative' and as far as I can understand, it means the one making the attack...
Intuitively, I thought the pistolier could shoot the line-of-sight-model. But looking at the ability wording, I don't think it can..?
Anyone else come across this?
I think GW could end up ruling this either way, but from my initial read if I was a TO and had to rule it, I'd say the pistolier cannot shoot at the model which is the magnification conduit.
That was a nice, philosophical script you wrote.
What laser pointer are you using???
Any answers ???
@@Riddler_von I believe it just the standard army painter one. It what most of us in the UK carry in our KT game kit
Its the target lock laserline from army painter
best thing ever for KT. they cost about 10-12$
Really interesting tactical insight.
New player here, im struggling to understand why an operative more then 2" from heavy cover is obscurred? Surely theyd need to be closesly tucked into it to benefit from the cover?
The benefit of cover is retaining 1 of your defence dice. Heavy or light, they both give you that. You need to be within 1" for that.
Heavy terrain ALSO provides obscuring. Obscuring only happens when over 2" from it.
@Glass Half Dead how come you have to be over 2" to benefit from obscuring? Surely if an op is within 2" thematically theyd be ducking behind the obscurring terrain if you lnow what i mean.
@@Bingham15 You're thinking of being close and on a conceal to that terrain. Really hugging in tight to it.
Obscuring is more like a guy running around 10 metres away from the wall. the guy shooting at that might see movement, but it's really just a blur as they dash between crates and doors. And then it doesn't matter if the one doing the dashing around so far behind the front face of the gun line is shooting or keeping quiet, as it's really just on the periphery.
What you mean is Cover.
Obscuring means your silhouette is difficult to track when it just passes somewhere in the background and you only see it for a moment through windows and holes in walls that are in the way.
Are you wispering???? good video, but your usual demeanor seems more upbeat and louder. In this video, it's almost as if you are trying to not wake someone who is asleep nearby lol
I realise I'm replying to this far too late, but I had JUST gotten over a chest infection and my voice was wrecked. I was legit whispering into the microphone as I couldn't do much else vocally :P
I was led to believe in a recent tournament the FAQ changed LOS. In one of my games I was at board level targeting a unit standing on the big Moroch landing pad like piece. I was told because my line of sight crossed heavy terrain (diagonally through the base of the structure) that was 2 inches from my target I could not see him. I cited the blurb on page 72 of the core book "the operative cannot use parts of the vantage points terrain feature that is lower than the operative as cover." I was unanimously turned down by the TOs and opponent that the current FAQs changed the way LOS treats cover lines but I still can't find it anywhere. That's what is ruining LOS for me, everytime I feel like I understand it they change something or someone else has a completely different understanding of the same sentence.
The orders are one of my favorite aspects of the game and they truly make it feel unique but sometimes I just wish LOS was as simple as in most miniature games.
Just off the top of my head, you are correct in that situation. However, it's possible you came up against bad timing because there was an FAQ that lasted about 2 weeks, where they changed how vantage points worked. I can't remember what exactly they changed because they very clearly went back on it quickly.
@@GlassHalfDead Yes, this rule was ignored by many communities as it was clearly a mistake on the design teams part.
What game is the footage from?
Chaos Gate
Love this sort of gritty break down and tactic coverage.
Respectfully disagree. "If they exploit then you exploit" is a spiral into poor sportsmanship.
That presumes that NRS is an exploit rather than a perfectly legitimate and intended part of the game.
But… it’s not an exploit, the game is just more intricate then at first glance
Imagine a call of duty type game where to throw a grenade you have to press both triggers simultaneously. The game does tell you, but it’s on the last screen of a 10 tab text based tutorial that everyone just presses skip.
You and your mates are happily playing in blissful ignorance until someone stumbles across the button combination (either through external source or by accident).
It’s only a grenade. Just an extra tool that helps in a very specific situation. Its not op. It’s easily dealt with by an opponent. It’s not an exploit, just another part of the game.
But still, it’s only toy soldiers so you do you
Thanks for caring about us
What is this game you’re playing in the background?
And how do I play it?
@@aleksandarabrams431 Its Chaos Gate Daemonhunters. Its on Steam.
2:29
Well said.
The core rules Say you draw visibility lines from the active operatives head
Core rule is the models head must see any part of the enemy model for it to be a valid targets. Then you draw cover lines from any part of the base
Visibility Line ≠ Cover Lines
NRS is the core of good play. Even the most casual players in my local scene get it and can use it in games.
Its core of competitive play, but its actually pretty terrible for the game casually. Its a NPE when its a gotcha and when its not. Thematically, it also makes no sense. The model is mostly in the open on the table, and if we go so far to pretend the situation on the table was really happening, the target model would still be shooting the area where the shots came from anyway.
Does it ruin the game? No of course not, but I don't think we should pretend its good for the game.
@@Optix334 I profoundly disagree. If you want to think thematically it’s the guy ducking around a corner to shoot then ducking back into cover. It’s actually treating ‘your guys’ as intelligent, well trained soldiers rather than caricatures. The idea that ‘your guys’ are just the static statues they are represented buy is pretty asinine when you think about it. That the rules support the idea that they are not is really great from both a competitive and casual/narrative perspective.
@@majortom7186 but that's not how intelligent soldiers act. Not sure if you've seen war, but soldiers shoot at the direction fire is coming from even if they can't see who is shooting. That's like 90% of the gunfights. If they wanted to make that realistic, then there should be a suppression mechanic that benefits the first shooter, but there shouldn't be a blanket "you take 0 return fire". This even contradicts other mechanics like Melee, where even experienced melee specialists can somehow still get poked to death by bayonets. The game has tried to minimize actions that have no tradeoff, and we're going to pretend that NRS is intended? Let's be real here.
And again, moving back to the game and playing the game, there are 0 situations where this feels good for anybody but WAAC players. Even in this video, Glass has a "well shit" reaction. I have more than a few anecdotes through running my own casual campaigns if you really want to hear them too.
There is no reason to pretend this is fun or good for the game. it feels exploity at best (cause it is tbh) and at worst, as Glass said, it's actively pushing players away. This should be obvious by the fact it relies on you making millimeter adjustments to your movement to make sure it happens. Nobody outside of the highly competitive crowd wants anything like that in a game.
@@Optix334 your experience of playing the game directly confits with even the casual players in my local scene who are entirely happy trying to set up scenarios where they can get shots off but not get shot back unless the mini they are shooting at moves 🤷♂️
This isn’t a competitive vs casual thing, it’s a straight up how the game works thing and it certainly can be fun for people at all levels.
@@majortom7186 it’s not really ”ducking behind a corner” though since your mini is flailing about 8 meters away from said corner.