PDA

View Full Version : I love true line of sight



onlainari
12-05-2009, 05:54
It's been quite some time now and I think it has been a great part of the rules. I love its simplicity to understand. I find it very easy and practical to apply. I can't think of any games I've had where it's been a problem.

I've run into people that don't like true line of sight. So no doubt some of you will see this thread. Can you please explain yourselves?

spacewolf_sven
12-05-2009, 06:03
Not speaking entirely for myself but I believe it comes from losing games to it early in people's fifth ed experience

Surgency
12-05-2009, 06:07
I do like TLOS, but I also wish that area terrain rules were back. We house rule for area terrain, as none of our terrain has more than 2-3 trees on it

noobzilla
12-05-2009, 06:07
Yeah, I was convinced that at one point TLoS might create such a problem in the Tournament scene that EVERYONE would need a Laser Pointer to even think about shooting.

decker_cky
12-05-2009, 06:08
I do like TLOS, but I also wish that area terrain rules were back. We house rule for area terrain, as none of our terrain has more than 2-3 trees on it

My gaming group just finished off building all the terrain for our area terrain, so it actually blocks a fair bit of LoS (often providing cover to big stuff behind it).

Inquisitor Engel
12-05-2009, 06:08
We play it with a certain amount of flexibility here. Models that are crouching would stand up to shoot, but the reverse is also true, if someone's shooting they could be caught while scratching their ****, reaching for a butterfly, whatever.

I love it.

Captain Aurillius
12-05-2009, 06:12
as of right now im not a huge fan to easy to see through forests because of how they are modeled by every one for practicality. The battle field is way to wide open(thats even with me covering most of the field in terrain)

Terrain rules still need work big time by gw. Love the way FoW does terrain.

Green Shoes
12-05-2009, 06:45
I originally didn't like TLOS, as I thought my precious IG wouldn't have any reasonable places to find cover saves, but with the rules of infantry partially blocking LOS and providing a cover save, it actually hasn't changed the amount of cover saves all too much, only where one has to find and utilize them.

SabrX
12-05-2009, 06:50
TLOS is nice, but I've seen it abused way too much. "Hey look! My Hammerhead Railgun and see your Predator straight through the small 2nd story window". But some stuff still doesn't make sense such as shooting a blast template point blank and having it deviate off 12". Sometimes I wish 40k had some BS modifiers such as +1 BS for shooting at big targets.

spaint2k
12-05-2009, 07:00
TLOS is nice, but I've seen it abused way too much. "Hey look! My Hammerhead Railgun and see your Predator straight through the small 2nd story window". But some stuff still doesn't make sense such as shooting a blast template point blank and having it deviate off 12". Sometimes I wish 40k had some BS modifiers such as +1 BS for shooting at big targets.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that modifiers are too complex for 40k players to handle. /irony

Steve

Hellebore
12-05-2009, 07:09
I don't like it because it makes my dynamically posed jump pack marines a giant target.

I also don't like it because it's not actually TRUE line of sight. One unit can see another unit with one model and can only shoot with that one model. The other unit can see that one model and shoot at the whole squad. That's not true line of sight in the slightest.

You can't apply one set of variables to one unit (ie that only 1 model that can see can shoot) and another set to the opposite unit (ie that all models can see ONE model and shoot all of them).


But mostly, it makes conversion, my favourite part of the game, a liability, OR a rules rort depending on who you are.

EDIT: Also, it's only one aspect of truth or realism, ignoring all the other aspects to push one particular part of it. You can draw a line from the shooter to the target, but it ignores that the terrain being looked through would be far more irregular and dense than it appears. It also ignores the fact that certain models like Eldar Harlequins do not drag 3 foot piles of rubble around to bounce off all the time. It ignores that when a soldier is in cover he is hugging it, not striding forward atop a rock arms in the air.

In my opinion there is far less truth to the line of sight rules in 5th ed then there was in 4th ed, because although it was abstract, that very abstraction represented things 5th ed completely ignores altogether.

I say this because I think that the biggest argument for pseudotrue line of sight is that it is 'true' los, ie more realistic (and cinematic I believe is the company line). Which it clearly isn't. It's cinematic in the same way a movie using cardboard cutouts is cinematic, all standing around arms in the air.

Hellebore

cuda1179
12-05-2009, 07:51
Honestly, I would prefer it if they went to strait-up "magic cylindar", model size categories, area terrain, and such. It makes the game run faster, smoother, allows creative modeling without penalty, and does not reward those what would model a crawling wraithlord. Isn't that what GW wanted all along anyway?

Hellebore
12-05-2009, 07:59
Honestly, I would prefer it if they went to strait-up "magic cylindar", model size categories, area terrain, and such. It makes the game run faster, smoother, allows creative modeling without penalty, and does not reward those what would model a crawling wraithlord. Isn't that what GW wanted all along anyway?

Exactly. That was what was so good about area terrain and size categories. Instead of dropping it they should have expanded the categories. They could have even used their cover save idea alongside the area terrain and size category rules (ie you receive a cover save from something the same size as you, but are blocked from LoS when it is BIGGER than you).

Hellebore

squeekenator
12-05-2009, 08:25
I don't mind it, but the 4th edition system was better. TLOS just doesn't work in a game with the variously posed models of 40K.

Occulto
12-05-2009, 08:29
It also ignores the fact that certain models like Eldar Harlequins do not drag 3 foot piles of rubble around to bounce off all the time.

To be honest, I don't like the trend over the last few years of putting stuff on taller and taller scenic bases. (And think that models like harlies with their sculpted bases were a dumb idea in the first place).

It started off all right - a rock stuck on to break up the base, some grass there to add detail. But then models started getting bigger until they were mini dioramas in their own right.

This guy shows that it's possible to make good looking scenic bases that don't end up looking like scaled down mountains:

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=52434&st=300#

I mean really, when infantry models can see over the top of a rhino sized vehicle because the person's built up the base so much, it's ridiculous.

Interestingly, with the way that assaults and coherency in buildings work now (measure from top of head to bottom of base) really tall bases can change things quite a bit.

Sirroelivan
12-05-2009, 08:30
Well, TLOS requires more common sense from both players to work correctly. Players should remember that things on the tabletop are much easier to spot then on a noise-ridden battlefield with smoke all around.

Lord Damocles
12-05-2009, 08:34
I also don't like it because it's not actually TRUE line of sight. One unit can see another unit with one model and can only shoot with that one model. The other unit can see that one model and shoot at the whole squad. That's not true line of sight in the slightest.

You can't apply one set of variables to one unit (ie that only 1 model that can see can shoot) and another set to the opposite unit (ie that all models can see ONE model and shoot all of them).
Hellebore speaks the truth.

All hail the dinosaur!

Hellebore
12-05-2009, 08:37
Well, TLOS requires more common sense from both players to work correctly. Players should remember that things on the tabletop are much easier to spot then on a noise-ridden battlefield with smoke all around.

You're telling that to a forum of people, many of whom do not like GW's shall we say lack of consistency in rules. People would rather the rules told them what to do then to rely on common sense, which is defined differently for each person and is not a universal value.

At least the rules are the same no matter who you are.

I'd prefer it if everyone used common sense all the time for everything but alas it just doesn't happen.

However, it is interesting that in many instances rather than saying the rules 'fail' someone will say use common sense. As if GW cannot actually MAKE bad rules and if there is something wrong with how they work it's because the player isn't doing it right. Not saying that's what you said, just that I've seen it a bit. Players will be quick to point out a positive rule and laud GW, but rather than a bad rule and admonish GW it's the players' fault.

I've not seen a good rule ascribed to players using commmon sense...


Hellebore

cochise
12-05-2009, 08:48
For me it has been a bad experience from the beginning. People are able to find the most far fetched lines of sight. That leads usually to arguments that slow down the game as I expected whe I first heard about TLOS.
But the biggest issue has been the change in game dinamics. You can no longer hide in safety anywhere in the table, so, you donŽt bother looking for good places to hide your valuable squad and just let them in cover forming a stretched line to avoid blasts. That negates a very strategic part of the game and, with the improvement of cover saves made to compensate it, is leading to a proliferation of armour AND cover-negating weapons in the latest codecies (Redeemer, couple of new IG tanks) and high rate of fire weapons beeing dominant over everything else in army lists.
In game terms, MEQ armies have been somehow "nerfed" because of this. You can no longer hide completely your small squads and cover all around the table gives a nice 4+ save. If you shoot an ork mob (composed by 6 points models) they will have a 4+ cover save. Shoot a Space Marine tactical squad (17 point model) and they get a 3+ save... IŽll rather have 3 times as many wounds than power armour, thanks.
Magic cylinders and sizes worked fine for me.

Occulto
12-05-2009, 08:49
Honestly, I would prefer it if they went to strait-up "magic cylindar", model size categories, area terrain, and such. It makes the game run faster, smoother, allows creative modeling without penalty, and does not reward those what would model a crawling wraithlord. Isn't that what GW wanted all along anyway?

But incredibly bland.

I hated the "magic cylinder" approach for a few reasons:

The first was that people to wanted to classify everything as area terrain - even the stuff that you weren't supposed to (hills, vehicles etc). Yes, I could actually shoot that Bloodthirster behind the Rhino because vehicles weren't area terrain.

The second reason was that it promoted really lazy terrain. A pile of rubble or a tree on a base blocked LOS exactly the same way as a completely intact building. Guess which people built?

Finally, it was fairly counter-intuitive. You could see a model that was 5" into a forest, but couldn't see another model that was behind a 2" wide strip of forest. I'm trying to shoot through less trees, and now the target is untouchable. :wtf:

Lord-Caerolion
12-05-2009, 09:11
As opposed to now, when I can have all my squad-members but one completely hidden behind a wall, and then have the whole squad wiped out by fire? Yet when I want to shoot, only the guy who can see the enemy can fire? Why don't my guys have the magic guided-bullets?

While I can agree with what you're saying, thats a problem with the players, not the rules. It isn't the fault of the rules that people were lazy. It is the problem of the rules that my guys completely hidden can be mown down by the magic bullet.

People being lazy with terrain? Make a club/house rule on what cover will count as what. That isn't changing the rules, thats merely enforcing them, under the old system. To make this systems cover rules work, we need to change the actual rules, not the players.

The one thing I can agree on is the forest thing. That part doesn't really make sense.

Sirroelivan
12-05-2009, 09:19
You're telling that to a forum of people, many of whom do not like GW's shall we say lack of consistency in rules. People would rather the rules told them what to do then to rely on common sense, which is defined differently for each person and is not a universal value.

At least the rules are the same no matter who you are.

I'd prefer it if everyone used common sense all the time for everything but alas it just doesn't happen.

However, it is interesting that in many instances rather than saying the rules 'fail' someone will say use common sense. As if GW cannot actually MAKE bad rules and if there is something wrong with how they work it's because the player isn't doing it right. Not saying that's what you said, just that I've seen it a bit. Players will be quick to point out a positive rule and laud GW, but rather than a bad rule and admonish GW it's the players' fault.

I've not seen a good rule ascribed to players using common sense...


Hellebore

Well, it's the same for line of sight rules in fantasy. The rulebook even says to be reasonable about line of sight.

Also, I don't believe I said the line of sight rules didn't contain any mistakes. With common sense I meant, be reasonable about line of sight, which you have to be when using a system that works with true line of sight.

Hellgore
12-05-2009, 09:20
I don't like it because it makes my dynamically posed jump pack marines a giant target.

I also don't like it because it's not actually TRUE line of sight. One unit can see another unit with one model and can only shoot with that one model. The other unit can see that one model and shoot at the whole squad. That's not true line of sight in the slightest.

You can't apply one set of variables to one unit (ie that only 1 model that can see can shoot) and another set to the opposite unit (ie that all models can see ONE model and shoot all of them).


But mostly, it makes conversion, my favourite part of the game, a liability, OR a rules rort depending on who you are.

EDIT: Also, it's only one aspect of truth or realism, ignoring all the other aspects to push one particular part of it. You can draw a line from the shooter to the target, but it ignores that the terrain being looked through would be far more irregular and dense than it appears. It also ignores the fact that certain models like Eldar Harlequins do not drag 3 foot piles of rubble around to bounce off all the time. It ignores that when a soldier is in cover he is hugging it, not striding forward atop a rock arms in the air.

In my opinion there is far less truth to the line of sight rules in 5th ed then there was in 4th ed, because although it was abstract, that very abstraction represented things 5th ed completely ignores altogether.

I say this because I think that the biggest argument for pseudotrue line of sight is that it is 'true' los, ie more realistic (and cinematic I believe is the company line). Which it clearly isn't. It's cinematic in the same way a movie using cardboard cutouts is cinematic, all standing around arms in the air.

Hellebore

Dunno, we always handled those scenic Models by using common sense. In cases of not being able to decide who sees what we exchange them shortly with an equivalent stand-in. Had that in a tournament with a guy whose Crisis-Commander is bouncing off a wall of a ruined house. Great model to play against and in those few situations where it was all about cover we used a normal crisis as stand-in to see if there was a cover save or not.

And: I think not that GW really wanted to add more "realism", but to reinvent early tabletop-flair and add it back to the game. That's how they used to play before and that's what still is used often with historical tabletops in the motherland of wargaming, UK.
I like it better, never felt comfortable with that "oh, 6.1 Inches - you can't look out of that wood anymore" or "hey, that stripe of wood measuring 1 inch - you can't look through". Meh, I like to delve into what I see on the table and not having to constantly keep in mind the abstraction rules.

Occulto
12-05-2009, 09:37
As opposed to now, when I can have all my squad-members but one completely hidden behind a wall, and then have the whole squad wiped out by fire? Yet when I want to shoot, only the guy who can see the enemy can fire? Why don't my guys have the magic guided-bullets?

I agree this is also counter intuitive. In fact, I regularly shoot myself in the foot by not taking full advantage of it.

However, that's just part of the True LOS rules. I think there are still more benefits that outweigh the negatives.


While I can agree with what you're saying, thats a problem with the players, not the rules. It isn't the fault of the rules that people were lazy. It is the problem of the rules that my guys completely hidden can be mown down by the magic bullet.

"it's the players not the rules" also applies to the majority of complaints about True LOS. Modelling to gain excessive advantage (crawling models etc) or being so pedantic as to shoot through five buildings are good examples.


People being lazy with terrain? Make a club/house rule on what cover will count as what. That isn't changing the rules, thats merely enforcing them, under the old system. To make this systems cover rules work, we need to change the actual rules, not the players.

Unfortunately, if you turn up to play and the forests are single trees on massive bases and the only other terrain is rubble - the laziness is unavoidable. (Unless you want to play on planet bowling ball)

I found clubs to be some of the worse offenders because they'd fall back on the excuse that they don't have the resources or time to build more detailed terrain. I'm not saying that's not true - but it made gaming unsatisfying to me.


The one thing I can agree on is the forest thing. That part doesn't really make sense.

Nope. It doesn't.

Lamoron
12-05-2009, 11:27
Well, there will always be issue with wargaming, since making realistic and size appropriate terrain is a costly affair and takes up time. We're playing in city environments though, to avoid the trees as they're to much hazzle (and the rules for them are just silly).

Hellebore
12-05-2009, 15:27
But incredibly bland.

I hated the "magic cylinder" approach for a few reasons:

The first was that people to wanted to classify everything as area terrain - even the stuff that you weren't supposed to (hills, vehicles etc). Yes, I could actually shoot that Bloodthirster behind the Rhino because vehicles weren't area terrain.


We played all terrain as area terrain because it caused less confusion with regards to line of sight. Vehicles are models though and should count as models for the purposes of LoS.

I'm finding the current rules make people completely uninterested in terrain because you can draw LOS through the entire thing no matter what, And so long as one model can be seen between the wall sections the whole unit can be hit regardless of the design of the terrain.

With virtually no ability to actually HIDE from the enemy no one cares what the terrain looks like.



The second reason was that it promoted really lazy terrain. A pile of rubble or a tree on a base blocked LOS exactly the same way as a completely intact building. Guess which people built?

Finally, it was fairly counter-intuitive. You could see a model that was 5" into a forest, but couldn't see another model that was behind a 2" wide strip of forest. I'm trying to shoot through less trees, and now the target is untouchable. :wtf:

Yes but you don't throw the entire rules system out because a single piece of terrain blocked line of sight. You change it to give the unit behind a cover save, or perhaps have them roll a nigh fight spot distance to see if they can actually see them. Or have Solid Cover and Sparse cover. Solid cover completely blocks los and sparse cover provides a cover save.

However, true line of sight at the moment is also counter intuitive with the ability to hit models you can't see and the ability to hit models based on how their owner modelled them. A unit of marines isn't adversely affected in the movement phase if they are modelled sitting down, but ARE affected positively in the shooting phase because they have a lower profile.

I never thought the size categories were perfect, but I think it was a mistake to throw them completely out and do something different.

It definitely has a negative impact on how you model your models if you want to play competitively.

Any rule that requires common sense to work because the rule doesn't actually explain how to do it is a poor rule in my book. Like a leaping daemon prince is only 2" tall rather than 3". Some people will use common sense that it is only leaping off a rock for display reasons, others will gleefullly use it to their advantage and the latter are in the right as far as 5th ed LOS rules are concerned. If playing by the rules is against common sense and good sportsmanship then you sorta gotta wonder about that rule don't you.

I'm in two minds about using my grot army now. I have a warboss modelled as a snotling (on a 40mm base, because in 4th ed the base was important). He's Da Ninja Grot. All ork models are counts as old plastic night goblins (which are far larger than grotz and stand out but still smaller than nobs or ork boyz).

In the current environment this army (ninja grot army) is unfairly advantaged over others because the models are small for what they are representing. Not through any fault of my own, I made the army in 4th ed when a warboss was 40mm wide and size 2 tall, so it was irrelevant that a 15mm model represented him.

Now I would gain unfair advantage and be labelled as a power gamer because I've got an army that takes advantage of the new LOS rules.

Of course, trying to apply common sense on just how big a warboss is becomes time consuming having to try and measure up from the base and then across to see if the 'warboss' is in LOS or not.

The biggest problem with the 4th ed rules was the stupid 'can't see THROUGH cover' rule, especially when applying it to things like fences and hedges. However the rest of the rules were pretty sound.

For an even simpler modification to these rules than I posted above, and one I'd actually used a bit for a while is saying that you can see up to 6" through terrain, period. Thus, unless terrain is greater than 6" deep, you can see through it (although the unit on the other side still gets a cover save).

Very simple and removes the one stupidity in those rules. However in my opinion far more would need to be done to the 5th ed los rules to remove the stupidities in them.

Hellebore

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 15:38
The first was that people to wanted to classify everything as area terrain - even the stuff that you weren't supposed to (hills, vehicles etc). Yes, I could actually shoot that Bloodthirster behind the Rhino because vehicles weren't area terrain.

Amen! The number of times I had to explain to people (in 4th edition... and 3rd edition...) that you cannot shield a Land Raider with rhinos, and that putting that devastator squad on the fourth floor actually *does* give them better LOS...

The simple truth of the matter is that 40K has always used TLOS of some variety or another, with Area Terrain the *exception*. Hills, vehicles, intact buildings, monstrous creatures, and squads all blocked LOS as TLOS, and not as area terrain. Area terrain rules were restricted to area terrain (go figure -- woods, swamps, etc.) and to combats (which led to its own absurdities).

Another absurdity was that a "level 3" forest (that is maybe 5" tall) can block LOS to a 4" tall monstrous creature that is being fired upon from a catwalk 18" off the ground... Where at that vantage point not only would the LOS not be blocked, the MC would have gotten no cover **at all**... But because that forest was "Size 3", you simply couldn't see. It was stupid.


I'm trying to shoot through less trees, and now the target is untouchable. :wtf:

That, too.

Meri

Hellebore
12-05-2009, 15:44
That's not a fault of the size category rules, but of the application of those rules. You count as the size category of what you are standing on is an easy one (with each floor of a building counting as 1 size category).

You still cannot reconcile modelling preferences with the TLOS rules, it relies on your opponent's 'common sense' rather than the rules. This is a very important thing that the size categories fixed very well.


Hellebore

Lord Humongous
12-05-2009, 15:48
Honestly, I would prefer it if they went to strait-up "magic cylindar", model size categories, area terrain, and such. It makes the game run faster, smoother, allows creative modeling without penalty, and does not reward those what would model a crawling wraithlord. Isn't that what GW wanted all along anyway?


I find just the opposite. Games run smoother and faster now because people don;t have to constantly look at the board and then "translate" it into what that actually allows in terms of shooting. I haven't noticed any effect on creative modeling, except that people don't put terminator characters on top of 2 inch piles of blinged out rocks- which isn't all that creative, IMO.

What I have noticed is most boards need more "solid" terrain than they have. I mean stuff that is a few inches high, you can stand on top of, and totally blocks LOS. Stuff like real hills, large rocks, ruins that don't have swiss cheese gothic arch walls, full hieght brick walls, large storage containers / tanks, ancient pyramids, giant crystals, etc.

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 16:25
That's not a fault of the size category rules, but of the application of those rules. You count as the size category of what you are standing on is an easy one (with each floor of a building counting as 1 size category).

Except that size categories were capped at 'Size 3'. So yes, it was the fault of the size category rules. The only fix to that would be to have extended the size categories to, say, 10... But that would have been tremendously cumbersome.


This is a very important thing that the size categories fixed very well.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, the size categories sucked, they still suck, and they will continue to suck as a game mechanic. I'm glad they're dead, and I hope they never, ever bring them back.


What I have noticed is most boards need more "solid" terrain than they have. I mean stuff that is a few inches high, you can stand on top of, and totally blocks LOS. Stuff like real hills, large rocks, ruins that don't have swiss cheese gothic arch walls, full hieght brick walls, large storage containers / tanks, ancient pyramids, giant crystals, etc.

Yup. I agree...

...and as we have always played with such things, it's no big deal on our side of the fence.

Meri

Vaktathi
12-05-2009, 16:29
It's been quite some time now and I think it has been a great part of the rules. I love its simplicity to understand. I find it very easy and practical to apply. I can't think of any games I've had where it's been a problem.

I've run into people that don't like true line of sight. So no doubt some of you will see this thread. Can you please explain yourselves?

I don't mind TLOS, what I hate is the cover save system that really should work as a BS modifier and is horrifically biased (4+ cover for shooting through grots means a lot for a mob of boyz, it doesn't mean as much to a unit of Dire Avengers, Stormtroopers, Fire Warriors or Space Marines), and the way you can kill an entire unit by only seeing one model, but that unit can't shoot back with more than one model.

TLoS by itself is fine. It's the other things that go along with it that aren't.

Durath
12-05-2009, 16:38
Except that size categories were capped at 'Size 3'. So yes, it was the fault of the size category rules. The only fix to that would be to have extended the size categories to, say, 10... But that would have been tremendously cumbersome.



We'll have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, the size categories sucked, they still suck, and they will continue to suck as a game mechanic. I'm glad they're dead, and I hope they never, ever bring them back.



Yup. I agree...

...and as we have always played with such things, it's no big deal on our side of the fence.

Meri

I find myself in complete agreement with Meriwether on these points.

Ex. - I played a pickup game against a guy in 4th Ed. who moved a Predator behind a flat square board with a couple ruins glued on the corners of it.

The ruins didn't obscure the tank AT ALL, I had a complete view of the vehicle. Yet when I went to shoot at it, he claimed the board on which the ruins were glued to blocked LOS.

Using RAW, he was correct. But the reality of it was that the vehicle was completely unobscured. He wasn't willing to bend on it, so I didn't get to shoot.

Needless to say, I haven't played him since, but the point remains that area terrain was handled quite poorly before. 5th edition thankfully corrected that.

exsulis
12-05-2009, 18:21
Yeah, I was convinced that at one point TLoS might create such a problem in the Tournament scene that EVERYONE would need a Laser Pointer to even think about shooting.


You do need a freaken laser pointer for every game in 5th, and the arguments go from there. I hate it so much, 40k insn't fantasy with ranked up units.

kendaop
12-05-2009, 18:42
The new LOS rules are WAAAAAAY better than they were in 4th ed. Fewer arguments, and the games are quicker. It's a win-win. One of the best decisions GW has made in a while.

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 19:48
You do need a freaken laser pointer for every game in 5th, and the arguments go from there. I hate it so much, 40k insn't fantasy with ranked up units.

Then why don't I own one? In the gazillion games of 5th that I've played, why have there been *no* LOS arguments?

Looks like it's a problem with your players, and not the game, exsulis.

Meri

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I do own a laser pointer. I use it to torture my dogs, and have never used it in a game of 40K.

Todosi
12-05-2009, 19:57
Amen Meriwether.

I have yet to have an argument of any kind in my (albeit small) gaming group. Lean down, look, give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, expect the same in return and have a good game! I don't get how difficult this is. If you play an ****** that wants to abuse the True Line of Sight rules, don't play them again and make sure your buddies don't either. They will quickly learn to play right or play with themselves. ;)

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 20:00
We have had a couple of instances where someone has said to another (impartial) gamer, "Can you see that?" The impartial gamer gives a yea or nay, and that's it.

Not a single argument thus far.

Meri

lanrak
12-05-2009, 20:01
HI all.
As the horisontal and vertical scales are not even in 40k.(The same as many wargames.)
The table top is an abstract representation of the 'actual combat'.

Therfore utilising True line of sight to determine arcs of sight in the horisiontal plane is common practice.

However the fact that the vertical scale is so different to the horisontal scale , means using a mechanic to acount for this abstraction is seen as prudent in most other rule sets.

But the thing that makes TLOS rules a nonsence IMO.
Is the targeting rules are concrete.
You can only target what you can see.

Wound allocation is abstracted.
Wound allocation lets you wound targets you can not see.

Consistancy in mechanics would help 40k no -end.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 20:05
I've always found this argument funny. I have no problem -- at all -- with using TLOS to see if you can see any part of a unit, and then allow shots to be taken at (and wounds to be taken by) the unit as a whole.

The rules are mostly consistent if you think of it as a unit-based, and not a model-based game. They do fall down a bit on the 'who can shoot?' side, but I think that is necessary given the hideous abuses you could dish had they done it another way.

Meri

Crovax20
12-05-2009, 20:36
Pff, I like the TLOS. Only had to check it once up till now in my total number of 1 games xD
Someone had the checker with it and well it took us 5 seconds in total!

And hell, it turned out that my necron destroyers could actually see the (here the funny part) valkyrie.

Starchild
12-05-2009, 21:20
Finally, it was fairly counter-intuitive. You could see a model that was 5" into a forest, but couldn't see another model that was behind a 2" wide strip of forest. I'm trying to shoot through less trees, and now the target is untouchable. :wtf:

Agreed. There is a misconception that 5th ed. scrapped area terrain... not so, it's still on the menu. All it means is, there is LOS throughout the terrain piece, but every model standing in it gets a cover save.

Here's an example where scanners, bionics, etc. detect the location of enemy troops; but where a solid wall or rock face will physically block shooting attacks, trees merely dissipate / absorb some of the impact.

exsulis
12-05-2009, 21:34
Then why don't I own one? In the gazillion games of 5th that I've played, why have there been *no* LOS arguments?

Looks like it's a problem with your players, and not the game, exsulis.

Meri

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, I do own a laser pointer. I use it to torture my dogs, and have never used it in a game of 40K.

I've seen more laser pointer arguments in 5th than i ever did in 4th(well, not that many people used them, thank god). And no games don't go faster. Sit down, drink a beer, or 5 while you wait for your opponet to finish his movement phase so you can't see him while he advances. :wtf:

I've even watch GW staff get into this mess, and it makes 5th that much less appealing.

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 21:53
Like I said, this looks like a problem with your group, and not the game itself. These problems do not exist in my area.

Meri

exsulis
12-05-2009, 22:17
Just get sloshed enough that their useless prattle doesn't annoy you anymore.
I love the i'm shooting between the defilers legs so you don't get a cover save argument.

Even going to different gaming scenes, I've seen the same arguments although it may not be the most common thing at all of them. Once is too much wtih the laser pointer.

Hicks
12-05-2009, 22:38
Honestly, I would prefer it if they went to strait-up "magic cylindar", model size categories, area terrain, and such. It makes the game run faster, smoother, allows creative modeling without penalty, and does not reward those what would model a crawling wraithlord. Isn't that what GW wanted all along anyway?

This is also exactly what I think, the TLOS and cover rules make for boring games of arguinghammer.

Meriwether
12-05-2009, 22:45
...so "Yes, I can see his head!" "No you can't!" is somehow less of an argument than "Yes, I can see the space to the left of his head and above his shoulder!" "No you can't!"???

Meri

self biased
13-05-2009, 00:41
meri: it's the wacky, ******** shots that annoy me. i can see your model through a series of windows, so i can shoot my lascannon at it. my old roommate tells a story about how through a series of very improbable events he managed to turn a kitted out marine librarian into ash with a guard lascannon squad. it was an overwatch shot, and the librarian crossed a doorway. i realize that it's an extreme example, having witnessed it, i can only shake my head at the shots some people will take.

as much as i'd like to point the finger at the line of sight rules, they're actually very clear and simple. if the model can see it, it can shoot it, though some abstraction is clearly needed for kneeling models. where the problem lies is with the way the line of sight rules interact with the wound allocation rules and the ubiquitous cover save rules. why is it that models can be shot and wounded if they're out of line of sight? if they can be shot and wounded, then they ought to be able to return the favor.

Sirroelivan
13-05-2009, 00:45
Well, the shooting at parts of a unit you can't see is just GW's attempt at preventing sniping.

self biased
13-05-2009, 01:00
and i wholly understand that, Sirroelivan. it's nice to see that they had a problem and did something to correct it.

however, as usual they went too far in the other direction. i think we're rapidly approaching a need for a system reset, seeing as we're really on version 3.4 right now.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 01:55
It got rid of range, vehicle, and character sniping, all at once -- and those were three of the biggest gripes people had in 4th edition.

As to the whole unit not being able to shoot back, this is also a good thing. If I have one small, hard to see, lying down model mostly behind LOS-blocking terrain as part of a 30-man squad of shoota boyz and I can see the foot of one of your models, I shouldn't be able to shoot with my whole squad... If I want to do that, I should have to move out from behind that cover so that my guys can see -- which is what I have to do.

These rules really make a lot of sense if you consider the ramifications of the alternatives.

Meri

Vaktathi
13-05-2009, 02:02
As to the whole unit not being able to shoot back, this is also a good thing. If I have one small, hard to see, lying down model mostly behind LOS-blocking terrain as part of a 30-man squad of shoota boyz and I can see the foot of one of your models, I shouldn't be able to shoot with my whole squad... If I want to do that, I should have to move out from behind that cover so that my guys can see -- which is what I have to do.

These rules really make a lot of sense if you consider the ramifications of the alternatives.

Meri

I wouldn't have a problem with that if you couldn't kill all 30 boyz by just being able to see one.

As is, that scenario, coupled with the silly cover save system (oh, that one stormtrooper in LoS means the rest of his unit gets a 4+ cover save, fat lot of good all that hunkering down and taking cover is going to do them against the 24 scatterlaser shots going their way over their normal save) as opposed to a BS modifier (an infinitely superior solution), the nonsensical area terrain rules (if you are behind the terrain and between 2 trees you get a cover save, but if you are behind the terrain and it only has one tree so you can't be between two trees, you get no cover save) means that it's still far from perfect and needs a lot of work that should have been fixed in testing.

using true line of site by itself I have no problem with, I welcome it, it's everything else that is used in conjunction with it.

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 02:10
First the Star Trek and now this thread. I agree with Hellebore.

The problem of TLOS is in conversions.

The bigger problem is who can fire and casualty removal.

Hellebore
13-05-2009, 02:17
First the Star Trek and now this thread. I agree with Hellebore.

The problem of TLOS is in conversions.

The bigger problem is who can fire and casualty removal.

It's ok, I'm sure we can find something to disagree about. Boxers or briefs?

Hellebore

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 02:21
It's ok, I'm sure we can find something to disagree about. Boxers or briefs?

Commando!

Meri

Hellebore
13-05-2009, 02:25
Commando!

Meri

You freeballing FIEND!

Hellebore

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 02:25
I would say TMI but we are both Beeks. ;)

Actually we disagree I think quite a bit Hellebore. I remember one time we were arguing in a thread when I argued for your position and you were arguing for mine as we were both playing devil's advocate. Wrap your head around that one!

Hellebore
13-05-2009, 02:30
I would say TMI but we are both Beeks. ;)


Unfortunately I fail at both of those terms.



Actually we disagree I think quite a bit Hellebore. I remember one time we were arguing in a thread when I argued for your position and you were arguing for mine as we were both playing devil's advocate. Wrap your head around that one!

I disagree.

Hellebore

cuda1179
13-05-2009, 02:32
But incredibly bland.

I hated the "magic cylinder" approach for a few reasons:

The first was that people to wanted to classify everything as area terrain - even the stuff that you weren't supposed to (hills, vehicles etc). Yes, I could actually shoot that Bloodthirster behind the Rhino because vehicles weren't area terrain.

The second reason was that it promoted really lazy terrain. A pile of rubble or a tree on a base blocked LOS exactly the same way as a completely intact building. Guess which people built?

Finally, it was fairly counter-intuitive. You could see a model that was 5" into a forest, but couldn't see another model that was behind a 2" wide strip of forest. I'm trying to shoot through less trees, and now the target is untouchable. :wtf:

I'll give you that. I do prefer how area terrain is handled now in regards to shooting through it. Not being able to see a model behind a bush was always silly.

cuda1179
13-05-2009, 02:40
[QUOTE=Meriwether;3566509]Amen! The number of times I had to explain to people (in 4th edition... and 3rd edition...) that you cannot shield a Land Raider with rhinos, and that putting that devastator squad on the fourth floor actually *does* give them better LOS...

The simple truth of the matter is that 40K has always used TLOS of some variety or another, with Area Terrain the *exception*. Hills, vehicles, intact buildings, monstrous creatures, and squads all blocked LOS as TLOS, and not as area terrain. Area terrain rules were restricted to area terrain (go figure -- woods, swamps, etc.) and to combats (which led to its own absurdities).

Another absurdity was that a "level 3" forest (that is maybe 5" tall) can block LOS to a 4" tall monstrous creature that is being fired upon from a catwalk 18" off the ground... Where at that vantage point not only would the LOS not be blocked, the MC would have gotten no cover **at all**... But because that forest was "Size 3", you simply couldn't see. It was stupid.


Why didn't you simply classify a tower of that scale as Size 4 terrain? The rules did allow you to do that, and then you could count as size 4 for shooting so you could have hit the Monsterous creature.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 03:00
You freeballing FIEND!

The only reason you haven't clawed out your eyeballs at this point is because you have no idea what I look like. :D


I would say TMI but we are both Beeks. ;)

Waaaaaay off-topic side note: I did splits last week, and requeened six of seven colonies about two hours ago. Hopefully the girls will accept their new bosses (erm, I mean egg-laying slaves) and we'll have a good summer.


Why didn't you simply classify a tower of that scale as Size 4 terrain? The rules did allow you to do that, and then you could count as size 4 for shooting so you could have hit the Monsterous creature.

This was not, in fact, allowed by the 4th edition rules. Size Classes were 1, 2, and 3. That's it. MCs were considered 'Size 3', as were vehicles -- but only for purposes of being able to see (and be seen) over 'Size 1' and 'Size 2' area terrain. Size 4 did not exist.

Meri

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 03:29
Waaaaaay off-topic side note: I did splits last week, and requeened six of seven colonies about two hours ago. Hopefully the girls will accept their new bosses (erm, I mean egg-laying slaves) and we'll have a good summer.

Italians, or did you try something else?


This was not, in fact, allowed by the 4th edition rules. Size Classes were 1, 2, and 3. That's it. MCs were considered 'Size 3', as were vehicles -- but only for purposes of being able to see (and be seen) over 'Size 1' and 'Size 2' area terrain. Size 4 did not exist.

Meri

I agree. I toyed with the idea of size categories like D&D but the problem is you can't do size modifiers where shooting at a grot is harder than shooting at a Land Raider without a rule rewrite. The big problem with the sizes is there were too few. Cities of Death helped in some cases but then everyone had to know those rules as well.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 03:33
Italians, or did you try something else?

Russians. They're supposed to overwinter better, but the real reason is that I lost all of my queens but one, and had to take what was available. I might try some Buckfast next year... We'll see!

...but either way we might want to move this conversation to my 'Beekeeping' thread!


I agree. I toyed with the idea of size categories like D&D but the problem is you can't do size modifiers where shooting at a grot is harder than shooting at a Land Raider without a rule rewrite. The big problem with the sizes is there were too few. Cities of Death helped in some cases but then everyone had to know those rules as well.

The problem with adding size categories is that it becomes really, really cumbersome really, really quickly. TLOS is a lot simpler.

I guess the reason I am such a fan of 5th edition LOS -- with the shooting-at inconsistent with the being-shot-at and everything -- is that it is essentially the same rules I submitted to them years ago. It is not only exactly how I would do it (not counting some small details about Area Terrain this time around), it is exactly how I suggested to them that they do it.

Meri

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 03:51
I think I told you down there that I got some Russians. They are in my TBH. Now that is a learning experience.

I suppose the issues with casualty removal comes down to if you see sniping as a problem. I see it as using a hammer instead of a scalpel. I would prefer for the game to be more intuitive where you have only people that can shoot can be shot. As far as size categories if the size was used to give modifiers it wouldn't necessarily become a problem. Combat in D&D minis runs quickly.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 14:25
I suppose the issues with casualty removal comes down to if you see sniping as a problem.

Sure... But if by "you" you mean "the community of people who play 40K", there was ample evidence to show that sniping of the various sorts was considered _the_ worst abuse of RaW in 4th edition. They (rather elegantly, IMO) got rid of the problem.

...so now people are whining about thier solution, but not nearly as much. I'd chalk that one up as a 'win' for the GDT.

Meri

The_Outsider
13-05-2009, 14:28
TLOS wouldn't be so bad if the entire game followed the principle, but since it does not TLOS has a ton of conflicting issues.

Still, it isn't as bad as it was in 3rd ed.

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 14:40
Sure... But if by "you" you mean "the community of people who play 40K", there was ample evidence to show that sniping of the various sorts was considered _the_ worst abuse of RaW in 4th edition. They (rather elegantly, IMO) got rid of the problem.

I don't see RAW as being an abuse.

People were upset because their three important people were killed instead of the 7 meatshields that were there just to be ablative wounds. That is more of a function of the game design.

Just as a general rule I think games should be intuitive. People should be able to logically deduce many of the rules as that is what prevents rules arguments. Well that an not playing with jerks.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 14:44
I don't see RAW as being an abuse.

I hear you. I play a lot of games, and I don't really care *what* the rules are, as long as I know them ahead of time and the game is fun. I can work around whatever abstractions (or lack thereof) a game has.

But my opinion matters as little as yours does. GW got lots and lots of complaints about sniping. Obviously not from us, but from enough people that they decided to 'fix' it.

They gave the people what they want. They ACTUALLY RESPONDED to their customer base -- the thing they are accused of never doing. And now people are bitching about it.

I find that hilarious.

Meri

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 14:48
I can understand your humor in damned if you do and all that but they have rules saying to bend down and make sure you can actually see that model. Then suddenly the guys behind a mountain die.

If the gamers want abstract be abstract, I just dislike the disjointed way the game slips back and forth.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 14:57
Bend down and see if you can see the model. Can you? Ok, that means you can target the unit.

I have no problem with that. 40K is not Necromunda -- it doesn't work solely on a model-by-model basis.

Meri

the1stpip
13-05-2009, 15:30
I hate the TLOS rules. Not only do they make my Dark Eldar ven easier to shoot down, but you get strange moments, when you can just see a model through the tiniest gap, and yet you only get a 4+ cover save.

I know it would be very difficult to judge, but you should be ablw to see a percentage of the model to shoot at it.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 15:45
I know it would be very difficult to judge, but you should be ablw to see a percentage of the model to shoot at it.

Yikes. That would be a nightmare!

...and you've *always* been able to shoot a model if you can see a tiny bit of it, as long as the bit you see is not behind *area terrain*. If a model was 95% blocked by non-area terrain, you could still shoot it in 4th edition. And 3rd. And 2nd. And RT.

Meri

Templar Ben
13-05-2009, 15:55
Bend down and see if you can see the model. Can you? Ok, that means you can target the unit.

I have no problem with that. 40K is not Necromunda -- it doesn't work solely on a model-by-model basis.

Meri

Then it shouldn't really be based on which models can see. Can part of my unit see part of your unit? Then my unit can shoot your unit.

That would be more logically consistent.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 16:01
It would, but there are troubles with that as well.

I think that the inconsistency of 'everyone can be shot but not everyone can shoot' is deliberate, because it addresses the problem of exposure as I mentioned before while eliminating sniping.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. But thank God they didn't do it the other way around, eh?

Meri

Vaktathi
13-05-2009, 16:05
It would, but there are troubles with that as well.

I think that the inconsistency of 'everyone can be shot but not everyone can shoot' is deliberate, because it addresses the problem of exposure as I mentioned before while eliminating sniping.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. But thank God they didn't do it the other way around, eh?

Meri

I never found sniping to be a big problem, certainly nowhere near as big of a problem as the current situation with entire units killed because one guy can be seen. It also makes sense and is more in line with the TLoS philosophy. Granted I never ran into anyone that tried to exploit that to the extremes some have claimed, but it was more intuitive.


A far simpler solution would just have been "you can remove casualties from anywhere in the unit, but the unit can only take casualties up to the number of models that can be seen" if it was felt that sniping really was that big of a problem (which I never found that it was).

How hard was that? Both problems solved.

Meriwether
13-05-2009, 16:15
Granted I never ran into anyone that tried to exploit that to the extremes some have claimed, but it was more intuitive.

There is an entire store in this area that was famous for every rules exploit you could possibly imagine on the tournament scene. WAAC was their philosophy -- always.


A far simpler solution would just have been "you can remove casualties from anywhere in the unit, but the unit can only take casualties up to the number of models that can be seen" if it was felt that sniping really was that big of a problem (which I never found that it was).

How hard was that? Both problems solved.

Right up until people start bitching that they can't kill the guy with the heavy weapon (or whatever) who is standing out in the open because the guys behind the wall are dying instead, and that doesn't make any sense at all, and that's freaking cheesy man. CHEESY! *grumble, grumble*.

I've put a lot of thought into this issue in particular. I am very confident that there is not a 'solution' to sniping that you can come up with where I can't point out (a) logical inconsistencies, (b) things people will bitch about.

Meri

freddieyu
13-05-2009, 16:22
Have your club/store make taller terrain..I think terrain making and collecting is a neglected part of the hobby..as the rules have changed, so should the terrain...

I am not saying that all terrain on the table should be 1 foot high, but a few high hills/buildings/dense woods would help solve the TLOS of the game, and bring tactics more into focus..

And I play the IG, but I also want to play fair games, luckily my club has a player who loves to make terrain, and as such the TLOS does not mean that everyone on the table can be shot, but we actually have a few pieces that can shield large models....

Rioghan Murchadha
13-05-2009, 19:16
I've put a lot of thought into this issue in particular. I am very confident that there is not a 'solution' to sniping that you can come up with where I can't point out (a) logical inconsistencies, (b) things people will bitch about.

Meri

Pretty much correct since sniping has always been a controversial (from the perspective of the officers who are now dead;)), but effective part of warfare. It does however, amuse me no end that there are armies that contain 'snipers' who can't actually snipe anything. The only guy with the ability to target a specific model in a squad is the bloody vindicare and he's a huge waste of points for the most part.

You want to see sniping, play a couple games of Stargrunt before crying that your pathetic PF wielding marine sergeant got his head popped of because he wasn't wearing his helmet, and standing in front of his men waving his sword around.

Snotteef
14-05-2009, 01:33
None of these argument address the fact that the TLOS system punishes conversions that make a model larger and rewards the ones that make them smaller. I think creative modeling should be encouraged; one should not be punished for it.

I thought the Area Terrain rules were the BEST thing GW had done in years. I absolutely loved it. I never had a single argument under that system. As long as you agreed to the size of a given piece of terrain BEFORE the game starts, it was dead simple.

I'm pretty much with Hellebore across the board on this one. I could state ALL my reasons for preferring area terrain, but it would just sound like a re-hash of his original post.

Corrode
14-05-2009, 03:00
The simplest fix to the 'creative modelling' problem would be an addition to the rule stating 'in cases where a model has been converted or scenically based in such a way as to grant itself a profile which is significantly larger or smaller than the norm, players should draw line of sight as if the model were simply standing upright. The controlling player must be able to provide a 'stand-in' model if necessary. Note that this does not apply in cases where a model's entire body is larger (e.g. plus-sized Daemons, monstrously huge Tyranid creatures), only where basing or heroic posing may cause issues.'

Obviously you'd need to clean it up, but... actually, reading that, a simple system of size classification sounds a hell of a lot better.