Are Abstraction and Aesthetics mutually exclusive?

[Ratherdashing]

Grab your torches and pitchforks, because I'm about to suggest something that is so antithetical to many people's thinking that it will probably sound like I'm intentionally suggesting something extreme in order to make a counterpoint. But the "September FAQ wishlist" thread got me thinking about abstraction and cover and model size and what I'm about to propose is my genuine opinion and I'm curious to see if anyone identifies with, or at least understands, this point on view.

 

One more quick disclaimer before I start. This is "wishlisty" as far as rules go and is not something I expect GW to do, certainly not anytime soon as it would require a new edition. But 40k is a game that is easily houseruled if you're playing with friends and this is something I think I could easily implement even within the framework of 8th edition if I could get anyone to agree with me.

 

So here goes. GW has gone back and forth on how abstract LOS, cover, casualty removal, and terrain are treated in this game. No such issues exist in many of their specialty games, which play more like board games and seem to me to be WAY tighter rules-wise. Could it be GW is better at making board games than war games? Is it possible that 40k is really more like a boardgame? I'd say 40k is it's own animal--it's not really a board game but neither is it a wargame in the sense of, say, Bolt Action, Flames of War, etc. 

 

People say that 40k should never go too abstract because then our models don't matter--we may as well play with tokens. I would argue the opposite. Having the models affect the gameplay less means we can make the models look as nice as we want--you don't have to curl up the Hive Tyrant's wings if his base is the only metric for judging his position. You don't have to worry about modeling for advantage and can focus on modeling for appearance.

 

So let's take this proposed ruleset. When setting up terrain, you lay down a bunch of flat blobs of felt. This, as far as gameplay is concerned, is the terrain. Put a building on it, or a bridge, or a tree, or a statue--it's all just terrain. Measure from base to base. If a straight line takes you through a terrain piece (in and out again), it's blocked--you can't see. If the line takes you into terrain (ie the base you're checking is on the terrain felt) that model has cover: +1 armor save. That's it.

 

This is sort of how most people I know do forests. The trees themselves are decorative and can be moved around how you need to. Doing all terrain like this assumes that in the narrative, models are jumping in and out of cover. If they are blocked, it's because they are completely obscured and can't fire at or be fired upon by the unit in question. If they're not blocked, it's because they are moving around and popping up to shoot out and thus can be shot back. 

 

I put this thread in Amicus and not Homebrew because my intention is not to debate individual details about this idea. I just wanted to see how everyone thought of the general concept. So often it's said that if you go too abstract, the models don't matter. I suggest the opposite. Going more abstract frees the models from affecting the gameplay and thus they can do their job--make the table look good. Which is cooler, a Hive Tyrant huddled up so it's wings don't stick out, or one in a glorious pose, wings unfurled? Which looks better on the table, a giant square box with no blast holes or windows so that it can adequately block LOS, or a crumbling ruin that can serve the same purpose because the gameplay "legwork" is being accomplished by the piece of felt it's sitting on? 

 

So there's my idea. Make fiddly details about true line of sight and obscurement be handled by the neutral, easy-to-read bases of the models, and let the models do their job--make the table look cool while we throw dice around them.

[Marshal Rohr]

They should make a scale chart tied to terrain kits. 1-4. Infantry is 1, tanks are a 2, gargantuan creatures are a 3, titanic units are 4. If the cover is less than the models scale rating they don’t get cover.

[Panzer]

nevermind, read that wrong 

[Bryan Blaire]

That's very similar to how terrain was handled in previous editions of the game (IIRC, 3rd was similar). I think with some tweaks (scale such as Marshal Rohr suggested, how elevation levels are handled, flyers and modes - if they must be included, etc.), you could easily make it work with the game rules.

[toaae]

Considering how abstract the rest of the rules are, I'm still surprised we're using True Line of Sight. It bothers me that enough people's first consideration when thinking of or seeing a cool conversion is "is that tournament legal?" This is an issue since being able to hide models/units is of paramount importance. I'd prefer a rules set where interesting conversions, whether they upsize or downsize a model, doesn't have a gameplay affect. I'm not convinced the 3rd-4th edition system is the best solution, but I'd like to see some iteration on this rule.

Now, I imagine at some point Ishagu or someone will chime in with something like "TLoS is better than abstract rules!". Like, isn't this whole edition about using abstraction to streamline the game? Why is abstraction ok for vehicle facings but not whether my guy is smart enough to duck under GW-terrain windows?

[MARK0SIAN]

I have to admit, I started reading your post thinking ‘No way, abstraction would be terrible’ but by the end I was thinking ‘actually I can’t argue with anything you said’ :)

 

I would say I would still want cool terrain pieces though as I love the spectacle and I’d definitely want some rules around height but it’s a very interesting idea I’d be happy to trial in a few games.

[Vykes]

That's very similar to how terrain was handled in previous editions of the game (IIRC, 3rd was similar). I think with some tweaks (scale such as Marshal Rohr suggested, how elevation levels are handled, flyers and modes - if they must be included, etc.), you could easily make it work with the game rules.

 

I want to say that the actual numbered terrain scale that Marshal Rohr suggested was 4E.  It's an edition I didn't play a lot of because of some... characters, around here running the tournament scene, but I recall it being a rather significant departure from earlier rulesets because it was abstract.  Hang on got the books right here -browses-  Yep, 4E had a system of 1-3 for cover and line of sight.  3E suggests using 'common sense', but it also suggests using an 8X4 for a typical game, 4E moved to 6X4 ...huh.

 

But yeah. But, in the era of true line of sight and massive lethality, I actually agree.  Flyers in particular I could see needing 'size 4' IE, 4+ level skyscraper terrain kits given the introduction of Flyers and superheavies en mass in 5th edition (yes I know they came out in IA in 3E and I think 2E had some 'builder' rules for that stuff too), but I do think the abstraction would probably help in a lot of situations to help survivability and even speed up the game even more.  

 

I mean, most people around here already use the ITC 'first level blocks line of sight' rule anyway. 

[helterskelter]

Bring back the red whippy sticks, they're great for line of sight stuff. They're slim, have a pointy end and you can hit your opponent with them if they're trying to be too gamey. Also great for telling if a unit is 50% obscured by lining up both players sticks

[Grimdark_Garage]

I have thought for a long tome that a this system would work very well for games of 40k.

 

I find that RAW and LOS make for situations that take me out of the game as i question the validity. 

 

Great post with points and suggestions very well made.

[Dudley Nightshade]

Been waiting years to say this, so thanks for creating this topic!

 

I've always felt that True Line of Sight was just about the silliest rule I had ever read. Aside from the excellent points about punishing modeling for aesthetic vs advantage, there were some other issues too. It implied that a copse of trees with two trunks actually represented exactly two trees, and it implied some things about model scale and ground scale that simply cannot be true (sniper rifles with an effective range of under 400’, for example).

 

Interestingly, even in 2011, Alessio Cavatore was not only unrepentant, but still proud of this mechanic:

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/01/interview-alessio-cavatore-on-gamedesign.html

true ‘true’ line of sight in fifth edition 40K… it really brings the game to life for me.

[chapter master 454]

There is a balance between abstraction and aesthetics as we can be abstract but retain aesthetics and vice versa while both can destroy the other, ultimately coming down to how the designer handled it.

 

True Line of Sight was introduced majorly into the game at 5th edition, replacing the old "Size Scale" system they had at the time. It was a fairly cut and dry system, units like grots were size 1, normal infantry and the like were size 2 and tanks, buildings and monsters were size 3.

As I am likely famous for saying, this system had inherent flaws with it, namely that a tank could block you shooting a unit at the top of a building despite visually being completely in the open for shooting (because same size blocked each other and units inherited the size of terrain they were on, not adding it). Similarly this could also end up causing reverse issues of units being visible despite being on the bottom floor behind another unit.

 

The system wasn't perfect and certain at the time, people were in casual games eschewing it for just using True Light of Sight with some abstractions added (certain terrain pieces like woods still retained their size system line of sight blocking nature). This is even stated in their design commentary at the time.

 

However the issue really has come around from tournament scene expanding and becoming far more prolific than it ever was. I would assure you, if we still have the size system we would see multiple cases of LoS abuse to hide units in some rather silly manners.

 

So the main thing is when trying to address this issue is how do we correct this without having to go back to a rule section 10 pages long of various in and outs of rules and things here and there. If I were to give a brief: "Keep the core rules to 5 sheets of A4 paper" because as it is now, the CORE rules are actually good with the ability to plug and play other modules such as the various other modes offered in the rulebook.

Why keep things simple some may ask? Because complexity doesn't mean good. JRPGs are complex but only the really well crafted work and some even break once certain mechanics are figured out.

 

What basic changes can we make to how the Cover system works is clearly a point of contention so two areas may need updated and one of them isn't even core per se.

First is just altering TLoS to being "body" of the model which would include the main torso but exclude legs and arms. The main issue is how do we RULE it because people talk of modellers power gaming but I find it hard to work it really...if someone wants to model their entire army in a prone position then equally they lose line of sight over various pieces of terrain. There is give and take with ANY power gaming strat like this (yes, you can model your flyer to be 5 feet in the air but we can all see you as well, since we measure to the base of such models). So as I said, the way it would work is Torso and Head count. For models that may lack Certain appendages or have variants (like wings), these still don't count however it also works in reverse, these appendages don't count to being able to see around things.

The Abstraction: the models aren't always in the pose modelled and can be assumed to be trying to keep themselves out of line of sight best they can and not stick toes out.

 

Sadly I am out of time for typing but I will try and return with my second suggestion but until then, keep it civil boys, don't want to come back and find out the mods meltaed this thread XD

 

Edit: time to finish, not much left really.

 

Wood tiles need be a bit more than they are now to be honest. After all, I think we can agree there is a sense of too much in one direction or another with them (ether they do block LoS or they don't, binary by most accounts) however like various terrain pieces in the game already, I would add that woods would actually give cover to any unit that is being shot through it as it would represent the trees taking the hit, bouncing the shots wide or just taking enough of the hit to make it ineffective. This would make it so woods might have some form of meaning to the game though there may in the future need to have some form of scaling cover system. Not sure but there, thoughts concluded.

[Ratherdashing]

I wasn't thinking of anything nearly as complicated as size values. In 8th currently, intervening models besides tanks basically do not affect vision most of the time, and most tables I have played on are basically on a single elevation. Assuming this is true and fine (which I think it is for the scale of game 40k has become: if you want a 3d game skirmishes like Kill Team are better for that), you could still keep it on less than a page.

 

You start with the rules I put above. The Vehicle keyword grants the ability to cause your base/hull to block LOS just like terrain bases do. If you really want to be strict make it the Tank keyword and give that to all the blocky cars. Standing on any terrain designated "second level" ignores blocking from all terrain that does not have at least a second level. Done.