True Line of Sight Issues

[Ishagu]

The current system is the most clean. The unit can either be seen, or it cannot. It's elegant and should actually lead to less argument. Exactly the same as weapon range - the model is either in or out of weapon range. Unfortunately there are people who will question, argue, disagree.

 

That isn't to say that terrain rules can't be expanded. There is lots of stuff GW could do to make things better such as ruins impacting movement, some changes to cover saves, etc etc

 

I hope they build up on the rules, but if course there's a tricky balance to juggle because you don't want them to become too complex, impact time negatively or be beneficial for one faction or unit type over another.

 

I personally think monsters should be able to move through ruins. It's crazy to me that a Carnifex is stopped by a wooden door on the side of a ruined building, as as an example.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Ishagu

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

also can’t kill what you can’t see.

[Schurge]

The current system is the most clean. The unit can either be seen, or it cannot. It's elegant and should actually lead to less argument. Exactly the same as weapon range - the model is either in or out of weapon range. Unfortunately there are people who will question, argue, disagree.

 

That isn't to say that terrain rules can't be expanded. There is lots of stuff GW could do to make things better such as ruins impacting movement, some changes to cover saves, etc etc

 

I hope they build up on the rules, but if course there's a tricky balance to juggle because you don't want them to become too complex, impact time negatively or be beneficial for one faction or unit type over another.

 

I personally think monsters should be able to move through ruins. It's crazy to me that a Carnifex is stopped by a wooden door on the side of a ruined building, as as an example.

 

A Maulerfiend should be able to stand on its hind legs in order to attack things at a six inch elevation (seems to be the standard for floors on Imperium ruins).

[Ishagu]

Yeah, loads of stuff like that needs to be addressed.

[Gederas]

So.... Who's hoping Line of Sight becomes how Necomunda and Kill Team do it? In that only the model's actual body counts. Weapons, upraised arms, banners or impressive hairdos don't count for LoS?

 

Because I'm hoping it does.

[Tyriks]

I am not at all bothered by true line of sight because I see the model as an abstraction of the entity it represents.  It is the cleanest possible system.  It does discourage adding extra goodies to models, which is unfortunate, and for that reason I won't mind if it is changed.  But I'm not bothered at all that a model is slain because his sword poked over the rocks - I see it as symbolic.  If I was bothered by that, I'd have to start caring about the fact that every building in the Imperium evidently has doors that are 15 feet tall and maybe 5 feet wide, that cars only move twice as fast as guys on foot, that guns only fire about 100 feet, et cetera.  There's so much that just doesn't make sense if you view the game as a simulation, so I just don't bother.  I've rarely (if ever) had arguments about line of sight in 8th (they happened a lot in 7th but that might have just been the group I was playing with, who was not known for good sportsmanship), so I am perfectly willing to let my dude who is standing on a rock get shot more than the guy who isn't.  

Edited May 25, 2020 by Nemesor Tyriks

[kombatwombat]

Things like this need to be discussed prior to the game.

Also it's worth remembering that this GAME is not worth having an argument over, especially in a casual setting away from a tournament.

 

The main objective is to have fun, and all parties involved in the game need to do their best to facilitate this. Yes, we all want to win, but it doesn't take precedence over everything else.

It's an analogue game, and people need I get along and show some empathy of they want it to function correctly.

You are absolutely, unequivocally correct.

 

 

 

...now, in that light, let’s discuss exactly what those problems were with templates and scatter :P

[MARK0SIAN]

So.... Who's hoping Line of Sight becomes how Necomunda and Kill Team do it? In that only the model's actual body counts. Weapons, upraised arms, banners or impressive hairdos don't count for LoS?

 

Because I'm hoping it does.

I’m really hoping that becomes the case!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

That would be fantastic.

[Lexington]

I've always thought it'd be best to ignore all parts of a model that extend beyond its base (if it has one), as well as weapons, banners, antennae, etc. Pretty simple. Everything about LoS in 8th is crap, though, and completely biased towards shooting. You can draw LoS to a single model's foot? Bye-bye whole unit. A single model is outside of terrain? No cover for you.

 

So much that's broken and dumb about 8th is a direct result of trying to stretch AoS' initial skirmish-y system into games with potentially hundreds of miniatures. It's bizarre and I wish 9th could fix it, but it seems very unlikely.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Lexington

[Bryan Blaire]

I am not at all bothered by true line of sight because I see the model as an abstraction of the entity it represents. It is the cleanest possible system. It does discourage adding extra goodies to models, which is unfortunate, and for that reason I won't mind if it is changed. But I'm not bothered at all that a model is slain because his sword poked over the rocks - I see it as symbolic. If I was bothered by that, I'd have to start caring about the fact that every building in the Imperium evidently has doors that are 15 feet tall and maybe 5 feet wide, that cars only move twice as fast as guys on foot, that guns only fire about 100 feet, et cetera. There's so much that just doesn't make sense if you view the game as a simulation, so I just don't bother. I've rarely (if ever) had arguments about line of sight in 8th (they happened a lot in 7th but that might have just been the group I was playing with, who was not known for good sportsmanship), so I am perfectly willing to let my dude who is standing on a rock get shot more than the guy who isn't.

 

What you described is actually more simulationist and less abstracted. It's relying on the physical body of the model to define things - that's simulationist.

 

Abstract would be something like "Regardless of the model's appearance, there is a cylinder the width of the base and as tall as a basic body of the equivalent model type" - GW could implement this is a number of ways, things that don't take into account the actual physical model (if they really wanted to, they could even sell semi-clear cylinders for silhouettes to establish LOS with.

 

The easiest would simply be "On the battlefield, things are in constant flux and small portions of targets are almost impossible to shoot or don't cause enough damage on the target to consider - you can't establish line of sight to weapons, extremities extending past the base, details extending above the model's head."

 

These could be modified for larger models as needed, and determine % of squads in cover for cover saves, etc. - after all, the models aren't going to be in fixed positions, they are going to be running around, etc. Flyers don't get to claim cover and the like. You don't get to draw LOS through "dense terrain" like forested stands, but can shoot at enemy units X distance into them (that way you can still have tree stands that you can move models through, but will still block LOS), etc.

 

Stuff that makes the game an actual abstraction, rather than a simulation where the models themselves (and terrain) are actual physical depictions of how a target is really standing, as if frozen in time in one pose for the entire duration of a battle or always dragging around that rock with them to stand on while they move and having that be the discrete definition of what a target is - TLoS is a simulation rule, not an abstracted one.

[NTaW]

I've seen a couple other gaming systems take their spread of model sizes and make cards that represent the outline that model size "should" have for LoS purposes. For example this allows cool-looking snipers modeled taking a knee to see and be seen over terrain elements. I think it also takes out the multitude of variables surrounding all the things that can be poking off a model. 40k has more base sizes than the systems I refer to (notably Legion and AvP:Unleashed) but I think it could be worked out. It would be nice when I run into an issue with a pointing finger or banner on a sergeant to pop the 32mm base size card behind the model to establish LoS. It's never really an issue in my games these days but it definitely used to be. I'm sure there are quirks because of the variety of 40k and that it would take the almighty "figure it out" process but there could be merit to the idea.

Edited May 25, 2020 by NTaW

[Halandaar]

I won't dispute that the LoS rules are clear and tidy, they absolutely are. My problem is that they're also stupid. As is, a tank behind a solid, windowless barrier can use it's aerial-tip like a periscope to fire a full volley at a mob of Orks behind a solid, windowless barrier, using a single upraised Choppa to draw line of sight, and destroy the entire unit.

 

Clear and concise it may be, but it's also complete nonsense.

 

My hope for 9th is that even if they don't change the rules regarding drawing LoS to extremities and accessories, at the very least, they make it so what you can kill is limited to the specific models you can draw LoS to.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Halandaar

[TheTrans]

Yeah I think the issue is that too many people drink the GW cool-aide of 'simple=good' which sure sounds great, but as with the TLOS woes... it isn't, espcially with the clientele that 40k seems to get the most interest from.

We can all go "its the opponents you play" or "house rule it" etc etc..but for many people that rely on pickup games that doesn't work... the onus is on GW to make a nice clean system that can avoid people feeling hard done by.

A silhouette system akin to infinity would be the logical way to move forward given how 'by the book' some people can be. But again people will charge in and defend a broken system just by sheer stint that 'Oh GW know what they are doing'.... etc.. Which honestly GW haven't know what they are doing in a rules sense in a very long time... just because people play the game doesn't make it an excellent system. I think a lot of us are in a Munchhausen sort of scenario.. we have our armies we've spent huge amounts of time painting and hell probably huge costs in purchasing.. of course we are going to deal with the system so we can use our investment... Once a company has a critial mass of that the system will happily propagate. 

That is probably veering off topic into more just a general gripe of GW's business model (yes they are a business and need to make money blah blah *eyeroll* ).

TL:DR TLOS is trash, for a game with so many abstract elements and variety of model sizes, poses and equipment, an extra layer of abstractness isn't going to nail in the coffin it. Just may make it harder for little timmy to pew-pew with friends.... or the latest net filth alpha-strike list win without letting the opponent play.. and lets be honest GW currently aims at gateway drug for kids and the high army turnover due to following the filth tournament players for their phat stacks....

[Ishagu]

The silhouette system is fine for a skirmish game, it will not work on a board with potentially 200+ miniatures made up of dozens of different units.

 

Also let's keep in mind that the new edition is around the corner. Let's wait end see how terrain rules have evolved.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Almost anything will be better than what we has now. I’m hoping you can only kill what you can see.

[TheTrans]

The silhouette system is fine for a skirmish game, it will not work on a board with potentially 200+ miniatures made up of dozens of different units.

 

Also let's keep in mind that the new edition is around the corner. Let's wait end see how terrain rules have evolved.

The silhouette would only be used in in those situations where it is iffy to avoid the classic 'antennae shot'. 

 

Unless they go back to abstract sort of terrain (forsest blocking LOS even though you can see the guys etc) it won't fix the issues. +1 armour save isn't great if its a whole army shooting at you. Shooting has become far too lethal in this game of knights in space. 

 

Almost anything will be better than what we has now. I’m hoping you can only kill what you can see.

Correct, legitimately the TLOS and terrain rules are so woeful I honestly don't think GW could make them any worse..which says a lot haha. 

[Tyriks]

 

I am not at all bothered by true line of sight because I see the model as an abstraction of the entity it represents. It is the cleanest possible system. It does discourage adding extra goodies to models, which is unfortunate, and for that reason I won't mind if it is changed. But I'm not bothered at all that a model is slain because his sword poked over the rocks - I see it as symbolic. If I was bothered by that, I'd have to start caring about the fact that every building in the Imperium evidently has doors that are 15 feet tall and maybe 5 feet wide, that cars only move twice as fast as guys on foot, that guns only fire about 100 feet, et cetera. There's so much that just doesn't make sense if you view the game as a simulation, so I just don't bother. I've rarely (if ever) had arguments about line of sight in 8th (they happened a lot in 7th but that might have just been the group I was playing with, who was not known for good sportsmanship), so I am perfectly willing to let my dude who is standing on a rock get shot more than the guy who isn't.

What you described is actually more simulationist and less abstracted. It's relying on the physical body of the model to define things - that's simulationist.

 

Abstract would be something like "Regardless of the model's appearance, there is a cylinder the width of the base and as tall as a basic body of the equivalent model type" - GW could implement this is a number of ways, things that don't take into account the actual physical model (if they really wanted to, they could even sell semi-clear cylinders for silhouettes to establish LOS with.

 

The easiest would simply be "On the battlefield, things are in constant flux and small portions of targets are almost impossible to shoot or don't cause enough damage on the target to consider - you can't establish line of sight to weapons, extremities extending past the base, details extending above the model's head."

 

These could be modified for larger models as needed, and determine % of squads in cover for cover saves, etc. - after all, the models aren't going to be in fixed positions, they are going to be running around, etc. Flyers don't get to claim cover and the like. You don't get to draw LOS through "dense terrain" like forested stands, but can shoot at enemy units X distance into them (that way you can still have tree stands that you can move models through, but will still block LOS), etc.

 

Stuff that makes the game an actual abstraction, rather than a simulation where the models themselves (and terrain) are actual physical depictions of how a target is really standing, as if frozen in time in one pose for the entire duration of a battle or always dragging around that rock with them to stand on while they move and having that be the discrete definition of what a target is - TLoS is a simulation rule, not an abstracted one.

 

I mean, if you want to call shooting a sword and having the guy holding it die a simulation, more power to you, but I will have to respectfully disagree.  What you describe with clear plastic cylinders could be good, as long as people aren't using it to check every single model as they move their army, which would be tedious and time consuming.  

[Sloeberjong]

I don't think the real problem lies with TLOS. It's the fact that intervening terrain does exactly nothing. At my club we have some very pretty terrain that some people put some serious time in, but it's got "holes", like windows in buildings and you can look through forests and stuff. So a tank might see the leg of some infantry through a forest and a shot up building and window so it can shoot no problem. That's weird. It's not weird that it sees and and can shoot, but there's no hit penalty and only the cover of wherever the target is counts. It's weird that you don't get any cover when moving through the open while "covered" by buildings or bushes or whatnot. Hit penalties (or additional cover bonusses) for shooting through intevening terrain should be a thing. 

 

I like that in kill team you get a penalty if there's any form of obstruction. That seems fair. you can see the model, but not entirely so you get a penalty. Same for Necromunda. You often get a penalty which is what should happen.

[MARK0SIAN]

I agree with the problem of being able to shoot at full effect through terrain being a part of it. However I’m not really sure what penalty you could add in to have any serious effect. If you look at the sheer volume of shots coming from a space marine army for example, then a -1 to hit penalty wouldn’t be that serious a problem. Chuck in a chapter master who can reroll those misses and the vast bulk of shots are still getting through.

 

Any penalty would need to be something like -1 to wound or similar to make it a serious penalty. Or maybe get really creative and say shots that pass through intervening terrain can only ever hit on a 5+ and can’t be rerolled. That might seem extreme but I genuinely believe that’s the level a penalty would need to be at to make a genuine difference if you are still able to draw line of sight so easily.

Edited May 26, 2020 by MARK0SIAN

[Lexington]

The silhouette system is fine for a skirmish game, it will not work on a board with potentially 200+ miniatures made up of dozens of different units.

Nah. I play a lot of Infinity, and the average number of times per game that an actual silhouette template gets pulled out for use is between zero and one. It’s real easy to eyeball.

 

The problem with using it in 40K would be the fact that there’s, like, twenty base sizes for infantry alone. A “width of the base, height of the head” rules would probably work better, and would definitely be an improvement on what we have now.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Lexington

[War Angel]

I see a problem with saying “banners don’t count” well, that models banner is blocking part of the model, so the shooter says he can see part of the banner that’s blocking the model and then the defender argues that that’s not part that’s blocking.

 

Same problem for the gun being extended past the base, I can see your lascannon, it looks like it’s part that’s still over the base, but you say it’s not.

 

Breaking your own model because you don’t like that your opponent is operating as the rules allow him to is a little excessive of your friend.

 

Based on what they said about the cover overhaul I would guess models partially obscure are going to get cover now, that’s good.

[Ahzek451]

I won't dispute that the LoS rules are clear and tidy, they absolutely are. My problem is that they're also stupid. As is, a tank behind a solid, windowless barrier can use it's aerial-tip like a periscope to fire a full volley at a mob of Orks behind a solid, windowless barrier, using a single upraised Choppa to draw line of sight, and destroy the entire unit.

 

Clear and concise it may be, but it's also complete nonsense.

 

My hope for 9th is that even if they don't change the rules regarding drawing LoS to extremities and accessories, at the very least, they make it so what you can kill is limited to the specific models you can draw LoS to.

That and it gets old seeing battles where vehicles are facing strange directions because it was ideal to poke this particular corner of a predator out. I know that a lot of people don't bother to face smaller models in the right direction all the time, but visually you start to notice the weird positions certain units take up under the current ruleset. Kid walks into store and observes game: "why are all your tanks facing backwards?" Not saying we need to go back to armor facings and shooting from the gun again but....I dunno. Just hate seeing the above. 

[Subtleknife]

I would be happy with banners, spikes and swords not being able to be counted. If you can see any other part of the model you can target it. However, if you can only see one model in the squad you can only kill that one.