Line of sight

[S133arcanite]

1 hour ago, Sheriff said:

I've ordered a laser pointer. Problem solved. Thanks guys. 

That is actually a really good idea! I will order myself one too!

[chord]

I think going Base to base for targeting would give an unfair advantage to really tall or flying models as they should be targettable even if the base can't be reached.
Maybe if it's 50% or more of a model

 

[Vextol]

5 hours ago, chord said:

I think going Base to base for targeting would give an unfair advantage to really tall or flying models as they should be targettable even if the base can't be reached.
Maybe if it's 50% or more of a model

 

True, but I really enjoy the complex and sometimes extremely complicated basing people do with their models.  I've seen some awesome modeling where players do incredible things (like posing heroes jumping through the air, models climbing rocks etc.). These players are currently punished for going the extra mile with their hobby. 

Also, most tall models can fly.  You could  always have LOS to flying models.  Almost none of them can hide now anyway and most of the models that need a little more help from cover are the small, non flying models.  Besides,  I imagine flying models... You know... Flying.  Not hovering a few inches above the ground. 

[chord]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

True, but I really enjoy the complex and sometimes extremely complicated basing people do with their models.  I've seen some awesome modeling where players do incredible things (like posing heroes jumping through the air, models climbing rocks etc.). These players are currently punished for going the extra mile with their hobby. 

Also, most tall models can fly.  You could  always have LOS to flying models.  Almost none of them can hide now anyway and most of the models that need a little more help from cover are the small, non flying models.  Besides, it's I imagine flying models... You know... Flying.  Not hovering a few inches above the ground. 

Good idea, I like all flying models being line of sight

[PlasticCraic]

11 hours ago, zedatkinszed said:

This is why I like laser pointers. If from the tip of the spear chukka you can hit the enemy model with the laser then your model can hit the enemy. Not always perfect but very hard to argue with from a RAI or RAW perspective.

Does it have to be the tip though?  Surely it's any part of the model, not just the part that's actually doing the shooting?  Thundertusks can shoot snowballs out of their backside if that's what's poking round a wall (I said shoot!) 

Taking this a step further - if we are playing base to base (and if we're playing matched play, we're playing base to base) - the size and shape of the model is defined by its base, so if anywhere on the 50mm base can see the enemy model, your model can see it with "True" LOS.

I think this actually gets to the heart of the issue - we are still waiting for leadership from GW on what base to base actually means.  In the meantime we are all house ruling.  There is a well known diagram used in the SCGT player pack amongst many others that gives instructions on how to measure distance between two models, and it uses their cylinders.  So the space taken up by a model is defined as the circumference of the base, from the ground to its head (no flag poles etc).  

This is logical and widely accepted.  Hence locking someone in "base to base" in combat for example.

For some reason we as a community abandon this principle when looking for "True" LOS and go back to looking for parts of the physical model, rather than its cylinder, and citing the 4 pages for doing so.  Even though this directly contradicts the base-to-base principle (a model occupies its cylinder) that we all play by in every other phase of the game, and we don't allow the 4 pages to trump that.

Fundamentally, the rules that we're all playing by are a fudge, because GH17 failed properly to address the base-to-base elephant in the room.  People who disagree with your point of view on this aren't dumb, or seeking complication for the sake of complication, they are seeking clarity in the still officially unresolved conflict between model-to-model (which we use in a hybrid fashion for LOS), and base-to-base (which we use for literally everything else in the game).

Edit: @zedatkinszed I just read this back and I didn't mean to accuse you of calling people dumb!  You definitely weren't, that part wasn't aimed at you (or any one person) specifically.  

More at the general tone of "don't question it, it's fine" that I've picked up in this debate when it's reared its head previously.

[S133arcanite]

2 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Does it have to be the tip though?  Surely it's any part of the model, not just the part that's actually doing the shooting?  Thundertusks can shoot snowballs out of their backside if that's what's poking round a wall (I said shoot!)

Ive learnt that the hard way... my tzaangor shaman has never fought again...

[MacDuff]

11 hours ago, Vextol said:

Well that's a win in itself!  Everyone loves a good laser pointer

My cats are red dot fanatics.

[Jamopower]

IN infinity, where the LoS is very important part of the game, every model has a size characteristic with a matching template, that can be put on the table instead of the figure. That way the actual modelling of the miniature doesn't matter. That said, it's also a game where there is very much controversy in the games about if something is seen or if it is in cover. Still the size stat would be a thing I would adapt to other games as well. Makes things much more refined.

[zedatkinszed]

5 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Does it have to be the tip though?  Surely it's any part of the model, not just the part that's actually doing the shooting?  Thundertusks can shoot snowballs out of their backside if that's what's poking round a wall (I said shoot!) 

Taking this a step further - if we are playing base to base (and if we're playing matched play, we're playing base to base) - the size and shape of the model is defined by its base, so if anywhere on the 50mm base can see the enemy model, your model can see it with "True" LOS.

I think this actually gets to the heart of the issue - we are still waiting for leadership from GW on what base to base actually means.  In the meantime we are all house ruling.  There is a well known diagram used in the SCGT player pack amongst many others that gives instructions on how to measure distance between two models, and it uses their cylinders.  So the space taken up by a model is defined as the circumference of the base, from the ground to its head (no flag poles etc).  

This is logical and widely accepted.  Hence locking someone in "base to base" in combat for example.

For some reason we as a community abandon this principle when looking for "True" LOS and go back to looking for parts of the physical model, rather than its cylinder, and citing the 4 pages for doing so.  Even though this directly contradicts the base-to-base principle (a model occupies its cylinder) that we all play by in every other phase of the game, and we don't allow the 4 pages to trump that.

Fundamentally, the rules that we're all playing by are a fudge, because GH17 failed properly to address the base-to-base elephant in the room.  People who disagree with your point of view on this aren't dumb, or seeking complication for the sake of complication, they are seeking clarity in the still officially unresolved conflict between model-to-model (which we use in a hybrid fashion for LOS), and base-to-base (which we use for literally everything else in the game).

Edit: @zedatkinszed I just read this back and I didn't mean to accuse you of calling people dumb!  You definitely weren't, that part wasn't aimed at you (or any one person) specifically.  

More at the general tone of "don't question it, it's fine" that I've picked up in this debate when it's reared its head previously.

@PlasticCraic - No probs at all!

IMHO measuring LOS from the edge of a wing or the tip of a claw doesn't represent true LOS. For me it does have to be from the speartip of a spear chukka or the muzzle of a gun or the head of the mini. AOS uses True LOS so its the mini's 'eyes' that visibility is judged by.

Quote

"if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the attacking model to see if the target is visible"

That said I remember from the very beginning of AOS that many ppl did and still do measure LOS from ANY part of the mini to ANY part of the enemy's mini so  I always agree with my opponent whether to measure LOS from any part of the mini or laser pointer from the face/speartip. It's very hard for THAT GUY to rules-lawyer after that conversation has been had. But it has to be a straight choice - as long as we're both on the same page it's fine.

[stato]

4 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

IMHO measuring LOS from the edge of a wing or the tip of a claw doesn't represent true LOS. For me it does have to be from the speartip of a spear chukka or the muzzle of a gun or the head of the mini. AOS uses True LOS so its the mini's 'eyes' that visibility is judged by.

That said I remember from the very beginning of AOS that many ppl did and still do measure LOS from ANY part of the mini to ANY part of the enemy's mini so  I always agree with my opponent whether to measure LOS from any part of the mini or laser pointer from the face/speartip. It's very hard for THAT GUY to rules-lawyer after that conversation has been had. But it has to be a straight choice - as long as we're both on the same page it's fine.

AoS is measured to the model (or models base), not the models eyes.

[Arkiham]

i play it so you have to target the body. wings, weapons, feathers in caps dont count 

[Jamopower]

5 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Does it have to be the tip though?  Surely it's any part of the model, not just the part that's actually doing the shooting?  Thundertusks can shoot snowballs out of their backside if that's what's poking round a wall (I said shoot!) 

Taking this a step further - if we are playing base to base (and if we're playing matched play, we're playing base to base) - the size and shape of the model is defined by its base, so if anywhere on the 50mm base can see the enemy model, your model can see it with "True" LOS.

I think this actually gets to the heart of the issue - we are still waiting for leadership from GW on what base to base actually means.  In the meantime we are all house ruling.  There is a well known diagram used in the SCGT player pack amongst many others that gives instructions on how to measure distance between two models, and it uses their cylinders.  So the space taken up by a model is defined as the circumference of the base, from the ground to its head (no flag poles etc).  

This is logical and widely accepted.  Hence locking someone in "base to base" in combat for example.

For some reason we as a community abandon this principle when looking for "True" LOS and go back to looking for parts of the physical model, rather than its cylinder, and citing the 4 pages for doing so.  Even though this directly contradicts the base-to-base principle (a model occupies its cylinder) that we all play by in every other phase of the game, and we don't allow the 4 pages to trump that.

Fundamentally, the rules that we're all playing by are a fudge, because GH17 failed properly to address the base-to-base elephant in the room.  People who disagree with your point of view on this aren't dumb, or seeking complication for the sake of complication, they are seeking clarity in the still officially unresolved conflict between model-to-model (which we use in a hybrid fashion for LOS), and base-to-base (which we use for literally everything else in the game).

Yes, this is something that I have been wondering a lot. Somehow measuring from base is widely accepted abstraction, but still people are "measuring" LoS from the model, while using the cylinder approach would exactly the same thing as measuring from base instead of the speartip. I think the reason for this, is that there is no history in Warhammer for doing this, wile it's common practice in Warmachine, Infinity etc. 

[Gaz Taylor]

3 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

That said I remember from the very beginning of AOS that many ppl did and still do measure LOS from ANY part of the mini to ANY part of the enemy's mini so  I always agree with my opponent whether to measure LOS from any part of the mini or laser pointer from the face/speartip. It's very hard for THAT GUY to rules-lawyer after that conversation has been had. But it has to be a straight choice - as long as we're both on the same page it's fine.

100% agree with this. You need to chat with your opponent about things like this because you need to be on the same page. The rules are a framework for you to work with to enjoy playing a game together. So when I play, I usually mention about any symbols on dice, that I measure from base to base and anything else like that. So when it comes to shooting, I'll mention what I'm shooting at and what I can see. My opponent will either agree or disagree with that and we work out how we want to play.  

[Freddy25]

16 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

AOS uses True LOS so its the mini's 'eyes' that visibility is judged by.

Which causes some serious issues everytime there's a Troglodon on the battlefield... 

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, Arkiham said:

i play it so you have to target the body. wings, weapons, feathers in caps dont count 

^ This!  It would be a very minor change, but things like swords, staves, ornate embellishments, and oddballs like phlegm shouldn't be treated as part of the model for the purpose of working out if you can see a model or not.  AoS isn't a true physics system, and we all enjoy a healthy bit of suspension of disbelief - but there are some things that just plain don't make sense

[chord]

2 hours ago, Arkiham said:

i play it so you have to target the body. wings, weapons, feathers in caps dont count 

Same here

[Vextol]

8 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Taking this a step further - if we are playing base to base (and if we're playing matched play, we're playing base to base) - the size and shape of the model is defined by its base, so if anywhere on the 50mm base can see the enemy model, your model can see it with "True" LOS.

I think this actually gets to the heart of the issue - we are still waiting for leadership from GW on what base to base actually means.  In the meantime we are all house ruling.  There is a well known diagram used in the SCGT player pack amongst many others that gives instructions on how to measure distance between two models, and it uses their cylinders.  So the space taken up by a model is defined as the circumference of the base, from the ground to its head (no flag poles etc).  

This is logical and widely accepted.  Hence locking someone in "base to base" in combat for example.

For some reason we as a community abandon this principle when looking for "True" LOS and go back to looking for parts of the physical model, rather than its cylinder, and citing the 4 pages for doing so.  Even though this directly contradicts the base-to-base principle (a model occupies its cylinder) that we all play by in every other phase of the game, and we don't allow the 4 pages to trump that.

Fundamentally, the rules that we're all playing by are a fudge, because GH17 failed properly to address the base-to-base elephant in the room.  People who disagree with your point of view on this aren't dumb, or seeking complication for the sake of complication, they are seeking clarity in the still officially unresolved conflict between model-to-model (which we use in a hybrid fashion for LOS), and base-to-base (which we use for literally everything else in the game).

I agree completely with basically everything here.  I think an easy way to view it (and I'm going to push for this in my games) is that EVERYTHING has a cylinder, including scenery.  If you have to draw a straight line from a unit completely through a cylinder (non monster models excluded-don't want to ruffle too many feathers) then it's not in your line of sight.  If you draw into, but not through a cylinder, it has cover.  Only issue here is walls (what fun is a rule without an exception ).  Walls offer cover if a unit is in base to base contact (or one inch or whatever).

We'll see how it goes!

Also- "Don't question it, it's fine" is a three headed serpent; Double turns, LOS, and Summoning.  Dance with any head and you will definitely get nailed

[BunkhouseBuster]

3 hours ago, Jamopower said:

Yes, this is something that I have been wondering a lot. Somehow measuring from base is widely accepted abstraction, but still people are "measuring" LoS from the model, while using the cylinder approach would exactly the same thing as measuring from base instead of the speartip. I think the reason for this, is that there is no history in Warhammer for doing this, wile it's common practice in Warmachine, Infinity etc. 

If anyone argues in favor of the "cylinder" approach to handling LOS because that's how Warmachine/Hordes handles it, I will side against them.  Anything that AoS can do to AVOID similarities with Warmachine/Hordes is good to me.

That said, I'm not a fan of the cylinder approach.  I can totally sympathize with wanting consistent and fair rulings on the matter of LOS for models.  But back in my year of playing Khador, I found many players carried spare bases with them so they could use them for getting their models into combat because of the large size of the models and their poses creating such overhang that they actually could not get into melee range as per the rulebook.  Skorne was really bad about this with their heavy warbeasts, I lost track of the times I saw someone turn their model completely around or they had to magnetize bits and arms in order to actually fit the model into combat.  So, combining that with their handling of terrain to now consist of completely abstracted flat shapes on the table, that tells me that Warmachine/Hordes players don't actually care about the miniatures, but just the game.  And I think we can agree that is something that none of us want to happen to AoS.

When you abstract out the models from the game, why bother playing with them?  If that is the more important part of the game, then let's all go to the hardware store and buy up dowel rods of various thickness and cut them to now represent our models.  That would certainly make the game cheaper!

I realize that there are benefits to having such rules put into the game.  But I'm more in the camp of True LOS, whatever it means and however it's handled, because then there is a purpose to the model itself.  Clarification on LOS and how bits and features of a model are treated is one thing, but the cylinder method is, to me, a step down the path of powergaming.

[Jamopower]

Well the cylinders are not  actually needed in AoS, but it would be easy enough to have a height stat and then based on the height and bases you would have quite solid LoS system, which would not be impacted anyhow by modelling of the models. There has been mentions in this thread about stardrake wings converted to block los etc. which is quite absurd, even when the goal hasn't been to gain an unfair advantage, but just to have some LoS blocking from such a huge model. I think the main advantage is with this part of giving freedom to what the model actually looks like, without it affecting the game in one way or another.

So in practice this would mean that if you have a height 2 goblin in front of height 3 orc, you can shoot the orc, but if you have height 3 orc in front of another orc, you can't. The LoS is easy to draw along the table in a straight line, if it doesn't overlap any opposing bases, then the model can be seen.The terrain of course mixes things up, but it could easily be given similar stats that would be added on the shooter's stat, which would give the terrain more influence as the higher position would benefit you to see stuff that you normally wouldn't. As it is now, you don't need the hill as you can see though the units 95% of the time without extra agreements on behalf of the players, that can be hard to agree sometimes.  Often the terrain has very little impact on the game if you don't use the mystic terrain rules (like we do because we always forget them), besides the +1 save every now and then. This is mainly because of the LoS rules. Even using the terrain warscrolls.

I don't think this is anyhow more of an abstraction than measuring the ranges from the base instead of the models. Especially if you think about something like chariots, that often have a substantially larger base compared to the model.

 

Edit: Just to be sure, I don't want to go in the Warmachine direction (i.e. replacing with empty bases, flat terrain) in any way. The game looks horrible. The cylinders however work very well in Infinity, which on the other hand looks great on the tabletop and is one of the best miniature games I have played, if bit exhausting ruleswise.

[Keldaur]

In my games, you pretty much have Line of Sight all the time unless it's obvious you don't. Most of the time if you squat, you will see the model. If you see the model, you can shoot at it no matter he is behind a close combat. It isn't perfect, and I would prefer a sizes system, but once you realize that not having a line of sight is a rare occurrence except when it's obvious, you won't need to check for line of sight that often and the game goes way more smoothly.

Funnily I am usually the one telling my opponents they got line of sight when I see they are wondering about it. They check it, and yep, they had it, because let's be honest, it is very rare that being behind allied models will block real line of sight due to the bases and models themselves.

@Jamopower That's pretty much the reason why i stopped playing infinity. It was exhausting, especially if you don't have much time to play, and you only get a game every now and then.

[Jamopower]

Yeah, that's my experience as well. Though we usually apply a bit of common sense and don't shoot through 10 ranks of models, even when there would be a "clear" loss most of the time. 

 

(and to answer why I don't enforce the height stuff to the games, is that I mostly don't have any shooters in my armies, so it would be little rude to suggest my gun wielding opponents rules that benefit me)

 

Also about Infinity, I have the same. It's a great game, but needs a lot of effort. It has so high skill element, that by playing a game every now and then, the games are very one sided against friends who play only/mostly Infinity.

[BunkhouseBuster]

51 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

(and to answer why I don't enforce the height stuff to the games, is that I mostly don't have any shooters in my armies, so it would be little rude to suggest my gun wielding opponents rules that benefit me)

I play Ironjawz without any allies, so that's pretty much my perspective on this whole matter in any case; "Oy, oo's dis git talkin' 'bout shootin'?  Das not propa Orky fightin'!"

Plus our local shop doesn't really have good terrain for blocking line of sight, so it's really open season for any ranged armies in our area.  But so far the armies represented have been my Ironjawz, Khorne, Khorne, Nurgle, Nurgle, and Seraphon.  no shenanigans to be found here.

I am looking at a new army, and one that has a greater ranged component, so I am interested to see what, if any, consensus can be reached here.

[Kugane]

I think it can still be kept simple along the lines of "If more than 75% of the model's representation of its physical body is obscured it is treated as out of line of sight, if uncertain, you and your opponent roll a dice, the winner decides the outcome."

[stato]

3 minutes ago, Kugane said:

I think it can still be kept simple along the lines of "If more than 75% of the model's representation of its physical body is obscured it is treated as out of line of sight, if uncertain, you and your opponent roll a dice, the winner decides the outcome."

I think most folks do that sort of thing already, infact the necromunda rules have a nice selection of pictures to support the words, but grounded by 'remember to keep it fun'.  Sounds like the OP's gaming group is pretty cut-throat though and will push through any gap in the rule for their own advantage.  Might be worth reminding them of this https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/02/13/the-very-best-of-sports/  

 

[Kugane]

19 minutes ago, stato said:

I think most folks do that sort of thing already, infact the necromunda rules have a nice selection of pictures to support the words, but grounded by 'remember to keep it fun'.  Sounds like the OP's gaming group is pretty cut-throat though and will push through any gap in the rule for their own advantage.  Might be worth reminding them of this https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/02/13/the-very-best-of-sports/  

 

Community being cut-throat has resulted in there now being 0 other AOS players in my city. So I really wish people would stop the rule-lawyering.