Line of sight

[Vextol]

22 minutes ago, stato said:

Who to accomodate? Well GW have chosen, and they designed a game that supported a simplistic view of the written rules.  If more people just accepted them or have discussion with this approach in mind then it is easy to resolve. 

Also, is it written you cant be seen in a citadel wood? yeah you get +1 save but i can still see you.  Hide a small character behind a tree? fine I cant see you unless I move around the tree, simples.

Well, they haven't really decided.  They continually update the rules with FAQs (so much so that they have actually promised an official update on a scheduled calendar), and each battletome gets more complicated.  If you don't want to use the FAQs, you don't have to. It's kind of evolving into the simple/complex system due to the extensive FAQs. 

And I was talking about behind trees. Don't you find it strange that if you're one step behind a citadel wood you can be shot with no penalty but in the woods, even in plain sight, you get a +1 save, even if your model was so large that it could never actually be hidden?

I do.  I think if you have to look into or through a wood that you're not physically in, the target should gain the benefit of cover.  I'm looking at woods right now. I can tell you that I couldn't hit a thing behind it, but I could definitely smack someone three feet in. 

Also, it wouldn't be the end of the world to add specific rules on LOS to given terrain families or even very specific terrain like wyldwood.  That would be very much in line with the rest of the game.  I'd even take a terrain battletome!  That would be cool.  It could be a "Biennial-tome" ... Or a"Bud-letome"... 

If you don't want to use those rules, you don't have to.  Just stick with the basic rules. 

[stato]

3 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Well, they haven't really decided.  They continually update the rules with FAQs (so much so that they have actually promised an official update on a scheduled calendar), and each battletome gets more complicated.  

And I was talking about behind trees. Don't you find it strange that if you're one step behind a citadel wood you can be shot with no penalty but in the woods, even in plain sight, you get a +1 save, even if your model was so large that it could never actually be hidden?

I do.  I think if you have to look through a wood (regardless of if you're in it) you should gain the benefit of cover.  I'm looking at woods right now. I can tell you that I couldn't hit a thing behind it, but I could definitely smack someone three feet in.  

They have decided, the very way its written tells us that; its written/explained not bullet pointed, rules are not prioritised or ranked, etc.

But for woods; if i can see someone on the other side ill just fire my arrow over it, or shoot a gun where i can see.  In a wood, or on terrain, the warrior is using fallen logs or bricks to gain cover and hence more protection. In my Kharadron Frigates case its using its vents to blow dust and debris up to create a 'smoke' screen around it, ok so not protection but slightly harder to hit weak spots, i can accept that as a +1 save. Sure i could question it and generate a ton of ideas such as -1 to hit in cover, or special hull vs endrins damage and save table, or i can just make up a reason in my head to explain the actual rule and play the game and have fun. 

Seriously though there is so much you could question if you chose to, daemons have to stay in unit cohesion? you get +1 to hit from sacrificing your mates to damned terrain?  An ironclad can carry 25 models and still has holds and a captains cabin? (10 marines in a Rhino anyone? the size of some models makes a mockery of LoS in itself!) but for me and almost everyone ive played its so much more fun if you play the game rather than dissect it.  I know one person who still crtiques AoS and thinks WHFB was better designed, but he plays deamons in rank and file which quite frankly was ridiculous even in the old fluff.

[Sheriff]

So I'm at a tournament. My shooting phase, my spear chuka can kind of see the enemy wizard's head poking over some infantry. I can shoot it, right? 

[Vextol]

14 minutes ago, stato said:

But for woods; if i can see someone on the other side ill just fire my arrow over it, or shoot a gun where i can see.  In a wood, or on terrain, the warrior is using fallen logs or bricks to gain cover and hence more protection.

Yeah!   This is what I meant.  It's a physical representation when a person is behind the woods, but an imaginary representation when they are in the woods.  It's a conflict of intent within the same concept. 

I think it would hurt emersion a little for narrative players and I don't really like the mechanic for Matched Play.

Again, open, narrative and casual players have already established that they are OK using some, all, or none of the rules, so why not have some rules that are optional for the matched players that want it?  You can always just ignore them. They don't even have to be very balanced, because you're not going to use them (or you can choose to ignore them)  anyway.  That way GW doesn't have to dedicate many resources to come up with them.  It's kind of a win/win!

[Vextol]

6 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

So I'm at a tournament. My shooting phase, my spear chuka can kind of see the enemy wizard's head poking over some infantry. I can shoot it, right? 

Definitely. Unless you crouch a little lower and obscure it . 

But seriously, yes.  That's how it's played every tournament I've ever been to.  It's typically very very hard to hide behind other units.  A friend of mine specifically models his stardrakes wings lower on the model to block sight through his legs. 

[Sheriff]

Just now, Vextol said:

Definitely. Unless you crouch a little lower and obscure it 

Got it, thanks. 

 

[Gaz Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

So I'm at a tournament. My shooting phase, my spear chuka can kind of see the enemy wizard's head poking over some infantry. I can shoot it, right? 

So in this scenario you would say, “I can see you Wizard. His head is above the infantry so my spear chuka is going to kill him.”

Your opponent will look at either say “Yeah I agree” or “Nah you cant” . 

In the no you can’t scenario, you would discuss it, get them to have a look. In the unlikely scenario you both still disagree, you can either roll off or get a judge to decide.

In all my years of using true line of sight, I’ve never come across a scenario which isn’t solved by talking about it or checking from the models point of view

[BunkhouseBuster]

I think that we should also take into consideration the differences between COVER and CONCEALMENT: Cover is a physical thing that can block attacks from hitting you, while Concealment is something that makes it harder to be hit instead.  It's the difference between a hiding behind a brick wall and using a smokescreen to obscure movements, and both can be affected by and affect Line of Sight.  Is a shrubbery going to stop a cannonball?  Can a person hide behind another person, or a tank?

One of my favorite aspects of Age of Sigmar is the modularity of the rules and how you can pick and choose how you play the game.  I would be keen to see a module that expanded on the rules for terrain and scenery beyond the Warscrolls and scenery tables provided, such as how a forest behaves, how a stone wall behaves, or how a road can affect Movement, and so on.

I do like how AoS handles it, and I prefer to just get my games in and not worry too much about things and focus on making sure my opponent is having a good game.  But I would be all for trying out some expanded and enhanced terrain and scenery rules.

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

  I would be keen to see a module that expanded on the rules for terrain and scenery beyond the Warscrolls and scenery tables provided, such as how a forest behaves, how a stone wall behaves, or how a road can affect Movement, and so on.

^this times a hundred million infinity 

[Siorra]

I remember when I was about 9 or 10 and I went into Games Workshop for their Sunday afternoon 40k lessons, and I asked if I was able to shoot something through another model. The guy quite brilliants explained "the thing you're shooting through isn't a model,  it's a person/monster etc that's moving. Through all of that movement there's plenty of opportunity to shoot what's ahead". 18 years later, that always stuck with me. So shooting 1 guy behind a dragon should be possible, because there's a good chance that dragon is actually all over the place, you know?

Just how I see it.

[Vextol]

10 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

In all my years of using true line of sight, I’ve never come across a scenario which isn’t solved by talking about it or checking from the models point of view

Lucky dog. 

I always end up on the losing side of "Just let it go".  It seems like, while in concept I agree with that sentiment, in application it always end up being just "not the way I think it is"  

I guess I don't like the discussion at all.  Not from a negative aspect, I just don't want it to be necessary. And uness I just want to cave every time or pause so someone else can have a look,  it comes up too often for my taste. 

I prefer the "Here's a straight line, and I'm not hitting anything so I can see you" approach because it's harder to doubt. 

[Red]

2 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Lucky dog. 

I always end up on the losing side of "Just let it go".  It seems like, while in concept I agree with that sentiment, in application it always end up being just "not the way I think it is"  

Ask for a picture. With these days of camera phones, you should be able to take a picture behind the shooter and can zoom in and see the target. Since AoS needs to double down on "High Fantasy" everyone is shooting laser beams, and all you need is line of sight to any part of the model. Can't really argue with a picture.

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, Red said:

Ask for a picture. With these days of camera phones, you should be able to take a picture behind the shooter and can zoom in and see the target. Since AoS needs to double down on "High Fantasy" everyone is shooting laser beams, and all you need is line of sight to any part of the model. Can't really argue with a picture.

^ For anyone who wants to try this, don't.  Let me tell you from experience, people DO NOT like being presented with a photo 

Seriously though, a very slight angle changes the picture dramatically.  It kinds of expresses my dislike. I understand what you're getting at though. 

[Red]

Just now, Vextol said:

^ For anyone who wants to try this, don't.  Let me tell you from experience, people DO NOT like being presented with a photo 

Seriously though, a very slight angle changes the picture dramatically.  It kinds of expresses my dislike. I understand what you're getting at though. 

Well, just make sure your the one taking the photo and LoS is in your favor. Thats what Gaz is trying to get at here, right?

[BunkhouseBuster]

9 minutes ago, Red said:

Ask for a picture. With these days of camera phones, you should be able to take a picture behind the shooter and can zoom in and see the target. Since AoS needs to double down on "High Fantasy" everyone is shooting laser beams, and all you need is line of sight to any part of the model. Can't really argue with a picture.

Lol, I tried to use a compass back when playing 40K 6th Edition to help prevent confusion or shenanigans with scatter blast markers (back in my day...).  It would have worked in theory.  You orient the compass to magnetic north, place it next to the scatter die, and rotate the direction to match the scatter die.

But then you are trying to orient next to a model that is FULL of magnets from conversion work, and that plan goes out the window, because that model is now North.

[zedatkinszed]

48 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Lucky dog. 

I always end up on the losing side of "Just let it go".  It seems like, while in concept I agree with that sentiment, in application it always end up being just "not the way I think it is"  

I guess I don't like the discussion at all.  Not from a negative aspect, I just don't want it to be necessary. And uness I just want to cave every time or pause so someone else can have a look,  it comes up too often for my taste. 

I prefer the "Here's a straight line, and I'm not hitting anything so I can see you" approach because it's harder to doubt. 

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.

[Richelieu]

8 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Yup. I think it's a mentality sort of thing. I manage a team of IT engineers and some of them can be very much like this. I'm not and just need the high level details and I'll make it work. Same with films, comics, books - you can nit pick stuff but you don't need to. Enjoy it  

I empathize.  It's taken me over two years with one engineering team to get to the point where I can ask for broad needs devoid of specific requirements and walk away with the expectation they'll deliver the spirit of the request.   

[chord]

15 hours ago, Kamose said:

This question comes up so often because there's a conflict because the rules complexity the GW wants the game to include and the rules complexity that experienced gamers (nearly everyone on this forum) want to have.  Experienced players i.e. any player with a working knowledge of the ruleset of any tabletop game, feel able to handle additional complexity.  Most of the time they are right and additional complexity would add rather than take away from their enjoyment.  GW clearly value simplicity over attempts at realism and trust the players to explain away any inconsistencies.  They're promoting simplicity and ease of play in this instance to allow new players to get learn the rules with a minimum of confusion.  More experienced players can layer on additional rules as they like but new players don't have that luxury.  Moreover experienced players are better able to  create house-rules than new players hence your examples, base to base line of sight or monsters that block of sight.

This experienced player wants them to keep it simple.  

What I want is for more players to follow the rules as written.

"PICKING TARGETS First, you must pick the target units for the attacks. In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must be in range of the attacking weapon (i.e. within the maximum distance, in inches, of the Range listed for the weapon making the attack), and visible to the attacker (if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the attacking model to see if the target is visible). For the purposes of determining visibility, an attacking model can see through other models in its unit."

Seriously, I can count the number of times opponents have actually checked the models on one hand.  (in non obvious situations that is)

[Vextol]

35 minutes ago, chord said:

This experienced player wants them to keep it simple.  

This experienced player wants more detail 

I cannot name the last time I played (with my large group, never comes up with my brother in law) where LOS was not checked by the other team at least once. 

It gets back to the idea that neither group is ever going to agree with the other.  I think middle ground is best given by optional rules and modules as mentioned by @BunkhouseBuster 

They can even be separate so they don't taint the 4 page rule set. 

Complexity is not the issue with TLOS.   My biggest issue is that I think there are alternatives that are just as simple that are much more concrete. 

Also, I find it very difficult to actually achieve a good "hide" or "cover" behind terrain.  I'd like terrain to be more interactive.  I want to sprint a unit behind a forest so I can sneak up on an archers flank.  I want heroes to wait behind a tall fence for the perfect opportunity to strike.  I want a big monster to lead the charge, absorbing blows so the rank and file behind can make it to the front lines. 

As it is, in almost every situation it goes "Can you see me?" "Yep.""Cool"

And shot to bits... 

I want more strategic opportunities.  By limiting the complexity of the game to exactly what it is now, you hurt the ability to expand in interesting fashions. 

If we don't want to modify the base rules, I'm cool expanding with things like new battletomes, scenery books, things like Malign Portents and such but I don't want to pin the game at "max complexity"

[Freddy25]

I'm a BIG fan of simplicity  elegant game rules, but in all honesty I believe the most reasonable way to deal with Line of Sight would be:

A) choose your attacker;
B) choose the target model;
C) choose a point of your model base;
D.1) if you can draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to every point of the enemy base your attacker can see clearly the target and can attack/shoot normally;
D.2) if you can't draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to any point of the enemy base your attacker cannot see the target so can't attack it/shoot at it;
D.3) if you can draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to just a part of the enemy base your attacker can see the target and can attack/shoot at it, but the enemy has to be considered in cover.

 Now the problem would be: "What if the enemy hides behind one of his allies?"
To me the answer would be "In that case, you have to shoot at that ally (since it is nearer to your attacker, so said model is a more immediate threat)".
...but despite I think this would add a tactical layer to the game, others might find it an unnecessary restriction.

Oh, and of course we are assuming we are measuring from bases, but as we know the AoS rules don't suggest playing this way.

[Sheriff]

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

[Vextol]

42 minutes ago, Freddy25 said:

I'm a BIG fan of simplicity  elegant game rules, but in all honesty I believe the most reasonable way to deal with Line of Sight would be:

A) choose your attacker;
B) choose the target model;
C) choose a point of your model base;
D.1) if you can draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to every point of the enemy base your attacker can see clearly the target and can attack/shoot normally;
D.2) if you can't draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to any point of the enemy base your attacker cannot see the target so can't attack it/shoot at it;
D.3) if you can draw a straight uninterrupted line from that point to just a part of the enemy base your attacker can see the target and can attack/shoot at it, but the enemy has to be considered in cover.

 Now the problem would be: "What if the enemy hides behind one of his allies?"
To me the answer would be "In that case, you have to shoot at that ally (since it is nearer to your attacker, so said model is a more immediate threat)".
...but despite I think this would add a tactical layer to the game, others might find it an unnecessary restriction.

Oh, and of course we are assuming we are measuring from bases, but as we know the AoS rules don't suggest playing this way.

^ I imagine this will be met with some negativity   I'm good simplifying it even more. 

If you are able to draw a straight line, uninterrupted by scenery,  from any base in the unit to any base in the other unit, your unit can see.

From this you can expand if you wish to Monsters, being in scenery and such.  I suppose I would modify the main rules to clarify monsters only because there isn't really any other place in the game that speaks specifically about "monsters".

Raw, the model by model thing is a NIGHTMARE if you actually try to do it.  It's the least simple elegant thing ever.

"I think this guy can see...but that guy can't, but he can see that guy...but this guy can't.  I guess these three guys will shoot that unit.  These two will shoot that unit.  This guy here will shoot that unit over there that he's the only one who can see.  Everyone else will shoot the main unit.  Wait, is that the one with mystic shield?  Ok never mind, these six guys...." 

Because of this, most people don't really play by the rules as written. They use a hybridized version of TLOS and 'bulk acceptance' of TLOS because actually verifying model LOS for an entire unit would be ludicrous.  So before we get hot and bothered about the simplicity of TLOS, it's actually a little more complicated than it lets on and we already don't use it completely. 

[Vextol]

1 minute ago, Sheriff said:

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

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

[eekamouse]

3 hours ago, Siorra said:

I remember when I was about 9 or 10 and I went into Games Workshop for their Sunday afternoon 40k lessons, and I asked if I was able to shoot something through another model. The guy quite brilliants explained "the thing you're shooting through isn't a model,  it's a person/monster etc that's moving. Through all of that movement there's plenty of opportunity to shoot what's ahead". 18 years later, that always stuck with me. So shooting 1 guy behind a dragon should be possible, because there's a good chance that dragon is actually all over the place, you know?

Just how I see it.

Once I got my head around his concept, the concept of abstraction I was almost able to handle TLOS as it’s explained.

The next step was to define terrain beyond what it visually looks like. There’s an example of this in 40k 8th. “All ruins block LOS on the first floor regardless of windows, open doors, etc...” Once you realize it’s not on the game design to establish terrain rules but rather the players and/or the TO, it becomes a simple proposition to make the game as open or closed as you want.

 

[Menkeroth]

TLOS is indeed one of the things that is bound more to the common sense rather than to the rules. I prefer to see through the model's eyes to get the complete understanding,but then, it comes from 5th ed of 40k where with that you had cover rules too. so it's arguable. If the model can clearly see the enemy, that is it can see it's torso / head, it can shoot.