Line of sight

[Vextol]

4 hours ago, BunkhouseBuster said:

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.

Warning: Controversial! Read the whole thought before quoting me though 

I'm of the opinion that there is no point to the model within the context of the game.  The model is there to enhance the experience.  You DEFINITELY could play the game without models, but no one does, and if they do, we probably just don't hear about it. 

If the game is going to get better, the rules must exist outside the components.  Look to the board game industry.  Outside of CMON,  you have rules first, then models to enhance.  That's how you make a good game from the start.  Game companies that don't do this usually make really bad games.  

GW is a very odd example of models first, then rules.  They've already said they're a miniatures company (right in their mission statement).  Any "game" they provide is always going to be secondary.  I think AoS originally was an example of the above problem. I'll  probably get a lot of flak, but it was a really bad game. 

It came out as a system of imagination, something to be expected of a miniatures company, but not really as a complete game package.  It's grown a lot in the last few years, and you would be hard pressed to convince me it was anything but the introduction of the GH, aka, a real game system. 

They've made a ton of improvements though and the game is now better than ever!  But at its heart, and in its community, I believe it's still all about the models, because that's where its roots are.

Long thought complete, I don't think an adjustment to Los, like uninterrupted base to base or a visualized cylinder, is going to impact the model presence because it's such an integral part of the hobby even if I don't think it's necessary to make an excellent game.  The models have set base sizes, and if you adjust that to gain advantage because "there no rule against it"....you're the worst . 

As far as models fitting on their basss, I hear you.  I have a soul grinder, a dread Saurian, two stardrakes, a million Prosecutors and a million plague drones that you basically can't get into base to base contact.  I don't want the bases larger, because it would be silly, but I also don't want the models changed because I like them.  As much as I hate to say it, here I would do the "best you can do approach" with base to base action.  For LOS, I'd still just stick with the bases they come on. 

Im very pro model, and very pro conversion, so I don't like the variability added to a game system based on a players decision to pose their model according to their taste.  If I painted all my models bright orange, it would almost certainly increase the likelihood that I can be seen with TLOS, but I definitely don't want to discourage bright orange models (orange is my bane) !  Same with interesting terrain on the bases.  Assassins hiding behind a tree? Yes please! 

YMMV obviously. 

[Kugane]

3 hours ago, Vextol said:

Warning: Controversial! Read the whole thought before quoting me though 

I'm of the opinion that there is no point to the model within the context of the game.  The model is there to enhance the experience.  You DEFINITELY could play the game without models, but no one does, and if they do, we probably just don't hear about it. 

If the game is going to get better, the rules must exist outside the components.  Look to the board game industry.  Outside of CMON,  you have rules first, then models to enhance.  That's how you make a good game from the start.  Game companies that don't do this usually make really bad games.  

GW is a very odd example of models first, then rules.  They've already said they're a miniatures company (right in their mission statement).  Any "game" they provide is always going to be secondary.  I think AoS originally was an example of the above problem. I'll  probably get a lot of flak, but it was a really bad game. 

It came out as a system of imagination, something to be expected of a miniatures company, but not really as a complete game package.  It's grown a lot in the last few years, and you would be hard pressed to convince me it was anything but the introduction of the GH, aka, a real game system. 

They've made a ton of improvements though and the game is now better than ever!  But at its heart, and in its community, I believe it's still all about the models, because that's where its roots are.

Long thought complete, I don't think an adjustment to Los, like uninterrupted base to base or a visualized cylinder, is going to impact the model presence because it's such an integral part of the hobby even if I don't think it's necessary to make an excellent game.  The models have set base sizes, and if you adjust that to gain advantage because "there no rule against it"....you're the worst . 

As far as models fitting on their basss, I hear you.  I have a soul grinder, a dread Saurian, two stardrakes, a million Prosecutors and a million plague drones that you basically can't get into base to base contact.  I don't want the bases larger, because it would be silly, but I also don't want the models changed because I like them.  As much as I hate to say it, here I would do the "best you can do approach" with base to base action.  For LOS, I'd still just stick with the bases they come on. 

Im very pro model, and very pro conversion, so I don't like the variability added to a game system based on a players decision to pose their model according to their taste.  If I painted all my models bright orange, it would almost certainly increase the likelihood that I can be seen with TLOS, but I definitely don't want to discourage bright orange models (orange is my bane) !  Same with interesting terrain on the bases.  Assassins hiding behind a tree? Yes please! 

YMMV obviously. 

I think conversions should be no issue, look at all the different sizes and shapes of Skaven Warlords we have now for example. They are all legal for play. Or the difference between an oldhammer zombie dragon vs current one. As long as those kind of differences exist, I don't think people should be limited how they pose their stuff. Its a whole different story if people use it to exploit the rules and convert for advantage, like putting a head on a base and putting water textures around it saying the miniature is underwater and you can't see it XD.

[Vextol]

45 minutes ago, Kugane said:

I think conversions should be no issue, look at all the different sizes and shapes of Skaven Warlords we have now for example. They are all legal for play. Or the difference between an oldhammer zombie dragon vs current one. As long as those kind of differences exist, I don't think people should be limited how they pose their stuff. Its a whole different story if people use it to exploit the rules and convert for advantage, like putting a head on a base and putting water textures around it saying the miniature is underwater and you can't see it XD.

Never heard of that, but I absolutely love it. 

"My Dread maw is more of a sarlacc than a termor, so he's subterranean." 

Woah... I feel like I need to give myself a wedgie... 

[Kugane]

1 hour ago, Vextol said:

Never heard of that, but I absolutely love it. 

"My Dread maw is more of a sarlacc than a termor, so he's subterranean." 

Woah... I feel like I need to give myself a wedgie... 

Lets not forget stealth suits with their stealth mode activated. Cheapest conversion.

 

[Jamopower]

I have actually seen on a 8th edition Fantasy battle table a Grey seer put on top of a high pillar to give an advantage for LoS purposes. It was done by one of the very central members of the Finnish warhammer-scene and t was one of the key reasons why I wasn't too interested in the WHFB/9th age tournaments...

[Kugane]

1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

I have actually seen on a 8th edition Fantasy battle table a Grey seer put on top of a high pillar to give an advantage for LoS purposes. It was done by one of the very central members of the Finnish warhammer-scene and t was one of the key reasons why I wasn't too interested in the WHFB/9th age tournaments...

That kind of stuff is really nasty. I think with stuff like hero bases you can buy it doesn't make it easier as well.

[Aegisgrimm]

I just don't like how with true line of sight, if a big thick ruined building has a pipe going all the way through it, a model can by the rules clatter an arrow all the way through it to kill an enemy on the other side.

 

[Menkeroth]

4 hours ago, Jamopower said:

I have actually seen on a 8th edition Fantasy battle table a Grey seer put on top of a high pillar to give an advantage for LoS purposes. It was done by one of the very central members of the Finnish warhammer-scene and t was one of the key reasons why I wasn't too interested in the WHFB/9th age tournaments...

I've seen this too, in 40k back in the day, like a Defiler being modeled as low as possible and the stuff like that. This is certainly what does not have to do with the hobby at all.

[Kugane]

10 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

I've seen this too, in 40k back in the day, like a Defiler being modeled as low as possible and the stuff like that. This is certainly what does not have to do with the hobby at all.

I wonder though, isn't that kind of stuff highly against the rules? Because I see it popping up in many places, but nobody really has a solution. I personally when I do conversions always make sure the model is at the exact same height as the original it is trying to represent. Even if it may look a bit silly at times to build high rocks, etc. I would guess that that would be a bit of common sense thing to do.

[Menkeroth]

16 minutes ago, Kugane said:

I wonder though, isn't that kind of stuff highly against the rules?

It is. Modelling for advantage was always one of tournament scene feature making it quite unappealing for many of us. Good conversions and mini-dioramas are fine and well appreciated when they are creative or talentedly executed, but certainly not like this stuff. 

18 minutes ago, Kugane said:

I personally when I do conversions always make sure the model is at the exact same height as the original it is trying to represent. Even if it may look a bit silly at times to build high rocks, etc. I would guess that that would be a bit of common sense thing to do.

Count me in too.

[chord]

1 hour ago, Aegisgrimm said:

I just don't like how with true line of sight, if a big thick ruined building has a pipe going all the way through it, a model can by the rules clatter an arrow all the way through it to kill an enemy on the other side.

 

That would not bother me much as I figure the archer should have some sort of skill.  Now if it was a whole unit I would expect the opponent to check LOS for each model in the unit as per the rules.

[Vextol]

5 minutes ago, chord said:

That would not bother me much as I figure the archer should have some sort of skill.  Now if it was a whole unit I would expect the opponent to check LOS for each model in the unit as per the rules.

Its not a laser though, it's an arrow.  It's not ever going to be possible.  Obviously it's high fantasy, so the idea of the physical difficulties associated with shooting through a pipe should be of little concern when the shooter is an Elf, but still.  I've made my decisions as to what I want to believe and what I don't 

That is why I'd play that a building blocks line of sight if you draw a line through, grants cover inside.  I'd simplify to the point that if units that can see/draw a base to base line count as in line of sight so we can avoid model checking, but would instantly cave to model by model base check if my opponent was willing. It's a "cooler" though slightly more cumbersome system.

I guess for me, true Los vs base to base Los will almost ALWAYS yield the same visibility.  I mean... what is TLOS but a straight line from a different point?  Base or eyes, it's still a line from one point to another.  As far as seeing around objects, I just like something a little more measurable.  

What I don't like about LOS as it stands is the ability to see through things and make actionable decisions based on that.  Basically, the pipe/triple window/tree canopy issue.  I'd be fine if GW kept TLOS but said that all terrain blocked LOS if you cannot see a model without looking completely through a piece of terrain (or monster-I'm not dropping that one ) 

[chord]

14 minutes ago, Vextol said:

Its not a laser though, it's an arrow.  It's not ever going to be possible.  Obviously it's high fantasy, so the idea of the physical difficulties associated with shooting through a pipe should be of little concern when the shooter is an Elf, but still.  I've made my decisions as to what I want to believe and what I don't 

That is why I'd play that a building blocks line of sight if you draw a line through, grants cover inside.  I'd simplify to the point that if units that can see/draw a base to base line count as in line of sight so we can avoid model checking, but would instantly cave to model by model base check if my opponent was willing. It's a "cooler" though slightly more cumbersome system.

I guess for me, true Los vs base to base Los will almost ALWAYS yield the same visibility.  I mean... what is TLOS but a straight line from a different point?  Base or eyes, it's still a line from one point to another.  As far as seeing around objects, I just like something a little more measurable.  

What I don't like about LOS as it stands is the ability to see through things and make actionable decisions based on that.  Basically, the pipe/triple window/tree canopy issue.  I'd be fine if GW kept TLOS but said that all terrain blocked LOS if you cannot see a model without looking completely through a piece of terrain (or monster-I'm not dropping that one ) 

How big a pipe are we talking?  My daughter is an archer and competes in state level tournaments,  so depending on the width and length of the pipe it's doable...

[Vextol]

40 minutes ago, chord said:

How big a pipe are we talking?  My daughter is an archer and competes in state level tournaments,  so depending on the width and length of the pipe it's doable...

Obviously well over 50 feet and only 3/4 inch in diameter. 

This isn't Mario for Sigmar's sake! 

Also, archery is super cool. I'm hoping I can get my daughters into it eventually as well! 

[Menkeroth]

19 minutes ago, Vextol said:

This isn't Mario for Sigmar's sake! 

 

I guess you have not watched LotR and Hobbit trilogies and "The Great Wall". Then you shouldn't have had problems with LOS and TLOS.

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 hour ago, chord said:

How big a pipe are we talking?  My daughter is an archer and competes in state level tournaments,  so depending on the width and length of the pipe it's doable...

I knew a guy from my Amtgard days who was REALLY good at archery.  Like, he knew how the arrow would wobble in flight, and could use that to hit targets just behind obstacles, like a tree or even a shield.

Archery is cool.  If the weather would cooperate more and it didn't cost so much, I would totally get myself and my family into that as a hobby.

[Red]

21 hours ago, Vextol said:

Warning: Controversial! Read the whole thought before quoting me though 

I'm of the opinion that there is no point to the model within the context of the game.  The model is there to enhance the experience.  You DEFINITELY could play the game without models, but no one does, and if they do, we probably just don't hear about it. 

If the game is going to get better, the rules must exist outside the components.  Look to the board game industry.  Outside of CMON,  you have rules first, then models to enhance.  That's how you make a good game from the start.  Game companies that don't do this usually make really bad games.  

GW is a very odd example of models first, then rules.  They've already said they're a miniatures company (right in their mission statement).  Any "game" they provide is always going to be secondary.  I think AoS originally was an example of the above problem. I'll  probably get a lot of flak, but it was a really bad game. 

It came out as a system of imagination, something to be expected of a miniatures company, but not really as a complete game package.  It's grown a lot in the last few years, and you would be hard pressed to convince me it was anything but the introduction of the GH, aka, a real game system. 

They've made a ton of improvements though and the game is now better than ever!  But at its heart, and in its community, I believe it's still all about the models, because that's where its roots are.

Long thought complete, I don't think an adjustment to Los, like uninterrupted base to base or a visualized cylinder, is going to impact the model presence because it's such an integral part of the hobby even if I don't think it's necessary to make an excellent game.  The models have set base sizes, and if you adjust that to gain advantage because "there no rule against it"....you're the worst . 

As far as models fitting on their basss, I hear you.  I have a soul grinder, a dread Saurian, two stardrakes, a million Prosecutors and a million plague drones that you basically can't get into base to base contact.  I don't want the bases larger, because it would be silly, but I also don't want the models changed because I like them.  As much as I hate to say it, here I would do the "best you can do approach" with base to base action.  For LOS, I'd still just stick with the bases they come on. 

Im very pro model, and very pro conversion, so I don't like the variability added to a game system based on a players decision to pose their model according to their taste.  If I painted all my models bright orange, it would almost certainly increase the likelihood that I can be seen with TLOS, but I definitely don't want to discourage bright orange models (orange is my bane) !  Same with interesting terrain on the bases.  Assassins hiding behind a tree? Yes please! 

YMMV obviously. 

I thought this was part of why they did AoS in the first place: they wanted to get rid of the ranking system since it was harder to design models that rank up.

My opinion of this is that a game should focus on being a really tight game, and the models should focus on being really tight models. TLOS meshes the two together (the LoS "Power" of the model is dictated by the sculpt) whereas the silhouette  approach divorces the game from the models (the LoS "Power" is dictated by the stats). I don't want someone penalized in the game because they put their epic protagonist for the scenario on a scenic base, or chose to model them with their sword in the air.

 

[Vextol]

54 minutes ago, Red said:

I thought this was part of why they did AoS in the first place: they wanted to get rid of the ranking system since it was harder to design models that rank up.

My opinion of this is that a game should focus on being a really tight game, and the models should focus on being really tight models. TLOS meshes the two together (the LoS "Power" of the model is dictated by the sculpt) whereas the silhouette  approach divorces the game from the models (the LoS "Power" is dictated by the stats). I don't want someone penalized in the game because they put their epic protagonist for the scenario on a scenic base, or chose to model them with their sword in the air.

 

I agree but two dimensionally.  I think the base dictates the sculpts power. 

Distance is two dimensional so using flat surfaces just makes life easier for me. 

[Jamopower]

I'm reading the new Saga rules and got to the Line of Sight part, which is short, simple and reasonable:

"Line of sight is simply an imaginary straight line connecting the shooter to their target. This line must not be obstructed by anything.

What obstructs a line of sight? Any of the following:

-All figures, friendly or enemy, except those in the shooting unit.

-The space between two figures in the same unit (friendly or enemy), which is not the firing or the target unit.

-The second time that the line of sight crosses the edge of an area of high terrain (see rules)."

 

Five rows of text which makes the shooting units perform very differently from AoS (of course it's good to remember that the maximum shooting range is 12" in that game as well, so it's different in many ways).

[Vextol]

18 hours ago, Jamopower said:

The second time that the line of sight crosses the edge of an area of high terrain (see rules).

That's the exact rule I wanted, just worded better. Blocks LOS if through terrain, grants cover if in terrain.  

I'm totally stealing this wording for all my games 

[Menkeroth]

22 minutes ago, Vextol said:

I'm totally stealing this wording for all my games 

Speaking of Saga meeting WH. This is 2012. Several players actually have foreseen AoS long before AoS. Tzeentch at work, surely.

 

[Redmanphill]

Thankfully the new Azyrite Ruins come with some solid pieces. I suspect a lot of people will pick this set up so hopefully our line of sight problems will be somewhat alleviated. The game benefits heavily from LOS blocking terrain. Every battlefield should have some pieces.

[Nick907]

So my line of sight question is pretty self serving. I have a KO army and I want to use my Ironclad as a tool to block my opponents. The Ironclad is on a tall flying stem and is above my other flying units. I have a Gunhauler and several units of Endrinriggers who are all on shorter stems than the Ironclad and can look across it's base unhindered and unobstructed. 
Can I use my Ironclad to protect these units from charges while they shoot from across the Ironclad's base?

[Gaz Taylor]

Firstly. I call you out @Nick907 as a foul Necromancer! The deprived practice of resurrecting old topics is not what we want on these boards. Please don't do it again.

10 hours ago, Nick907 said:

Can I use my Ironclad to protect these units from charges while they shoot from across the Ironclad's base?

I'm going to answer and then lock this. If you have any more questions about it, create a new topic in the right area of the forum.

Anyway, I'm bit rusty on playing but I would say yes. If you can see something, you can shoot it.