Cover and Los, Your opinions please.

[TimM85]

 

I feel these small changes would make it more enjoyable and tactical  on both sides against shooting heavy armies though I maybe a little biased with my slow foot slogging army so would like to here your opinions.

With the imminent increase to be of shooting armies (COS the kharadron, tzeencth very overdue new books/updates) I would really like updated rules on LOS and cover. I feel it needs more clarity and simplifying for LOS over true LOS especially with any faction with older models that tend to be smaller and newer models being larger, I am very much for it in the case of everyone being able to shoot through their own models when its the same unit but I am against seeing a tiny spec or just an axe maybe having negative to hit modifiers in this case would be a good solution see 25% of a model/unit -2 50% -1 75% or more no modifier. Terrain pieces maybe having a set rule that within the base of the scenery of anything except a hill is cover. Then maybe getting rid of if a unit can fly it can be seen even if its behind a wood. 

All opinions are welcome please comment if your a little biased one way or another due to having a shooty or a footslogger army.

[Painbringer]

I would like to see the LOS system similar to the one Warmachine/Hordes has: larger bases block everything behind them and not being able to shoot at the unit because you see a tip of someone's sword peeking behind the house. I would also like to see negative to hit modifiers when it comes to cover. Generally, I really enjoy AoS, but these two things were something that bothered me a bit since I first started playing (actualy, being a Warmachine player for years, there was a lot of things that bothered me at the beginning, but now I'm used to most of them and I accepted them as part of the game ). I simply would not mind seeing some extra complexity when it comes to LOS/cover/targeting rules.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Painbringer

[SwampHeart]

If we're picking different game systems' LoS rules to use I vote for KoW. Everything is height categorized - keeps things super simple and clear for the sake of LoS blocking. 

[XReN]

I'd like to have silhouettes being a thing, so there won't be any "my helmet spikes can see the top of your banner, your unit is doomed" thing, I usually play it with some common sense, but some people will play it in less... appealing way. And not neccesserily LoS-blocking other units just because it will rob IDK of their special feature. Also LoS requirement to unbind spells should be returned. The cover shouldn't get any changes just because it will punish occasional shooting units in more well-rounded armies/lists than balance heavy shooting, I know it's god awfull to get your support pieces melted away, but it's possible to win nonetheless and "look out sir" combined with cover and occasional realm artefacts already provide enough defence.

[Skipsalajan]

I love los just as it is. Aos does not need more rules. It is bloated enough

[TimM85]

4 hours ago, Painbringer said:

I would like to see the LOS system similar to the one Warmachine/Hordes has: larger bases block everything behind them and not being able to shoot at the unit because you see a tip of someone's sword peeking behind the house. I would also like to see negative to hit modifiers when it comes to cover. Generally, I really enjoy AoS, but these two things were something that bothered me a bit since I first started playing (actualy, being a Warmachine player for years, there was a lot of things that bothered me at the beginning, but now I'm used to most of them and I accepted them as part of the game ). I simply would not mind seeing some extra complexity when it comes to LOS/cover/targeting rules.

I have to agree with these just something simple, true LOS can be easily manipulated more rules doesn't make the game more complex it makes it clearer and more enjoyable to play

.

[chord]

14 minutes ago, XReN said:

I'd like to have silhouettes being a thing, so there won't be any "my helmet spikes can see the top of your banner, your unit is doomed" thing, I usually play it with some common sense, but some people will play it in less... appealing way. And not neccesserily LoS-blocking other units just because it will rob IDK of their special feature. Also LoS requirement to unbind spells should be returned. The cover shouldn't get any changes just because it will punish occasional shooting units in more well-rounded armies/lists than balance heavy shooting, I know it's god awfull to get your support pieces melted away, but it's possible to win nonetheless and "look out sir" combined with cover and occasional realm artefacts already provide enough defence.

I agree LOS for spells and unbinding should be there.  Also you shouldn't be able to cast at a target if a target is within 3" of you (just like shooting).

Also I'd like to see better LOS rules so you can't shoot through a unit so easily.  It makes placement  a lot less interesting 

[TimM85]

14 minutes ago, XReN said:

I'd like to have silhouettes being a thing, so there won't be any "my helmet spikes can see the top of your banner, your unit is doomed" thing, I usually play it with some common sense, but some people will play it in less... appealing way. And not neccesserily LoS-blocking other units just because it will rob IDK of their special feature. Also LoS requirement to unbind spells should be returned. The cover shouldn't get any changes just because it will punish occasional shooting units in more well-rounded armies/lists than balance heavy shooting, I know it's god awfull to get your support pieces melted away, but it's possible to win nonetheless and "look out sir" combined with cover and occasional realm artefacts already provide enough defence.

Needing Los for unbinds would mean you would then in turn need Los for spells and they are now already overshadowed by prayers. Magic maybe setup for another thread I do feel it gets the short end of the stick though. The cover I was asking for was more clarity on what counts as cover what doesn't. In the old days cover counted if 50% of the model was cover wheres the line? just some clarity on terrain terrain pieces.

[TimM85]

11 minutes ago, Skipsalajan said:

I love los just as it is. Aos does not need more rules. It is bloated enough

Why do you say that?

They bloat comes from the battle tomes, the core and GHB have glaring missing sections, such as what counts as cover, true LOS meaning you can see through a tiny hole in your plague furnace and every guy gets to shoot?

[Skipsalajan]

Yea, it's simplified. It's a rule where you never have to argue. This is good for the game.

[mmimzie]

Any LoS rules should be simple. I like how the endless spells are a simple line interrupted by the model in the middle. 

 

Maybe its not realistic, but im.not playing a real life reactment, and i always pictured the players as general looking over a tactical map, and not players being gods moving  actual models to their actual position. 

 

So anything super simple. It's why i like the current cover. Are you in or next to it completely?? Yes/no. While not super accurate. It's quick and simple. 

 

Dont my me crouch on my knees or bend over backward to see a models line of sight. 

[Dead Scribe]

Honestly as much as I'd prefer more realistic rules, leave that for the other games.  The AOS camp is strongly abstraction-based, and thats what sets AOS apart.

[RuneBrush]

Although I agree completely with the necessity of keeping things simple (or perhaps more accurately straightforward), it would be nice to have a couple of tweaks here and there to just improve some of the ridiculous things you hear - "I can shoot them because I can see a sword from one model".  My own opinion too is that cover needs to make you harder to hit rather than improve an armour save (but I did grow up on playing Necromunda).

I do also think the rules as they are have created an air of laziness - a couple of games I've had to ask my opponent to check that a unit can actually see a hero model when it's hidden behind other ones (spoiler alert, they couldn't).  There's just an assumption that ranged units can target anything within their range unless it's parked behind a large piece of terrain.

That said GW have also been quite upfront with saying that they've never been particularly happy with the way terrain rules work in both AoS and 40k, and open to suggestions on how to improve them without slowing the game down.

[Beliman]

If your army uses ranged fire to support other melee/magic units, then you will not care (you will just kill less in your "support" phase). If your army is 100% focused in ranged units (or 80/20) like Kharadrons Overlords... 

Ranged armies are already handicapped (less phases to do damage, look out sir, LoS, Obstacles giving +1 saves, etc...), and they usually have some inner downsides (low movement, low melee damage, low defense, etc...). 

I really hope to see a rework for KO. Give them more tricks!! Barak-Zon charges should be devastating! Barak-Nar should destroy magic! Mhornar should be all about surprise attacks and make ships better in the Zilfin lists (and I mean, "better" than being an alpha-strike tax). Sorry for the rant.

[TimM85]

47 minutes ago, Beliman said:

If your army uses ranged fire to support other melee/magic units, then you will not care (you will just kill less in your "support" phase). If your army is 100% focused in ranged units (or 80/20) like Kharadrons Overlords... 

Ranged armies are already handicapped (less phases to do damage, look out sir, LoS, Obstacles giving +1 saves, etc...), and they usually have some inner downsides (low movement, low melee damage, low defense, etc...). 

I really hope to see a rework for KO. Give them more tricks!! Barak-Zon charges should be devastating! Barak-Nar should destroy magic! Mhornar should be all about surprise attacks and make ships better in the Zilfin lists (and I mean, "better" than being an alpha-strike tax). Sorry for the rant.

Yeah they are really overdue an update and a really cool army, would in your opinion though more clarification on what counts as cover and what doesn't be more helpful to the game. Maybe like the old way that 25% covered does not count as cover just because its on a terrain piece? and 50% or more counted as cover, but also including that a model is in cover if it is 50% blocked even if it is not within the terrain piece. I just feel there is not clear guidelines on what is and isn't cover.

[Beliman]

4 minutes ago, TimM85 said:

Yeah they are really overdue an update and a really cool army, would in your opinion though more clarification on what counts as cover and what doesn't be more helpful to the game. Maybe like the old way that 25% covered does not count as cover just because its on a terrain piece? and 50% or more counted as cover, but also including that a model is in cover if it is 50% blocked even if it is not within the terrain piece. I just feel there is not clear guidelines on what is and isn't cover.

There are two points in this argument:
First point is about the "Cover Bonus".  Cover is given by two sources: 1) Your unit is "wholly within or wholly on" a terrain feature and 2) If all your models in that unit are within 1" from a terrain feature that have the Obstacle ability (there are other abilities that can give cover too, but that's more about warscrolls than core mechanics).

Segond point is about LoS. If I remember correctly, LoS is just about who can be a legal target. 

Imho, the only problem about this writting is in the second point. I understand that true LoS can become the focus of some discussions, but I'm not sure that giving cover to how much of the miniature you can see will fix the problem. 

[JPjr]

for me the most egregious and probably easiest to fix (though it still adds extra layers of complexity) is the whole 'half a model from a unit is peaking out from behind a wall, we can shoot the entire unit' aspect. that I'd love them to look at, but even there where it feels like there are easy fixes it will still be a pain to get right and keep the game moving fast, and of course also dealing with the knock on consequences for both shooting and melee that would come out of this.

as for actual LoS with models it's clearly a nightmare in a game where modifying your models is not only permitted but encouraged and held up as one of the key pillars of the hobby.

it's utterly ridiculous but almost the only thing I can think of that might just work would be for someone (well GW) to produce a set of 'domes' for each base size that represents the 3D zone, as it were, that something on a base of that size occupies (with the idea being that people/things aren't static so they don't just occupy the exact physical space their model takes up).

then if you need to check you just quickly replace the model with the 'dome' and you have an easier template to go by. now obviously this is a ****** solution, and even in the few seconds it took me to think it up and type it out I've already thought of several objections, caveats and even specific models where this wouldn't work but hey I'm not being paid to come up with solutions so there you go.

personally though I would love it if they did figure something out to make it both work better as (again complicating the game further so obviously a no-no) you could interest more elements that would make positioning, movement, use of terrain etc much more interesting and open up lots more tactical options (so the option for units to crouch for example, halving their 'dome' height' but also significantly reducing their movement for example).

 

[Frowny]

My easiest suggestion:

Keep everything as it is except make all LOS measured in 2D Projection on to the board. And then have players define at the start of a game whether each piece of terrain blocks line of sight or not. 

Then you are just seeing if part of the base is obstructed, rather than part of the model. Its in fact simpler to do than trying out laser pointers, and immediately gets rid of the 'I can see 1 speartip and shoot your whole squad' moment. Also allows for abstract scenery (forest bases blocking line of site even if they are somewhat open for gaming purposes.

If they wanted they could add rules for partial obstruction or blocking by other models with big squads or whatnot, but it isn't necessary, and would be a very easy fix. They already do this for the sylvaneth woods and it is very easy and functional. I think it would work fine with vertical terrain too.

[XReN]

 

23 minutes ago, JPjr said:

for me the most egregious and probably easiest to fix (though it still adds extra layers of complexity) is the whole 'half a model from a unit is peaking out from behind a wall, we can shoot the entire unit' aspect. that I'd love them to look at, but even there where it feels like there are easy fixes it will still be a pain to get right and keep the game moving fast, and of course also dealing with the knock on consequences for both shooting and melee that would come out of this.

That was the case in 40k previously (you could only kill those models you have LoS to), that would be a game changer, there is so much shenanigans that can be done with such a rule

21 minutes ago, JPjr said:

it's utterly ridiculous but almost the only thing I can think of that might just work would be for someone (well GW) to produce a set of 'domes' for each base size that represents the 3D zone, as it were, that something on a base of that size occupies (with the idea being that people/things aren't static so they don't just occupy the exact physical space their model takes up).

then if you need to check you just quickly replace the model with the 'dome' and you have an easier template to go by. now obviously this is a ****** solution, and even in the few seconds it took me to think it up and type it out I've already thought of several objections, caveats and even specific models where this wouldn't work but hey I'm not being paid to come up with solutions so there you go.

personally though I would love it if they did figure something out to make it both work better as (again complicating the game further so obviously a no-no) you could interest more elements that would make positioning, movement, use of terrain etc much more interesting and open up lots more tactical options (so the option for units to crouch for example, halving their 'dome' height' but also significantly reducing their movement for example).

It's called silhouettes and is used in Infiniti (only instead of domes it is a rectangle), this is by far the best solution to both los and conversions you can have in a wargame with 3D terrain.

[JPjr]

21 minutes ago, XReN said:

It's called silhouettes and is used in Infiniti (only instead of domes it is a rectangle), this is by far the best solution to both los and conversions you can have in a wargame with 3D terrain.

ah interesting, often meant to look at that ruleset but never found the time, I figured there would be some solutions out there. nice.

[chord]

5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I do also think the rules as they are have created an air of laziness - a couple of games I've had to ask my opponent to check that a unit can actually see a hero model when it's hidden behind other ones (spoiler alert, they couldn't).  There's just an assumption that ranged units can target anything within their range unless it's parked behind a large piece of terrain

I've noticed this as well,  they also need to check each model can see the unit being targeted.   I think improving the LOS (or just following the ones we have now)  will make placement more strategic

[Dead Scribe]

It is important to check yes.  However with true line of sight, it is also almost always the case where you can see some part of the target model which is where that laziness comes into play.

[TheCovenLord]

I prefer the warmahordes approach to this. Base size indicates a fixed cylinder of space the model theoretically occupies and it is this cylinder that is measured when checking to see if the model is visible or not. Models above a certain base size can always be spotted as they are beyond massive. 

 

 

True line of sight unfortunately rewards laziness, generates arguments on what constitutes being visible and attempts at modeling  advantage abuse (intentionally and unintentionally) which is detrimental for competitive players (posing for advantage) as well as casual players (discouraging thematic modeling opportunities ex: skeletons rising from the grave etc.)

[Battlefury]

Infinity did it pretty well for me::

Base indicates the outer silhouette of a model, that is supposed to being in move anywhere on is base. The hight of that model is determined by a certain characteristic. Bases block the sight to bases, that are behind it. A unit is only visible, if you can see a part of it that's at least 3mm big ( size of a head ), arms, legs and equipment doesn't give sight to the model.
It is in cover, who touches a terrain object with its base and is at least partially covered by it, looking from the active shooter. At least 51% of a unit have to be in cover to gain cover for that unit.

No shooting through tiny little holes or even between the legs of a model.

[Lucur]

I prefer some stupid instances of gamey-ness to oblong discussions about the grad of visibility of units. I really rather bite the bullet there. Then again, tip of the bow to heel of the boot shooting does suck in a big way and people pulling that stuff should be shunned