Cover and Los, Your opinions please.

[sal4m4nd3r]

Perhaps if a unit is wholly WITHIN or ON a terrain feature it should confer the +1 save. But perhaps if the entire unit is BEHIND the terrain feature from the point of view of the shooting unit, it should confer a -1 to hit penalty. 

[Dreadmund]

I never really minded the whole "if you can see a heel or a sword tip you can shoot" thing. Arrows arc in the air, they don't shoot straight like a laserbeam. Also, archers weren't usually picking off specific targets like legolas. They would just blanket an area with arrows and the enemy would find it very difficult to avoid. You can make the case for a difference between units and heroes aiming, but man lets not bloat this any more than we need to.

That being said, if the target is obscured you should shoot with a penalty. I'd say a rule like "If a 1mm line drawn between the shooter and the target crosses over any part of a piece of terrain which is closer to the target unit than the shooting unit, you get a penalty to your hit roll." I definitely don't want to be faffing around with anything too complicated. It's hard enough to finish a game within the time limit as it is for lots of armies. This would let units use terrain as cover, while still being able to shoot out and it should be fairly quick and easy to tell how many models in a unit are shooting with a disadvantage using only a tape measure or a range stick.

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

Perhaps if a unit is wholly WITHIN or ON a terrain feature it should confer the +1 save. But perhaps if the entire unit is BEHIND the terrain feature from the point of view of the shooting unit, it should confer a -1 to hit penalty. 

That's a good point. All terrains with Obstacle chracteristic already give you +1 saves if all the models are within 1". Maybe this rules could be generic for all fences, walls, etc.. that don't have any warscroll?
Maybe switch +1 save to -1 hit and make that only happens if the obstacle is between both units? Just use 1mm lines between any base of the units and see if it crosses any Obstacle.

[Frowny]

This is exactly what I was talking about with 2d projections. Way way better than any kind of line of sight thing. Also much easier to measure

 

[Redmanphill]

I think the solution to this is really simple, improve your terrain collection! Get pieces into it that actually block line of sight. Then there is no need for convoluted rules systems.

[Kramer]

50 minutes ago, Redmanphill said:

I think the solution to this is really simple, improve your terrain collection! Get pieces into it that actually block line of sight. Then there is no need for convoluted rules systems.

Unless it’s a foot high wall that stretches from on side to the other the arguments still happen. One model in sight can I do more than 1 model worth of damage? 

But I do get your point and people should spend more time and thought on terrain in my mind. The walls from the azyrite ruins set are great for example but it won’t effect shooting and line of sight much. Still most likely get the realm of battle set at one point. 

[Dead Scribe]

Very little of GW's terrain kits block line of sight fully.  You'd need to construct your own terrain in a lot of cases to do that, and your ability to successfully implement that will depend on your group.  In my group, scratch built terrain to block line of sight is the same as modeling for advantage and would not be allowed.

If its not a GW kit, its frowned upon.

[Redmanphill]

The Azyrite Townscape offers some rather solid walls. On top of that there are the Stormvault pieces that block LOS at least to a certain height. I don't mind a giant being able to see over these things while a goblin can't.

[TimM85]

On 9/24/2019 at 1:00 PM, Redmanphill said:

I think the solution to this is really simple, improve your terrain collection! Get pieces into it that actually block line of sight. Then there is no need for convoluted rules systems.

Its funny you should say that but I do have 6 tables worth of terrain and then the club can cover well over 50 tables worth, the biggest issue for me is if you are behind a terrain piece surely you should be in cover, if your in it surely you should be in cover but what does and doesn't count as cover is not clarified in any way in the rules.

[Beliman]

21 hours ago, TimM85 said:

Its funny you should say that but I do have 6 tables worth of terrain and then the club can cover well over 50 tables worth, the biggest issue for me is if you are behind a terrain piece surely you should be in cover, if your in it surely you should be in cover but what does and doesn't count as cover is not clarified in any way in the rules.

I don't see any problem with the cover rules.

I think there is a general misunderstanding in the whole concept of LOS and cover: LOS is just about what is a legal target and what is not. Cover has nothing to do with that.

You have cover if your unit has all models on or within a terrain piece. Of course there are other generic options to have cover (being 1" with all your models near an Obstacle terrain or garrisoning a castle or whatever) and even some warscrolls can give that to other units (Ex.: Protectors). 

If we are talking about giving +1save/-1 hit with a new type of mechanics (LOS in this case), then I'm not sure if it's necessary for the game (ranged armies are not that strong btw...).

Edited September 29, 2019 by Beliman

[Ksym77]

Instead of line of sight they could include vertical distance in range checks - possibly measuring between the closest models to see if they are within range at all, then checking the furthest models and applying a hit penalty depending on how far out of range they are. Intervening models could also add range based on their base size.