How do you guys treat True Line of Sight?

[Jamopower]

 

28 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Thanks.  I'm still not seeing the issue,  though. I can clearly see where the trees are in your photo. What is the difficulty being presented that I'm missing? 

By "rooting the trees on spot" the forest would essentially be impassable terrain as you could not fit anything there. Or you xould just put few trees on a cloth an say it's a forest, resulting in to very bland looking table. Note to the picture below, about half of the trees are taken on side as there are models in the forests.

I can see that there are two totally opposite mindsets here. So maybe it's not worth to argue.

As a general thing about terrain. It's something that needs almost always bit of hoise ruling, no matter the game, as general rules are very hard to write for something that can be only limited by the imagination (and skills) of the hobbyists and as noted here, there might be varying views what it represents on the tabletop and how.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jamopower

[Sleboda]

Well, dunno 'bout you,  but I'm not arguing. 

I really couldn't see how one would be unable to track the position of a tree when it's right there to see. 

Now I see that you're not really trying to track the tree where it is,  you are either trying to remember where it was before you moved it out trying to imagine how trees and soldiers can intermingle in the area of the woods.

 

If we disagree,  it's at a higher level.  My position is that all the models in the game represent the thing you see,  which makes all the rules in the 4-pager flow just as presented.  Yours is that some models are what they are,  but others are stand ins for something else,  and thus there is a need to invent or change rules so that the visual in your mind can be accomodated. Totally fine, of course,  but we're not really discussing the same game at that point. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Sleboda

[Jamopower]

Yes, I agree on that. I guess it's my roleplaying background that I find to keep miniature games "just as games".

[RuneBrush]

I think some of the question is that 40k and the plethora of other games GW have released has set a precedence on how to interpret true line of sight to keep it simple and easy.  A lot of us have simply gone "that's how GW are expecting us to interpret it", whereas there are also a portion of people who have said that the rules state a model in a unit must be visible.  I don't think it's worth a massive debate/argument as I think both sides are equally valid.

From a thematic point of view, I believe that the majority of the model must be visible - banners, cloaks, weapons aren't valid targets (ask anybody who has ever done reenactment or LARP).

However, most importantly it's the choice of how the players wish to interpret it - it doesn't need a house rule, just a bit of communication.  The first time in a game it occurs you just need to speak to your opponent and ask "are you happy that they can see that unit?"

[Vasshpit]

I do find it silly that a hero can be sniped 5 models deep but for sake of simplicity I understand.

Id like a simple mechanic along the lines of using a ranged weapons rend Stat as a measurement for penetration.

Example: Judicator bow has rend -1 so that would allow you to penatrate one row of models from afar.

It keeps it simple and doesn't add a whole lot more to the rules while making the general game more tactical.

Just an opinion.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Vasshpit

[Sleboda]

29 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

Example: Judicator bow has rend -1 so that would allow you to penatrate one row of models from afar.

Define "row" in a skirmish game where models are perfectly fine in a cloud.  Now do that in a sentence or two. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Sleboda

[Vasshpit]

Ok, what I mean is models in front of said model you are trying to snipe.

Of course with a lot of AoS rules some common sense would be applied.

NNot saying this a fix all, just a suggestion.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Vasshpit

[Squirrelmaster]

"In front of" would not only be very hard to define, but very difficult to just "common sense" in many cases.

You could measure a straight line from each firing model to a single target model (chosen by the attacker, I guess?) (since normally you target a unit, not a model), and then see how many other models that line "passes over". That would be easy enough to write, but a pain in the neck to put into practice when dealing with unit-to-unit shooting. (Especially since you could then fire through the gaps between models in a unit.)

It would also be possible/make sense to talk about that line passing over an intervening unit, including the gaps between models, and you could potentially rule that each intervening unit gives +1 save to the models behind or some such (in fact I believe there's already a Stormcast unit that works this way?). But deciding how many "rows" that unit has would be extremely difficult to do, without invoking some very complicated wording.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Squirrelmaster

[Jamopower]

41 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

 

It would also be possible/make sense to talk about that line passing over an intervening unit, including the gaps between models, and you could potentially rule that each intervening unit gives +1 save to the models behind or some such (in fact I believe there's already a Stormcast unit that works this way?). But deciding how many "rows" that unit has would be extremely difficult to do, without invoking some very complicated wording.

This is how it used to be in 40k back in the day and it worked fine, except that the units totally blocked los to same size models.

I would compare that kind of los to measuring from bases instead of model, it's more or less the same thing as you use the space occupied by the model instead of the actual model for determining the distance or los. But as I also mentioned before, it would be better if the models  had size charasteristics (so that e.g. swarms and grots would be size 1, normal humanoids size 2, ogres size 3 and Nagash size 10).

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jamopower

[chord]

4 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

 

I would compare that kind of los to measuring from bases instead of model, it's more or less the same thing as you use the space occupied by the model instead of the actual model for determining the distance or los. But as I also mentioned before, it would be better if the models  had size charasteristics (so that e.g. swarms and grots would be size 1, normal humanoids size 2, ogres size 3 and Nagash size 10).

Hmm I think you are on to something.  Measuring from Base to Base has been almost fully adopted for combat, spells/abilities and shooting.  Why not just adapt it so if you can't reach from your shooting unit to the target without crossing another base, then you can't shoot them?  Keeps the rules simple, and goes along with base to base

[Bradifer]

Much like the debate to reduce shooting effectiveness while shooting units are in combat, I think simplicity is key.

My idea for shooting in combat was "If Shooting unit is in combat i.e. within 3" of an enemy, it makes -1 to hit with its shooting attacks."

Another idea was to give shooting a minimum range i.e. 3" for certain weapons like bows, but give certain weapons a minimum range of -" such as hand pistols and throwing axes.

---on topic---

I wouldn't want to impose too much -1 to hit in a game as it can be one sided and devastating.

I would prefer to give units a cover save a la 40K. A blatant simple cover save.

If there is terrain or units in front of the model attempting to be shot it gets +1 to save. Shooting units may bypass this rule by having a special rule on their warscroll. Alternatively, units may choose to use terrain to gain a height advantage any bypass the rule, but that's adding more rules to the game and more options for interpretation.

I think if they want heroes to survive, they should give more heroes a shooting and magic Look-Out-Sire with something high like a 4+ or 5+.

That many rules tacked against shooting seriously alters a metagame but allows for plenty of diversity as well.

And I think we all wish heroes were more survivable, particularly vs. shooting armies (Kurnoth, Skyfires, Dwarven/free people guns/artillery, Skyre stuff, Warp Lightning Cannons, Thundertusks).

[Turragor]

I think this is just another 'I don't like shooting' thread now?

Edited April 5, 2017 by Turragor

[Galas]

5 hours ago, Turragor said:

I think this is just another 'I don't like shooting' thread now?

We are all Khorne cultists now!!!!

[Squirrelmaster]

I guess it's a question of how complicated you want to make the rules, and what you are hoping to accomplish. Is this about making terrain more relevant? Making lone non-monster characters more viable? Making positioning more important against shooting? Improving "realism"? Nerfing shooting in general?

[Jamopower]

I don't have anything against shooting as such, but having bit more refined los system and maybe a possibility to somehow influence what models the opponent can shoot, by having some kind of restrictions on shooting while within 3" of enemy, could add bit more tactics in it. As even though you get double the turns to beat enemy in close combat, you also get hit yourself there, lose some turns getting there and need to be in close proximity of enemies to beat them, which makes shooting potentially very powerful in this system. 

My concerns on the los however is more about making the terrain more relevant and improving "realism", with added benefit of making the shooting bit less point and click.

 

Still, I'm ok with the basic system, it's easy and fast and the details can easily be agreed between players.

[wayniac]

I hate True Line of Sight for exactly what the OP said.  It makes most terrain (especially most of the GW pieces) absolutely useless because they don't block anything.  You can shoot a character standing behind two forests and behind three units, with absolutely no penalty.  Yes, I'm bitter about it.  It makes for IMHO a very unfun game.

The worst part is I don't have a good way to fix it, because my group wants to play as close to "pure" as possible, so as much as I'd like to house rule you can't see through forests as though they aren't there, it would be met with resistance.  I think, honestly, true LOS is the laziest way to have ruled it, and infinitely wish it worked like in Warmahordes where you can do crazier things (shooting at angles) but with a lot less "Oh I see part of your model so I can shoot him" kind of nonsense.

The bigger thing though, is that since most people I play with don't use terrain rules anyways (I actually see very few people who play with the terrain rules, let alone the actual special rules that certain terrain pieces have), the terrain ends up being just visual but not actually doing anything (except maybe make it so you have to move a model around it, instead of just past it).  It's the opposite to the normal complaint I see about Warmahordes from GW players, in that the terrain rules matter a lot, but as a result have to be visually unappealing (e.g. flat 2D terrain)

Edited April 5, 2017 by wayniac

[Bradifer]

I suppose everyone has different goals in mind. I don't hate shooting, but I think it's a bit of an eyeroll when it is unrealistically accurate at sniping a model with a hat on surrounded by men without hats on, at ~30" range. Primarily because the lax rules means there is a lack of counterplay.

My hero standing out in the open and dies? My fault.

My Hero standing behind 3 ranks of soldiers, in a forest and dies just as easily? GW's fault.

Are Shooting units supposed to be hero snipers or ranged volleys? Give them a choice to pick between the two i.e. Longstrike Crossbows vs. Hurricane Crossbows or other rules.

My goals are for

• The rules to matter i.e. there is an impact, adds diversity to the game via player skill, army composition, and terrain diversity vs. no terrain.
• The rules to be very clear and concise (not interpreting 25/50/75 % model showing).
• The effects be very consistent/flat number changes or yes/no's.

Examples 

• I.e. Is the model on terrain? Yes? OK +1 Save.
• Can you see any part of the model? Yes? Ok shoot it.
• Is the model behind the base of another model? Yes? Ok +1 Save.
• Is the shooting unit within 3" of an enemy? Yes? Ok -1 to hit with shooting. (Unless warscroll says "This unit has close combat shooting" or something similar.)
• Cannons/poison breath could get an "Ignores cover bonuses from terrain/obscuring models" which is both more realistic and adds diversity among shooting warscrolls. Arrows and bullets would probably not get this.

Something like that. Even though it's not perfect, it lets players PLAY THE WARHAMMER GAME and not READ THE RULESHAMMER BOOK DURING THE GAME.

Seems GW is getting better at pushing rules in that direction, but I'm newer to GW in general.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Bradifer

[Squirrelmaster]

Honestly I still find terrain very relevant, even when all it's doing is +1 to saves for models inside it. That said, I actually put my characters in the terrain, where they do get the save, rather than putting them behind the terrain and then complaining that it offers no protection.

With that in mind, allowing my characters to claim +1 save for intervening terrain or models wouldn't really affect me, since they're already getting it.

As for some shooting units getting a penalty if enemies are within 3", we already have that — it's just down to individual warscrolls instead of being a global rule. For example, skeleton archers only get two shots each if there are at least 20 models in the unit and no enemies within 3".

There could perhaps be more warscrolls written with this type of mechanism, but I don't see any need to implement a global rule on top of the penalties that these units already have.

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, wayniac said:

most people I play with don't use terrain rules anyways (I actually see very few people who play with the terrain rules, let alone the actual special rules that certain terrain pieces have), the terrain ends up being just visual but not actually doing anything

At the risk of sounding insensitive, that's not the game's problem, it's theirs.  Folks are obviously fine to do as they please, but the system they own provides a lot of fun an interesting rules for terrain.  Download the Scenery Warscrolls.  They're neat!

Failure to create and play with an interesting/challenging battlefield is entirely on the players.

[Kosmion]

if you can (from the model´s head perspective) see either the torso or the head of the target, then its in LOS. the simplest and most logical way imo. but GW should clarify these kinds of questions in GHB2, this is a question one shouldnt have to ask about, feels pretty basic like it should be clearly written

[Rhellion]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:33 AM, chord said:

I really dislike how many handle LOS.  I see just a super tiny fraction of your weapon, thus it hits.  To me that's definitely legal but not in the spirit of the rules.

Shooting through 40 models cause I can see the tiniest fraction of your model ?

I'd love to see this updated with something saying you need a clear line of sight with no models or terrain in the way.  I think then it would make movement even more important.

To me, there is no 'spirit of the rules', either it is, or it isn't a rule.

There should not be guessing in what a rule is or isn't.

[Jamopower]

56 minutes ago, Rhellion said:

To me, there is no 'spirit of the rules', either it is, or it isn't a rule.

There should not be guessing in what a rule is or isn't.

Again, a good analogy would be measuring from bases. It's not an official rule, but widely accepted as the standard way the game is played. As the issues are more or less the same with the true los as in measuring from the model, I find it surprising that many people don't see anything wrong with that. Though I can see, that the los to imaginary volumetric cylinder needs bit more abstract thinking than measuring to the bases and is clunkier as a game mechanic. However, I think I have seen in some GHB preceeding comps something along these lines?

[DarkBlack]

1 hour ago, Rhellion said:

To me, there is no 'spirit of the rules', either it is, or it isn't a rule.

There should not be guessing in what a rule is or isn't.

Agreed. With the way GW writes rules, it's not that simple though.

[Sleboda]

49 minutes ago, Auticus said:

) forests block line of sight.  

Do you also rule they are infinitely tall? As tall as the tallest tree? Can you see over them from elevated positions?

This feels like a step backward. Not trying to damn your group's choice, just pointing out that the invention of that rule requires answers to other questions,  complicating a clean and clear rule set. 

Then there are the unintended consequences to deal with (for example, a swing in the direction of herohammer,  or the change in style of game from action filled romp to slower,  more calculated  - and less exciting - hide and skeek), but that is a bit less precise of a conversation. 

 

I dunno. The responses here indicate to me that there is still a segment of our community that is clinging to the old days and trying,  even if not as a deliberate goal, to make AoS into old Warhammer. 

[Jamopower]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I dunno. The responses here indicate to me that there is still a segment of our community that is clinging to the old days and trying,  even if not as a deliberate goal, to make AoS into old Warhammer. 

Well it would be old old warhammer then, as true los has been in the game for around 10 years, since the arrival of 8th edition. It wasn't good mechanic in 8th edition (or 9th age) either, maybe even worse with the blocks. It also was one of the main reasons for me to practically stop playing Fantasy battle back then.