How do you guys treat True Line of Sight?

[Sleboda]

The statement "forests block LoS" is indeed a complication and does in fact require additional clarification. 

It's good that you don't play infinitely tall, as that was a thing many people house ruled in days gone by.

The things is,  if you are saying shooters can see what they see over the trees, then you are still using the actual trees that are present to determine vertical LoS, but not for horizontal. Actually, you may be using some horizontal still. More questions come up.  Two tall trees in this blocking forest. I cannot see between them straight ahead, but I can between the tippy tops? No? So the forest really is as tall as the tallest tree, requiring me to ignore what I see over a shorter one? No? Then where does the forest stop vertically across its entire horizontal-ness?

I get that your group just sorta "knows" what the rule means,  but a new player in your group would not.  On the orher hand,  we can all understand the true LoS in the 4-pager, even if some don't care for it. 

 

Another bit (mods - how do I add quotes in an edit?) "".  Its that the concept of being able to shoot through forest after forest and into a group of guys to hit the hero is ludicrously stupid"

To me,  this thought perfectly highlights a point I made earlier. I think some players are making assumptions that are not present and not really needed.  It's not shooting through forest after forest, not any more than a hut is somehow actually representing a collection of 9 buildings.  It is what you see - a small wooded area, which is just a few trees.

When we just play what we see instead of imagining something more grand, the rules fall into place much better. 

Oh! Curiosity! Do folks here (especially the old farts like me)  imagine that our model soldier is actually 10 men? That old historical concept of unit scale that has not been in Warhamner since 4th ed?

If so,  that would explain a lot. 

Let me be clear since this is the internet - I'm not having a go at anyone.  I'm just using a discussion forum to discuss. Nothing I have said here is in heat, irritation, or other combative tone.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Sleboda

[KHHaunts]

On 04/04/2017 at 3:27 PM, KnightFire said:

But Age of Sigmar isn't trying to be a simulation of a battle, its a game. The forests have rules, and you just play the rules, without trying to extrapolate that into real life (or fantastical life). 

The forests don't have any undergrowth that affects anything. What they have is trees, which block where you can stand, and to a small extent, what you can see.

 

The same applies for line of sight - its not trying to simulate anything, its a rule for playing a game. If you don't like it then play something different with your friends, and if you don't want to play in events that use it that way then run your own events with your rules.

Id agree with the sentiment.

However i wouldsay that its not always to do with the realism. As some people have mentioned why bother having nice scenary at all if its serves no purpose.

For me its not a realism thing its part of the games tactical appeal. If i have some uber fast glass cannon Aelves i want to be able to hop them from cover to cover concealing them from ranged units to try and pounce.

My view isent "well if they were really behind that wall they would be crouching so you wouldnt be able to see that Aelves ponytail to shoot it!"

Its simply that it take away from a great element of the game that if they are going to have at all they may as well do it well.

I dont personally like the shooting into out of combat thing with no penalties or limitations.

But.

They have been very clear with that mechanic (Not the rule. as the rule for LOS is clear also) but as far as that game mechanic goes its "clean" .

There is no mechanic for close quarters shooting. End of. If they had said " have a look at your model if the enemies weapon is x away from the shooting model it cant shoot etc etc" that would be the same problem.

Put simply Either have a decent, realistic and tatically appealing rule for LOS or dont have anything and eliminate it from the game all together.

[wayniac]

WHFB had that old "one model is 10 men" stuff leftover from historical.  AOS is not.  The LOS rules are still IMHO the most lazy way possible and I 100% agree it ruins immersion because suddenly everyone is a sniper who can shoot a character past some trees, past a unit or two, to hit a guy.  Sometimes tells me that did not often happen in actual battles.

The problem is the rule is beyond lazy.  It's essentially saying "We didn't want to bother to come up with actual rules for this, so there are none".  It could have used abstract LOS like other games, it could have had forests block LOS through (not into) them like other games, or a myriad of other things.  Instead it's the absolute most half-assed way of doing it, and it benefits just enough armies in the game that arguing to change it gets a lot of complaints from people who want to take advantage of it versus those who are being taken advantage of.

[Sleboda]

41 minutes ago, KHHaunts said:

If i have some uber fast glass cannon Aelves i want to be able to hop them from cover to cover concealing them from ranged units to try and pounce.

Maybe this is why we haven't seen elves yet!  They are trying to give them rules that capture their flitty nature while using the system they have produced.  ?

[Bradifer]

I've never played WHFB, but I like the Forests blocking LOS terrain.

And really you can both agree, point a terrain piece, and say "that is a forest". Put one tree on it if you like, as long as you agree.

For clarification and simplicity purposes, I would say something like "Forests block LOS 100%, except for Behemoths. Behemoths can be targetted as normal."

Tree's aren't infinitely tall, and giant fat Maw-Krushas are still easy to hit.

Behemoths don't benefit from terrain cover, nor do they benefit from tree LOS.

The other way to rule it, as that the "Forest Trees are infinitely tall, and just say they always block LOS." Maw Krusha is big and all, but seem trees are thousands of years old, and are much bigger than a house sized dragon, they're as tall as 20 houses.

^On of these actually sounds like a really fun rule I may see if my group wants to integrate it.

[Sleboda]

I just had a thought on why this system works. I think the open nature and simplicity cover almost everything without the need for specific rules. We see it in things like flank and rear attack. At first, people lamented the loss of +1 or +2 to "combat rez" until they saw how the weapon reach and piling in mechanic allowed smart players to create the advantage though their play.

Another example came up when I was talking about buildings with a new player. She wanted to get inside a house with a unit and claim cover. She could not since there are no rules for "buildings" in the game. We saw some war scrolls for things like chapels, but not for generic houses.

After discussion, we realized that if the model had a removable roof, the AoS rules had us covered (pun intended). She could place the models inside the house by moving them through an open door if they fit, place the models physically where they needed to be, and then use the cover rules. Simple!

And model-based.

No need to invent or abstract. All there by treating all models on the table as models and applying the relevant bits of the 4-pager.

It again comes down to selection of models - soldiers and terrain both.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Sleboda

[Tokyo Nift]

16 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I just had a thought on why this system works. I think the open nature and simplicity cover almost everything without the need for specific rules. We see it in things like flank and rear attack. at first, people lamented the loss of +1 or +2 to "combat rez" until they saw how the weapon reach and piling in mechanic allowed smart players to create the advantage though their play.

Another example came up when I was talking about buildings with a new player. She wanted to get inside a house with a unit and claim cover. She could not since there are no rules for "buildings" in the game. We saw some war scrolls for things like chapels, but not for generic houses.

 

There is also a warscroll for "watchtower" which is basically just a 4 sided building you can garrison inside of. But I enjoyed your story nonetheless

[AGPO]

As someone who is a modeller first, gamer second, I instinctively dislike any rule which disincentivises dramatic posing and scenic bases. For me this is why this type of rules question will always come down to player discretion.

As a narrative gamer I like to fill in the blanks, so I'm not moving my character 5" up to that terrain piece,  he's running forward before taking cover behind that bolder and there's no way he holds the same pose as the model throughout the entire battle. For this reason my group plays 50% obscured = cover, 75% obscured = not visible, with players being sensible and a roll of if we can't agree. Likewise since 2-4 trees doesn't constitute a garden, much less a wood,  we prefer to imagine minis moving through thick, sentient undergrowth which my attack at any moment. For this reason, woods block like of site to those behind them and give cover to those inside. 

Another point about area terrain is that it spoofs players taking ages to exactly place their model to get the benefits of cover. 

[Sleboda]

8 hours ago, AGPO said:

For this reason my group plays 50% obscured = cover, 75% obscured = not visible,

Just curious-  How do you resolve debates over was is and is not 50% or 75%? Models don't tend to neatly divide up by area/volume. 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Sleboda

[SadGlad]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Just curious-  How do you resolve debates over was is and is not 50% or 75%? Models don't tend to neatly divide up by area/volume. 

He says they roll for it.

 

I like the discussion in this thread. Very interesting ?

Edited April 7, 2017 by SadGlad

[Sleboda]

Ah.  It seems I cannot read.

Sorry.

[KnightFire]

Id agree with the sentiment.
However i wouldsay that its not always to do with the realism. As some people have mentioned why bother having nice scenary at all if its serves no purpose.

The same reason we paint the models, to make it look pretty, although scenery does have an impact on the game, it can be damned, mystical etc. It doesn't need more rules.

Aos is great because of its simplicity. Most players don't want to go back to the rules hell of 8th.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Jamopower]

6 hours ago, KnightFire said:

The same reason we paint the models, to make it look pretty, although scenery does have an impact on the game, it can be damned, mystical etc. It doesn't need more rules.

Aos is great because of its simplicity. Most players don't want to go back to the rules hell of 8th.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

Well the rules concerning terrain and los in AoS are almost the same as in 8th edition. So in that sense there shouldn't be fear.

[Fungrim]

I think this has probably already been said comprehensively in this thread, but I think terrain has taken a very different route now from oldhammer. It's less to do with what it actually is and what shape/size/feature it manifests as on the table, but more to do with what type of terrain it's been rolled as (mystical, deadly etc). Rolling for terrain is both terrifying and exciting, as it can dictate so much - you've not even started playing yet and dice-rolls are rocking the cradle.

I admit, it can be a bit annoying when a bunch of Kurnoths shoot you from the opposite end of the board, through 4 or 5 Citadel woods that your opponent conveniently didn't fix the leaves to... but the meta is a lot less to do with 'can you hide from your opponent', and a lot more to do with 'can you tactically manage who your opponent shoots at, and still respond adequately' etc.

LOS creeps up again with spells, often because wizards are smaller than shooters or artillery. But again, this comes back to the fact that although AoS may only be 4 pages of rules, it's incredibly tactical, and very punishing if you make mistakes (which is a good thing!).

Edited April 11, 2017 by Fungrim

[Popisdead]

I treat it as "half a sword/spear tip, banner pole, etc", those don't count cause you can abuse that.

I expect head to head sort of sight.  

It literally came up last game with setra on one side of a Temple of Skulls and his caster on the other.  "I can see the top of the banner pole so i can see him" to which I responded "great, I'm going to make all my standard bearers have 48" high standards so they can always have Mystic Shield cast on the unit"

Arguments like this always come down to being reasonable.  

[Vaz84]

We have had some discussion in one of the group I play with.

The argument basically boils down to character sniping. Some people favor a character being able to sit inside, or behind a unit of comparable sized models, or one size higher. So infantry on 32mm's block 40mm character. 40mm infantry block up to 50mm characters. And so on. So far it's been working.

[FRoper]

My group play it as, you can only target those who you can see at least half the model of, excluding weapons. With this rule it is easier to hide characters and so it is nicer to play armies such as death infantry, where the buffs are required.

[Scythian]

I’ve found this topic to be a non-issue where I game. Most gamers where I game just work it out. In other cases, there are some people that are willing to let things slide because they don’t want to lose an opponent for future games. Especially if they live in an area where players are hard to come by. Bottom line, be a decent person and be reasonable. Our group has a great deal of veteran gamers, and we occasionally have to quell animosity among the teens and twenty-somethings. A strong gaming community often is the key to playing respectfully and promoting fair play. 

[Sheriff]

Whats the rules on this for tournaments, generally? Can shoot at spears and feathers? Just want to know what to expect, not what people wish the rules were. 

[Menkeroth]

Tournaments already use lots of house rules, so it's irrelevant as such. They are as far from AoS as it is as it was back in the day with ETC and WHFB.

[cxiv]

As far as the whole terrain rules/LOS rules... am I the only one that doesn't do mystical terrain?

[RuneBrush]

12 hours ago, cxiv said:

As far as the whole terrain rules/LOS rules... am I the only one that doesn't do mystical terrain?

Lol, not at all

[Aegisgrimm]

Now, granted I am not using the actual AoS rules (I am using an indie set called One Page Rules to play "Age of Fantasy" at  my home) but I guess I don't have to worry about any issues with my  house rules which have forests blocking line of sight to units behind them, as I use trees that are 6-8 inches tall, and none of the models that see action on my table are tall enough to be seen over that, other than maybe the wingtips of a couple of old metal WHFB dragons.

My forests are modular with individually based trees, we just imagine there is tons of unseen undergrowth in amongst them that can't be accurately represented/modelled at 28mm scale unless you are making super-dense jungle stands with aquarium plants..  Its not like 99% of any of the trees on any table out there are big enough to be anything more than saplings, anyway, other than the GW ones and I don't see the point in a section of forest terrain being so ludicrously sparse as to not even require True LoS anyway, as its like a trio of columns sticking out of the ground.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Aegisgrimm

[mkultra]

my rule is: for grenades and other splash weapons, use tlos, but only use sight to a woundable part for guns and spells and such.

[AaronWilson]

Late to the conversation but I have always played LoS true to the rulebook. Trying to make it anything else than true LoS can get really awkard, and although true LoS can feel extremely abstract in some situations, it is far easier to just apply it in all situations rather.