How do you guys treat True Line of Sight?

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

So I had an argument with a certain someone and amongst the jewels that came the highlight (well, one of many) is this:

In the games I was watching, terrain has almost no effect. It was irrelevant most of the time because of the ridiculous true line of sight system. The guy sniped the character from across the map with his bolt thrower. didn't even bother looking down to check LOS because it's almost impossible to compeletely hide the characters: if you can see the tip of his spear, you can shoot him with the bolt thrower. The result of this was that nobody even bothered putting terrain on the table.

Please don't comment on intent or most of the content of the message, just to ilustrate the point. This made me think: what do you guys consider true line of sight? I generally say you see the model if you can spot clearly the head of it, but, I'm considering TLOS wrong?

(dunno if this should go into rules now... if it should, mods please move it!)

[BaldoBeardo]

Yeah, it's a tricky one. Most people have some version of house rule on this.
For me, weapons/cloaks/banners etc. don't count, you have to be able to see (from model's perspective) a complete limb, torso or head at least.
But grudgingly have to agree with your debating partner - due to GW's penchant for 'cool' mini design and the 4-page rules, this kind of thing will keep cropping up.
I'm a fan of the Warmachine volume model.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Carnelian]

We play the sensibly - you need to be able to see the actual body or it not, a substantial part of the model that makes sense would get hurt or affect the model. Never had an argument about it but i err on the side of caution that you cannot see it

[Turragor]

Personally I would only count the mini's base, head, arms, legs and body but I am 100% fine if others say 'no I can see his spear held aloft'.

Just my opinion but:

I dont think hiding via line of sight should play that big a part in the game at all. The models are static but are supposed to be full of movement so I dislike the idea that 'oh his pose now puts him behind that boulder so he can't be shot at all'.

What if someone models their judicators flat on the ground as if they're crawling along? They maintain their speed though.

You've seen the players who get the most from zombie units by having an arm coming out of the ground to represent a model? That's cool, thematic but being fussy with true line of sight means that zombie can hide behind a mini replica of a large carrot.

I am more a fan of the cover save bonus. This is where the statement "terrain has no effect" becomes nonsense.

That also incentivises clubs to build terrain that looks cool that models can move through instead of massive lumps of polystyrene to secure line of sight blocking for your dragon models.

 

[RuneBrush]

Agree with the general consensus (and having played 40k, Necromunda etc), you should be able to see the majority of a model in order for it to be visible.  As with all things AoS, I try to simplify it to a yes/no question with applied common sense.  Would a shot to the end of a spear cause a wound on something - erm, nope.  Would shooting the billowing cloak cause a wound on something - no to that too.  Would shooting that person in the head wound them - most certainly yes!

I think in AoS, applying common sense is really important for shooting.  If a unit is hidden with the exception of a random sword blade then the unit isn't visible.

[DeadlySarcasm]

I think the most sensible way to play is to ignore weapons/banners when judging LOS. Most people I've played with would agree that this is the best way to work the LOS rule.

But, as with anything that isn't crystal clear in the rules, always good to chat with your opponent if you aren't sure how they want to play it.

[Thebiggesthat]

39 minutes ago, Turragor said:

 

What if someone models their judicators flat on the ground as if they're crawling along? They maintain their speed though.

You've seen the players who get the most from zombie units by having an arm coming out of the ground to represent a model? That's cool, thematic but being fussy with true line of sight means that zombie can hide behind a mini replica of a large carrot.

 

 

The old 'modelling for advantage' issue. I had this in 40k when I used to play, after the first couple of games against this person, I made it clear it wasn't on. I got him to set up, then conceded 

[Jamopower]

The volumetric cylinder type thing is good, but very time consuming and not so accurate (this from a long time Infinity player). I would like to have the good old "units block los from similar size or smaller units", but that would require a size charasteritic for everything. The rules are abstracted any how, so I can't see that having a strick wysiwyg line of sight would be good in any way. Especially for terrain such as forests and hills that need to balance the playability with esthetics. That said, we typically play the forests so that they block los through, just to allow the moving and removal of individual trees to ease gaming. Typically otherwise it's case by case. If there are lots of models/other stuff in between the shooter and the target, then the los is blocked (even though you probably could see a spot of the model behind) , but if it's just a single guy, then it's not.

 

By the way, the los was main reason I didn't like 8th edition. For some reason the general consensus was that for los purposes everything was ignored, and then everyone complained how war machines are overpowered. Somehow this got in to the 9th age rules as well, although I guess it had a hit roll for cannons.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jamopower

[RossMHoward]

I know it might seem ridiculous to be able to see and shoot and kill a general because you can see the feather in his cap or his banner. But this game runs smoothly purely because of the lack of caveats. So from me:

If any part of my model can draw line of sight to any part of your model, it's legit. 

[Mortarch]

In keeping with the simple philosophy of the rule set, what I would like to see is a simple modifier applied where the full model cannot be seen.

• Can you, after stooping down, see the full model without obstruction by terrain - then resolve as normal.
• Can you not see the model at all? Then no shooting.
• Is the model partial obstructed (behind a building, behind a unit) then apply a modifier.

The cover modifier currently gives a +1 to save, however that implies that there is still the same chance of making a strike but your armor has somehow improved in value... which to me isn't thematic at all.

Therefore I would like to see firstly a change to the cover rule. Missile Cover to be -1 (Minimum) to Hit, Melee Cover to be retained as +1 to Save.

 

M

[Jamopower]

Some systems have hit modifiers for soft cover and armour modifiers for hard cover. The end effect is not so different, though the minus modifier could have some impact on the "triggers on 6+ to hit" abilities.

I would still say that the los based on size stats and 2 dimensional base coverage would still be the most simple and accurate as it doesn't require scooping on the board level.

 

[Tokyo Nift]

I think, as mentioned, AoS gets a lot of its charm from its simple ruleset, I'm not sure of how to formulate a cover rule, but I do think the game would benefit from some form of cover saves. Personally, I'd like something along the lines of if a model is ~25% obscured by other models or scenery, it gets a 5+ "ward" save, but I understand there are sensible and obvious objections to this (as there most likely are to all such rules).

[DarkBlack]

14 minutes ago, Tokyo Nift said:

I think, as mentioned, AoS gets a lot of its charm from its simple ruleset, I'm not sure of how to formulate a cover rule, but I do think the game would benefit from some form of cover saves. Personally, I'd like something along the lines of if a model is ~25% obscured by other models or scenery, it gets a 5+ "ward" save, but I understand there are sensible and obvious objections to this (as there most likely are to all such rules).

I personally think that to hit modifiers make more sense for cover (both thematically and for game design), it makes cover meaningful regardless of armour/toughness.

For the OP: "visible to the attacker" is actually a very badly written rule. Does it mean "drawing line of sight from any part of the model" or does it mean "if the model was alive and on a battlefield then would it be able to see?". Considering how GW writes rules, I would think the latter. I would add that most people can't really see through a crowd, regarding units. The rule isn't clear enough to really say, but that is how I prefer to do it.

If my opponent wants to "shoot at spear tips" then I let it slide (and do the same), it's not worth an argument or not having a game though, but I approach that game with a much more "gamey" attitude.

The lack of clarity in all of GW's rules is a major issue and has really made me prefer other systems. It would resolve most of the "rule confusion" issues if GW just defined terms and used them consistently.

[KHHaunts]

At the end of the day i think we all have a decent handle on what a sensible option is (I subscribe to the body only idea, Although im also partial to % of model on occasion as sniping through a mm wide window with a cannon just seems silly)

However its simple case of : The rules dont specify so anyones interpretation counts.

The rules are clear and the original comment is 100% correct its virtually impossible to obstruct the view of certain models.

Its stupid and wrong IMO.

But its the rules non the less.

All we can do is poke GW until they amend it in the future.

[chord]

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.

[Jamopower]

The los used to be simple and clear back around 6th ed fb / 4th ed 40k, then I guess they wanted to make the game more "cinematic" and applied true line of sight to everything.  It's of course simple as a rule, but leads to annoying arguments, unintutive shooting through massed obstacles and other sorts of annoying things.

I have been playing Rick Priestley's Gates of Antares and its abstracted los rules (that are mostly ported from old editions of 40k) are so much more pleasant on the table, that it always gets me annoyed when I play AoS. Luckily we don't usually have much shooting in our games.

 

Also, los rules are very simple to house rule, so in that sense, it's not that bad.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Jamopower

[KHHaunts]

52 minutes ago, 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.

Unfortunatley thats the thing about rules.

The "spirit of the rules" is a fairly flakey concept to some.

I agree with you in that despite being "legal" i wouldnt look to kindly on anyone who did that.

However rules need to be clearand to the point as there are many things that people might use the "spirit of the rules" as an excuse for a rule they dont like or vice versa.

like using Arkhans curse of years. I personally think that the ability should always fail on a 1. but the rules (including the 3 rules of 1) do not prohibit that ability from entering an unstoppable spiral that can wipe ANYTHING off the table. However is someone wanted to use that ability as the rules describe it is their right to do so.

The rules will never be perfect. but GW have an obligation to keep working at them until these glaring issues have been resolved.

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Jamopower said:

That said, we typically play the forests so that they block los through, just to allow the moving and removal of individual trees to ease gaming.

That ignores the idea that you cannot simply remove terrain from the table.   Would you, for example, remove two walls of a house to allow your models to move through it? 

Don't think of them as "trees." Think of them as "physical barriers to movement," which you already clearly do since you want to move them to allow movement!  ☺

My treelord cannot move through his own Sylvaneth woods because the trees in the woods model prevent it - just like walls in a house or the pillars in an arcane ruins.

Treating woods as some sort of abstracted area terrain that "actually" have lots of trees is old thinking, Warhammer thinking. 

 

In AoS, the models are the models are the models.  That *is* one orruk. That *is* one rock.  That *is* one tree.

This leads us to the simple true line of sight rule.  It's not "unclear" what you can and cannot shoot. Such is the beauty of the 4-pager. Economical rules can be taken at face value and played simply. 

You actually need to start making up stuff to deny the rules that are there.  Things like asking (no offense to earlier poster) "would he get hurt by his spear or cloak being shot" require needless invention and assumption that your imagined "fluffy" justifucation to break the rule had more validity than both the actual rule and someone else's imagination.  For instance,  I could say that when that spear gets shot. The warrior takes a fragment of the shattered tip in the eye and falls down in agony,  or that he has lost his weapon and some combat effectivess represented by the wound he's taken...or I could just apply the rule as printed and get on wirh a fun,  clear, simple game. 

Having said that,  I'd be in favor of a rule saying models never block line of sight to other models.  It's how 98% of my opponents play anyway - even the ones I played at Adepticon - and it makes sense to me given the dynamic nature of the game. 

As to terrain,  make bigger terrain. 

Also, removing terrain and thinking is ok because it had no effect on the game means you've skipped a cool section of the rules with all the terrain effects. 

 

Gah! One more thing.  Don't use someone else being a dirty tool as justifucation to say the rules are in need of charge.  Yes,  one could model flying dudes low to the ground and keep their rules.  Go ahead,  see how many games you'd get against me if you did that. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Sleboda

[Jamopower]

20 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

That ignores the idea that you cannot simply remove terrain from the table.   Would you, for example, remove two walls of a house to allow your models to move through it? 

Don't think of them as "trees." Think of them as "physical barriers to movement," which you already clearly do since you want to move them to allow movement!  ☺

My treelord cannot move through his own Sylvaneth woods because the trees in the woods model prevent it - just like walls in a house or the pillars in an arcane ruins.

Treating woods as some sort of abstracted area terrain that "actually" have lots of trees is old thinking, Warhammer thinking. 

 

Well it all is a matter of terrain available. I don't like the citadel woods at all, they are very ugly, but on the other hand we have a lot of model trees at our club that look very good when applied with forest base. However tracking the exact positions of the single trees is next to impossible, so with little bit of abstraction, everything works fine.  Forests and in some degree hills need to be abstract in miniature games. Real forests have all sorts of undergrowth that would block the line of sight, but at the same time modelling them would make gaming impossible. Also the forests are usually relatively easy to traverse as the leaves start in few meters. However the model trees usually have leaves starting from more bottom to look better. Again abstracting things help. With hills, the thing is more with the slopes and the sheer size. Realistically sloping hills with "real altitude" and top heavy models don't usually fit together, again needing a bit of simplification. 

 

Houses and ruins on the other hand are much more clear as they look on the battlefield more or less the same as in "reality" (even if the houses are bit small and the rubble inside of ruins has usually vanished). So there is not so much need of abstraction.

[Sleboda]

6 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

However tracking the exact positions of the single trees is next to impossible,

Help me understand this.  How is it difficult to track where the model is?  You look at it and go "there it is."

Quote

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Sleboda

[Sleboda]

16 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

Real forests have all sorts of undergrowth that would block the line of sight,

Real forest also don't come to life and attack real grots when real Lord Kroaks cast real spells next to them. 

Sorry, but the argument from reality has never worked for me as a justifucation for inventing rules.

Edit: I'm messing up the quoting system,  sorry. I want to add this as a comment on the idea of changing scale you mentioned. 

If a house in miniature works for you as a stand in for the same house in reality,  why do you shift scale for hills and woods? Why not play them all the same?  WYSIWYG in a way.  Our tabletop woods really is three trees and our tabletop hill really is just a little higher rise in the earth.

In miniature, what you world see to represent your reality-hill would be several feet tall (cool table!), so rather than imagine your table hill to be standing in for what you vizualize as a hill,  adjust your visualizationto fit the scale of your tabletop hill.

We're talking about a backyard, suburbian development hill, not a foothills of Pennsylvania hill. ?

Edited April 4, 2017 by Sleboda

[Jamopower]

 Well here's a (bit bad) photo example of what I meant. It would need different kind of terrain to be able to track the eact position of trees, and most likely the result wouln't be too much better esthetically (which is the main parmeter for terrain in my books). I'm planning on doing some forests that would combine bit of both though.

 

And about fantastical forests, I would say that they would be even more hhick and impassable due undergrowth (which would of course magically give way for sylvaneth troops) than real forests, especially as wild unmaintained forests are really rare nowadays. 

[Arkiham]

my group and i play to the body. 

 

it feels like a absolute cop out that you get to shoot a thing as the tip of the weapon, cape feather, banner etc is showing.

 

" aha my entire unit gets to shoot your unit dead as we can see that guys banner over there!" 

 

when i play other people then i go by what is written, i cba discussing various house rules with people who i will only play one game against 

[Sleboda]

4 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

 Well here's a (bit bad) photo example of what I meant. It would need different kind of terrain to be able to track the eact position of trees...

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? 

[KnightFire]

2 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

 

And about fantastical forests, I would say that they would be even more hhick and impassable due undergrowth (which would of course magically give way for sylvaneth troops) than real forests, especially as wild unmaintained forests are really rare nowadays. 

 

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.