Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some folks in my gaming group have expressed dissatisfaction with the prospect of kneeling wraithlords, crouching space marines, crawling possessed squads, etc. etc. but the other day when playing an opponent with assault marines leaping into the air or modelled as jumping off of pieces of buildings, everyone said "oh, man, you're screwed in 5th!"

Which begs the question - will you cry foul when someone models for advantage, yet blast away if someone's model is made taller without a care?

I think that it mostly depends on how the units are modeled and if the motivation to hide the model overwhelms the fluff appeal of the model. If they modeled an army crawling daemon prince then I'd have an issue, but ultimately I don't think that that would really help it out all that much. I'd still play them and use real line of sight.

Spellbound wrote:Some folks in my gaming group have expressed dissatisfaction with the prospect of kneeling wraithlords, crouching space marines, crawling possessed squads, etc. etc.

What 'prospect'?

Modelling for advantage has been possible under the rules of Warhammer 40K in every incarnation. The infamous 'Crouching Wraithlord' concept has been touted as a potential abuse for as long as I've been playing the game (15 years now).

People aren't going to suddenly change their attitude towards abusive modeling just because there's a new edition of the rules. If they weren't inclined to build a crouching Wraithlord under the last version of the rules, they're not going to do it now.



So far as actually coming across this sort of thing on the table (which from my experience is much more rare than online discussions would have you believe) ... it really comes down to the individual model.

If it's modelled a particular way for character, or in such a way that it doesn't have a huge impact on the game, I couldn't care less.
If it's clearly modelled a particular way purely to stretch the rules, then yeah, I might have an issue with it in a friendly game.
In a competitive event, it's up to the rules in use for the event to police this sort of thing.

I think it all depends on intent. If you're trying to make your model look cool, as I do a lot, take the bonus/disadvantage, as I will. If you're modelling for advantage, I'd still let it slide, winning obviously means a lot more to you than me. (adressed to hypothetical opponent, not any posters here).

I feel that "true LOS" is an awful idea that creates more problems than it solves.

The stated goal, "making people get down and look" is somewhat ridiculous. I can get down and look any time I want to, I don't need to be forced.

I'll still play by this rule, tho, because it's what we've got, and I'm not going to throw oot the baby (the infinite hours I've spent painting, and the other decent rules) with the bathwater (this stupid rule).

Phryxis wrote:The stated goal, "making people get down and look" is somewhat ridiculous.

That's not the stated goal. The stated goal is to make the game more personally involving by getting the players to get down and eyeball the action.

And that's been a part of the design philosophy ever since Rogue Trader. That's why every version of the game so far has used true LOS as the core of its system.

i voted for the first choice.

my DPs can now be shot at over landraiders. they are static poses, which, if flatfooted, arms to the side like the normal trooper, they would be hidden by landraiders.

however, now that one is about 7 inches tall (feet 2 inches off the ground) and the other is fully 4 inches in the air, they can now be seen by the vehicle that they are obviously trying to hide and creep behind? that dosent make sence to me.

because i model my flying HE dragon model based dp in the air, instead of curled up on the base hes visible to everything. however if i chose to model it the second way, i would be called for a chesse pose.

true LOS will only be a perfect system if the models could be modified mid game to represent the actual posture they have at that given moment, not one intended to look like its charging and fighting enemies while its still advancing forward.

Ztryder wrote:however, now that one is about 7 inches tall (feet 2 inches off the ground) and the other is fully 4 inches in the air, they can now be seen by the vehicle that they are obviously trying to hide and creep behind? that dosent make sence to me.

You would have had exactly the same problem in 4th edition... except that now, you actually can hide him behind the tank, by going to ground.

because i model my flying HE dragon model based dp in the air, instead of curled up on the base hes visible to everything.

In a game that revolves around models, yes, the model you use has an effect on the rules.

Bear in mind that it works both ways. Modelling a character 6 inches up in the air makes him more visible... but also gives him a better field of view.

The rules are (IMO) deliberately left fairly open in regards to modeling, to avoid restricting what players may want to do with their models. In practice, LOS abuses are generally self-policed by gamers when something dodgy hits the table.

I never liked this true LOS thing. I hate when people say "Lemme see if he has LOS" and drops his head to the table. Thank god someone bought that stupid laser pointer (it's rubbish though, go buy one for 2$ at a gas station that works better). The particular problem I'm having with it now is that I'm converting up a flying chaos sorc. He is going to be about 2 and 1/2 half inches off his base with a clear little pole. He is going to able to be seen by a lot more but he will also see a lot more. I also have a winged sorc that is on his base. So should I be able to count both winged sorc's vision from 2 and 1/2 inches or should I count both from the ground or do them differently? It just seems to break the suspension of disbelief a little when the guy with wings flying around who is posed as on the ground can't jump up a little to shoot.

I voted for counting it as is. I don't care. Everything has cover now anyway so I'm not missing out on a save.

The whole concept is stupid. I like EPIC/BFG-LOS is a 2D concept.

In this case I would say Advantage and Disadvantage are one in the same.

Model how you like.
Off course I don't waste my time with tournaments and don't play asshats, so Im good.

True LOS = modeling abuse. I wish they had gone with my base can see your base and let you model however you wish, but then I guess they stole enough from Warmachine already.

LOS is what it is. I don't know any player that will ultimately abuse the hell out of this rule by creating the Giraffe Necked Chapter of SM or anything like that. Therefore, the rules work for the most part. There is a huge difference between "taking advantage of" and "blatantly abusing" the rules. Hell, someone can say playing an army well and fully utilizing their special traits and abilities is "taking advantage of the rules" for that army, but people would look at you like you had a second appendage growing out of your forehead.

It all depends on the caliber of the person you call opponent. In a tourney, you have no choice as to who you fight, and therefore you have the ability to score your opponent based upon sportsmanship and the like, giving you a way to even things up if you consider stuff blatantly abusing the rules, in you own opinion. If you playing against friends, then you have the right to be selective about playing against them.

The rules are what they are and we can't just go changing them as we please because they can possibly be stretched by creative modeling. If you truly need to make a house rule to "even things up", go right ahead, but if the poll currently means anything, you're in the minority.

Well, with the new rules the way they are.... I gotta say, subbing in a 'normal' model every time is gonna get boring REAL quick. But remember that it works both ways. Your crouching Wraithlord isn't going to be able to see over a 1-storey ruin, and your crouching SM is going to be LOS-blocked by a low wall. So fair's fair, I think. There's really no other way to do it.

That's not the point SilentW. The point is you can do this with Genestealers, Khorne Berserkers, Harlquins, and other units who don't care at all if they can shoot someone.

For a unit that never shoots at the enemy then it isn't "fair". It's simply a one-sided advantage.

DaBoss wrote:The rules are what they are and we can't just go changing them as we please

Well of course we can.

The rules are what they are... the rules for a game. You're free to change them however you like.

Obviously any changes are going to require the consent of your opponent... but if you're unhappy with the way the rules work, and have a group of like-minded gamers that you regularly game with, the sky's the limit.

Democratus wrote:That's not the point SilentW. The point is you can do this with Genestealers, Khorne Berserkers, Harlquins, and other units who don't care at all if they can shoot someone.

...and have been able to do so for 20 years and 5 editions now. But very, very few people do.

To my mind, that means the system works well enough.


Apologies if I seem to be harping on this issue every time it comes up, but I find it strangely irritating that people keep referring to True LOs as some strange new concept for 5th edition. Maybe I just need to get out more.

insaniak wrote:

...and have been able to do so for 20 years and 5 editions now. But very, very few people do.

To my mind, that means the system works well enough.


Apologies if I seem to be harping on this issue every time it comes up, but I find it strangely irritating that people keep referring to True LOs as some strange new concept for 5th edition. Maybe I just need to get out more.

Amen sir. It's as though people are acting like modeling bigger vehicles or smaller troops in any (and all) previous editions of the game didn't have exactly the same impact it has now, which is completely false.

If I modeled a big daemon prince in 4th edition that could be seen over a Rhino, he was seen over a Rhino. If I modeled a giant Rhino to block my daemon prince then my daemon prince was blocked.

Nothing has changed except for how line of sight is drawn over area terrain and close combats.


The thing is, there have always been a fair number of people who have played some form of the 'magic cylinder' style of LOS because that's how they interpreted the rules (especially in 4th edition). This new edition is now painfully clear exactly what is meant by "a model's eye view" and "line of sight".

This makes it impossible for people to interpret a magic cylinder style of play as the RAW anymore and that realization for many people who don't like the "model's eye view" style of LOS seems very hard for them to swallow.

insaniak wrote:

Democratus wrote:That's not the point SilentW. The point is you can do this with Genestealers, Khorne Berserkers, Harlquins, and other units who don't care at all if they can shoot someone.

...and have been able to do so for 20 years and 5 editions now. But very, very few people do.

To my mind, that means the system works well enough.


Apologies if I seem to be harping on this issue every time it comes up, but I find it strangely irritating that people keep referring to True LOs as some strange new concept for 5th edition. Maybe I just need to get out more.

I never said they couldn't. I was only countering the point that modeling to hide hurts the target as much as the shooter. And I think I did it quite sufficiently.

I have been to a tournament that had genestealers that were cut off at the torso "emerging from the ground" during 4th edition. It was done at an 'Ard Boyz tournament where there are no sportsmanship scores anyaway - so it was in exactly the right venue.

That's not the stated goal. The stated goal is to make the game more personally involving by getting the players to get down and eyeball the action.

The way I've seen it explained, their goal was to "make people get down and look, so they see things from ground level and get more personally involved." I think we're both speaking elements of truth here, and to split this hair is a waste of time.

I chose my words as I did, because I think that players can choose to get personally involved, or not, on their own recognizance.

In the end, we're both saying the same thing, I just say it in a way that demeans it, you say it in a way that validates it. Apparently you view it more favorably than I do, and that's fine.

I just think that a rule that is intended purely to force people to play a way that the designers think is fun, isn't fun. Even then, I could forgive it if it wasn't also creating more rules problems. I could totally embrace it if it was solving rules problems... But I don't think it is.

I agree that modelling for advantage has always been a part of the game. Yak's had it in his sig for years now. That doesn't change the effects of incrementalism.

As Yak says, only two major things have changed... Area terrain and close combats, and the disambiguation of the magic cylinder issue. It's two more clicks towards "model for advantage." It's a few more gamers that will finally give in to the cheese and do it.

Certainly not earthshaking, but there's a critical mass to these things.

I mean, TFG has always been doing this sort of thing. But now, maybe his cousin figures GW is embracing it and does it two. Now normal people are playing against it every few games, and they start to think "I'm tired of getting beat up by this, and I wanted to make my Genestealers look low and scuttly anyway."

There's only so much positive reinforcement for crap like this that you can pack into the rules before people will start to do it all the time just to keep up.

insaniak wrote:That's not the stated goal. The stated goal is to make the game more personally involving by getting the players to get down and eyeball the action.

If they want us to get down and look, why did they make a laser pointer so we wouldn't have to?

Typeline wrote: If they want us to get down and look, why did they make a laser pointer so we wouldn't have to?

Because some people don't want to.

Phryxis wrote:I just think that a rule that is intended purely to force people to play a way that the designers think is fun, isn't fun.

I'm confused.

Aren't all of the rules intended to get people to play in a way the designers think is fun?

Even then, I could forgive it if it wasn't also creating more rules problems.

More than what?

We've always had true LOS. It's always worked with minimal problems.

4th edition added in the Size categories for Area Terrain... which caused a whole raft of rules problems because people didn't understand how the hybrid system was supposed to work.

So they scrapped the system that was causing the problems, and went back to what had previously worked just fine for about 15 years...

Aren't all of the rules intended to get people to play in a way the designers think is fun?

Yeah, but work with me here...

Virtually everyone can agree that there are certain qualities that make rules fun. Universally fun. Clarity. Flexibility. Tactical depth. Freedom from exploits and loopholes. Etc.

Then there are things that many people think are fun, but not everyone. Having a beer after the game. Yelling "waaaagh" when your orks charge. Etc.

I'm not trying to produce an ironclad, legally binding argument here. I just think that rules that promote clarity, flexibility and tactical depth are good. Rules that are just in there to make us act more like the GW design team likes to act are bad, especially when they're integral to play.

This isn't "the most important rule" that the rules aren't important. You can't easily dispense with "true LOS" and still find a game. You play that way, or you're mostly oot of luck.

As I said, I'd accept this if I thought it was an improvement in some way, but I don't think it is. I think it just creates more opportunities to exploit the rules.

We've always had true LOS. It's always worked with minimal problems.

Yeah, but not the "LOS from model's eyeball to other model's body" that we have now. It's got all the issues the previous version had, as far as on the table disagreements, plus a few more ways to encourage exploitation.

Not to mention how they've REPEATEDLY applauded this rules change. I've seen a ton of things in the new rules that I was actually quite impressed by. The fact that THIS is what they really think is the crowning achievement of 5th is ridiculous.

So if we didn't have problems with it now, what aboot after it's been the focus of MUCH discussion, all of which is emphasized by a focus from GW?

That's the thing aboot TFG. He's often not that bright. He may just not have THOUGHT of playing games with true LOS.

So they scrapped the system that was causing the problems, and went back to what had previously worked just fine for about 15 years...

Accurate in the facts, but it's not that cut and dried.

IMO 40K should us a system that takes the exact size and shape of the model oot of the equation. I think it'll be clearer, have fewer exploits.

They took a halfhearted step in that direction, didn't do a good job of it at all, then said "see!?!?! NO GOOD!" And went back to how it was. And patted themselves on the back.

Or, I guess. I'm taking your word that 3rd was all true LOS, I don't even remember anymore, and my 3e book is a whole room away from me right now.

Phryxis wrote:Rules that are just in there to make us act more like the GW design team likes to act are bad, especially when they're integral to play.

True LOS isn't just there to make you act like the design team. It's there to get you more personally involved with the models.

This is, after all, a game that's all about the models. GW's rules exist to sell models. They want us to like their models as much as they do.

The various pre-painted games around now, as a contrast, don't use true LOS. They don't care how involved you are with the models, because the models are nothing more than a marker.

40K is supposed to be a bit more 'cinematic'

Sure, that might not be to everyone's taste. But it's the game that GW wants to make.

Yeah, but not the "LOS from model's eyeball to other model's body" that we have now.

No, that's how it's always worked, back at least to 2nd edition. I didn't play RT, so can't speak for sure, but I believe it worked more or less the same.

insaniak wrote: It's there to get you more personally involved with the models.

I'm pretty personally involved with all my models, I painted every one of them!

True LOS isn't just there to make you act like the design team. It's there to get you more personally involved with the models.

I understand their motivations. There's really no need to reiterate, it's pretty straightforward.

I just think it's a bad reason to put the rule in. I realize it's a matter of taste, but it crosses a line I don't think needs crossing.

I'm reminded of the AT-43 rule, where it says that if you wish to use your medic ability, you yell "Medic" and then a model is somehow protected. It's just too much. People can yell "Medic" if they want to, it doesn't need to be specified in the rules.

What if they specified you had to shake hands after the game?

What if the rules said you had to make "stompy" noises when you move a Monstrous Creature?

At least in those examples, you can more or less ignore the rule withoot impacting the game. You can't just ignore the TLOS rules.

Perhaps they think the TLOS rules are also easier to play, and have fewer loopholes. I disagree, but if they believe that, I haven't heard it argued. I've just seen numerous mentions of the "get personally involved" motivation by GW staff.

I don't mean to get too carried away with this, like I'm totally ootraged. I'm generally impressed with the new rules, I think they're an overall improvement, or at least a successful shakeup. I just think this particular decision is a poor one, and the motivation given isn't helping.

Phryxis wrote:I just think it's a bad reason to put the rule in. I realize it's a matter of taste, but it crosses a line I don't think needs crossing.

You're going to have that problem with every single game more complex than tic-tac-toe.

The person who writes the game writes the rules to create the game that they want to create. Some people will like those rules, some won't.

The 'model's eye view' mechanic has always been a part of the rules, and I suspect always will be, simply because that's the type of game that the designers prefer.

You can't just ignore the TLOS rules.

No, but you can play a game that's more suited to your tastes. Or simply keep your games to a regular group of opponents, and modify the rules to suit yourselves. Many players who prefered the more abstract system created by applying the size categories to the whole game did just that during 4th Edition.



Incidentally, after a quick check of the books, 2nd ed, 3rd ed and 4th ed all specifically refer to stooping over the table and getting a 'model's eye view' to determine LOS.

I'm going to go ahead and say what other people have beaten around the bush and come close to saying, but haven't.

Man up. Quit whining. Suck it up. Etc, etc, etc.

There have ALWAYS been those certain individuals who will do ANYthing shady to prove their own imagined superiority over others. And there always will be. The fact that GW didn't cowtow to those people is a GOOD thing. Some people say that GW erred by not making the true LOS rules more airtight than the space shuttle. I say that the person poking holes in the space shuttles hull from the inside should be tossed out the cargo bay.

Has anyone been screaming about how 5th edition doesn't have a convention to prevent people from trying to quickly pick up dice that roll a miss, before the opponent sees the roll, so that he can count it as a hit and roll with it to wound?

What about how the evil GW hasn't made models yet that move themselves exactly the appropriate distance so that certain people can't use their purposefully broken and taped together measuring tape to get that extra half-inch of movement?

The rules work, they are as desigend by the people who designed the game. Stop blaming a games developer for your local FLGS's native cheating power gamer. Blame the damn cheater. When someone models a wraithlord like he's crawling under constantina wire at boot camp (with R. Lee Ermy kicking his too-high-in-the-air ass back into the mud), look him in the eye, tell him why you won't ever play him again, and move on.

Coming from a board gaming background, I treated 40k as a game with 3-D tokens, similar to Monopoly's pieces.

I'm not entirely happy with the 5th Edition move to TLOS, but I own a laser pointer and am not afraid to use it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:...the 5th Edition move to TLOS...

...sigh...