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.

I think having a standardized set of terrain rules would just be a faster and less complicated option than TLOS. Break terrain height differences into "levels" similar to how the GW building heights are set out, give each successive level its own bonus / penalty, and then have fixed rules for cover. If 50% of your unit is in this type of cover, you get this bonus. Less time looking past models, breaking out rubber bands or laser pointers, less arguments about how much of that one model is behind that wall, etc. Just because TLOS is "cinematic" doesn't make it a particularly great system for gameplay.

Honestly I just wish that it was slightly more abstract then it is now. A ducking guardsman should be able to shoot that guy over there just as they should be capable of being shot at is all I'm saying.

Yeah, I had a few different threads in YMDC and they all were about different things and most of them boiled down into TLoS baloney...

Seems like a trend here.

Could someone just give me a run down of how the LOS and Wound allocation worked in the 4th and 5th editions?


I just find that TLOS does not work well with the scale at which we play. Its hard to position a unit so that they could make use of the cover and shoot. When in a lot of cases a nit would be setting themself up so they could shoot.

I actually find ruins irritating. Especially the GW terrain pieces which are used regularly by the community. As if you are in that terrain then its really hard to fin da position to shoot from.

But if you want to move through ruins walls, it can be assumed that units have cutting gear, or just smash through the wall. Therefore they should be able to make themselves holes to shoot through surely.

I dont really find the wound allocation too taxing I can see why the front of the unit would be the first to get mowed down.

Putting a model on the top floor lowers its effective horizontal range, though. keep that in mind.

I like the wound allocation, keeps you thinking about placement when you're moving the models. What I hate about TLoS is too numerous to list. All I know is it needs changed, I just wish I knew how...

 thepowerfulwill wrote:
TLOS has caused me issues, not just with game play, but I play chaos marines, some are very spiky and I have painfully poked myself in the eye several times.

"Hold on, I'm not sure if my guy can see... hold on... gotta get my chin down on the table... nope, my eyes are still too high.... gotta lay my head down sideways and --- ARGGH! I have an Eldar in my ear! Get it out get it out get it OUT!"

The 40K battlefield is so cluttered with models that I can only justify it to myself as being "not to scale" -- which makes "true" line of sight even more ridiculous: No, if my model with a 6" range pistol stood at the feet of your 9" Wraightknight, its head would not be out of range, the vertical scale and the horizontal scale aren't the same.

And honestly I can't see the height difference between a Grot, a human, and a tank making much real-world difference to line of sight. A low hill or a stand of trees is taller than any of 'em. (Maybe not taller than a Wraithknight, but plenty of trees are). And in real life, open ground isn't flat as a gaming table, it's got lots of little rises and dips to take cover behind: A Grot standing on top of a rock s taller than a Guardsman taking cover behind one, and the Guardsman behind the rock at the top of a low rise is higher up than the tank in "hull down" position behind it. So treating different models as different heights for purposes of line of sight adds complexity without adding realism at all.

This is rule I proposed over in the 100 Heresies thread:

Enemy unit on the far side of area terrain? Can't hit them at all --- unless you're higher up than both the target and the terrain and the terrain is closer than half the range to the target.

I don't really get the problem with TLOS, It's something you can actually check. If you start abstracting it further it complicates things enormously. Part of the game is deploying and moving to maximise the fire lanes and cover for your models, while trying to deny the enemy the same.

The biggest beef I have with the current system is how abused it is by FMCs and MCs.

Stick that Tervigon with more mass than a Dreadnaught on the very corner(1mm) of area terrain with 0% blocked, and it gets a save...but the Dreadnaught is much harder to hide.

True line of sight really has no place in a game with tiny models. 4th edition had some of the quickest gameplay with no real arguments over LOS.

GW really needs to go to a height system since abstract sight speeds up the game by a huge degree.

I have only had problems with TLoS when me and my friend were trying to troll one another, and that's if you define problems as joking about whether or not his chaos spikes counted as having LoS. of course that was me and my friend being silly. Basic common sense can make TLoS simple. Being a git is bringing a laser pointer and insisting it be used for all LoS. Being smart is using a laser pointer when LoS is less apparent so you don't have to get models stuck in your ear or eyes. I have had hard calls on LoS, but those were hard on my neck as I had a shoe box cut into a ruin and needed to see how many Fire Warriors got to dakka out of the windows. The answer I got to pretty quickly was 4. Also, 3+ cover saves against a vindicator due to a scatter-field as mysterious object is troll-worthy.

True line of sight really has no place in a game with tiny models. 4th edition had some of the quickest gameplay with no real arguments over LOS.

I second this. Between abstracted LOS and an excellent wound allocation system, 4e did run far more smoothly.


Personally, I think TLOS is probably to worst thing to ever happened to 40k. It causes a problem on so many levels and has no business in an over-the-top skirmish level game like warhammer 40k. The problems it causes are threefold:


Tactics:

To put it simply, it is far too difficult to obstruct LOS under TLOS rules. The models commonly available as terrain for 40k games include things like fences, ruins, forest, hills, rivers, clusters of rocks and debris, wrecks and craters. None of these models are suitable for physically obstructing LOS to even a moderately sized infantry squad, let alone large based models, vehicles or MCs. The best terrain for TLOS are probably ruins, but even those are filled with plenty of windows and openings, and if even part of a single model is visible through the ruins, you are still eligible to target the squad for shooting, psychic powers and assault. The consequence is that pretty much ever unit can see every other unit on the board from just about every location. Combined with the obscene range a great many weapons have in 40k, this creates a whole host of problems.

1.) It grossly undermines movement and positioning in the shooting game. If you can already see and shoot your enemy, and if is impossible to hide from your enemies shooting, why bother moving at all? There are still advantages to be had in the movement phase between objective grabbing, assault and shorter range weapons, but a critical element when it comes to maneuver warfare has been removed by TLOS, drastically reducing the tactical depth of the game.

2.) It leads to alpha strike armies. As it is impossible to hide units, whoever goes second has to just eat a bunch of fire before getting the opportunity to act. Against an opponent who has strong long ranged shooting and good target priority skills, ones army can be crippled before his first turn, all without his opponent having to take any risk associated with things like dropods. The only real defense against this is to hold models in reserve, which could easily just make the situation worse. Having ones army crippled before even getting a turn tends to result in unenjoyable games. TLOS goes a long way toward making winning the first turn a huge advantage.

3.) It severely limits the number of viable assault units. In the current meta, the only viable assault units are deathstars, FMC, and the like. Units that are simultaneously fast and can take an absurd amount of punishment. Anything that is fragile or slow is going to get shot to pieces because your opponent can focus all his armies fire on troublesome assault units before they have the opportunity to charge. If considerably more LOS blocking terrain were available, assault units could use terrain to cover their advance. Believe it or not, back in 4e things like jump pack assault marines were viable rather than a joke, and it is precisely for this reason.


Rules Resolution/Gameflow

Ever since 5e came out, TLOS arguments have been far and away the biggest cause of rules disputes and game slowdowns I have encountered. The requirement that you need to check if and how much an enemy model is visible from the viewpoint of your individual models is borderline absurd. It takes forever to carry out rigorously and always seems open for debate. Often you just have to agree with an opponent to shortcut the whole process. By contrast, abstracted line of sight takes like a minute to setup in the beginning to declare what each piece of terrain is, but from then on out determining LOS is immediate and unambigious. It is far simpler, far quicker, far fairer, you don't need a laser pointer and you aren't constantly knocking models over when your leaning over to table just to establish LOS.


Game Representation

The other big fail regarding TLOS is it does not recognize the game is an abstraction. The plastic models represent soldiers who can crouch, go prone, lean over walls, run and do whatever the situation demands. Thus a soldier who is modeled prone should still be able to fire over a wall while one standing upright should be able to take cover just as effectively as a prone model. Similar logic applies to terrain. The base with three trees represents a forest, its not just three trees that barely impede sight, but a densely packed group of them. Similarly, ruins represent large structures that have collapsed, if you have seen footage of builds collapsed from the like of hurricanes, you would know there is no way you are shooting through the ground floor of such a structure.

Then there are the problems that come with custom modeling. What gets particularly absurd is when somebody models and IC or MC atop of a pile of bones or something, making it easier to shoot under TLOS. Of course the person who made the model doesn't want to be at a disadvantage just because they got artistic, so you have to pretend the model 1.5" shorter than it actually is when calculating LOS. So when people start getting creative on the hobby side, which is supposed to be a major part of the game, it starts creating even more TLOS problems. And again, these problems would immediately disappear if abstracted LOS was used.


The whole idea of TLOS sounds great on paper but it is just and endless source of problems. I am surprised how many people support it.

What were the 4th edition rules that folks like so much? I don't have that edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: everything Phanixis said.

TLoS has never been a problem with me or the folks I play with. Seems like a decent mechanic to me, but then again I've only ever played the game in 5th and 6th Edition...

I remember reading the Cities of Death book and wondering why the heck it said I can't see things in area terrain.. but meh. As long as you're playing with friends I don't think it's a problem.

I've always modeled things the way I want, never run into issues. As for tanking shots.. meh, I've always thought that taking the closest models out made sense. I always thought it was funny that my guys ONLY shot the models my opponent didn't care about.

The issue is twofold (1) line of sight mechanics and (2) casualty removal. They have to work together.

I prefer TLOS but with Area terrain automatically granting the cover save regardless of model position as well as a random casualty removal mechanic.

The best random casualty removal mechanic was in 5th but it was too easily abused which gave rise to Biker Nobz, Paladin Stars, and other multi-wound unit shenanigans.

So in light of previous failures, I prefer to just batch roll saves even though I understand that I am losing more models than otherwise necessary.

The game is about the models, not about the rules. Therefore, the rules support the models.

Models use TLOS.

What were the 4th edition rules that folks like so much? I don't have that edition.

Rules were incredibly simple. You established a majority armor/cover and toughness save for the unit, and then just rolled all saves as a single batch. Failed saves were removed as wounds at the opponents discretion, although spreading wounds over several multiwound models was forbidden. For example, say I inflict 6 bolter wounds and 2 plasma wounds on a tactical marine squad with an attached IC with a 2+/5+. Because the majority of the models are just tactical marines, my opponent would have a majority armor save of 3+ and no invulnerability save. So he would roll 6 3+ saves and remove the failed saves as casualties. If he failed two armor saves in this example, he would have to remove four models total of his choice from the squad as casualties. This made armor saves very easy to resolve and their was no way to exploit the system, so no tanking wounds and no wound spreading. It had a single drawback in that your opponent had complete control over the order in which casualties were taken. This meant for your standard tactical squad, typically the sergeant, the heavy weapon marine and the special weapon marine would be the last three to die. However, compared to the problems 5e and 6e created, this was nothing, especially because those units that tended to benefit the most from this kind of wound allocation tended to be the weakest in a power gaming environment. Compare, for instance, a tactical marine squad to the Nob Bikers and Paladin Stars mention by Deuce that benefited from 5e wound allocation. Which units would you give an edge through the wound allocation rules?

^Right on the money, Phanixis.

Sounds like adding 6th edition precision shots & strikes to the 4th edition system -- i.e. the occasional chance for the attacking player to pick the victim -- would solve 4e's only real problem and make a near-perfect system.

That is pretty much the case. Although I never really felt and overwhelming need for precision shots back when I was playing 4th. Honestly, even in 4th edition playing against the likes of a tactical marine squad was a treat. It meant you weren't going up against Nidzilla, or holofalcons, or double lash, or Tzeentch bikers, or 3x3 obliterators (notice how wound allocation has no effect on any of these units).

The game is about the models, not about the rules. Therefore, the rules support the models.

Models use TLOS.

I could not disagree more. The game is about the players, not the models, and the rules need to be written in the best interest of the players. This means making the rules expedient, fair and enjoyable, and ensuring these attributes are a priority over things like fluff concerns. TLOS accomplishes none of these objectives, and should be done away with.

Warmachine has a better manner for resolving LOS. In my opinion.

Phanixis wrote:

The game is about the models, not about the rules. Therefore, the rules support the models. Models use TLOS.

I could not disagree more. The game is about the players, not the models, and the rules need to be written in the best interest of the players. This means making the rules expedient, fair and enjoyable, and ensuring these attributes are a priority over things like fluff concerns. TLOS accomplishes none of these objectives, and should be done away with.

Hallelujah!