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.

Are you for this proposal or against it?


Personally, I think TLOS has been causing nothing but problems. It makes people cry MFA, it makes people whime and cause endless discussions. And even on the battlefield it makes things more tedious.

If we were given simplified rules in this regard, such as dividing all models in the meta into a handful of height classes (vermin (grot, nurglings etc.), footman (human, necron, tau...), heavy infantry (terminator, wraithguard, mega armored nobz, bikers), walkers (includes crisis for height purposes), monstrous creatures (wraithlord, c'tan shard, carnifex), huge monstrous creatures (flyrant, riptide) and towering monstrous creatures (wraithknight) things would be easier and people would be free to convert their models as it wouldnt have any effect on the game.

Similarly, I also want to get rid of this system where in a mixed unit you have to roll saves individually from closest to furthest model until they have died in that order before you roll for the next model. I mean WTH? Torrent of fire where you place 1 wound on each model before placing the 2nd wound on the 1st model again makes more sense, as long as an exception is made for multi-wound models so they dont abuse it. But if the only multi-wound model in the unit is an IC, then that exception shouldnt be made, so that he cannot tank.

We play a somewhat hybridized version of TLOS. LOS is blocked if it goes past a second piece of area terrain, regardless of TLOS.

We don't use 6th's Wound allocation system either. Players claiming it's more tactical or realistic are kidding themselves. It forces you to unrealistically micromanage every model's move, and any tactics come only from an inferior game mechanic, not from any intuition of simulating combat. We base our system on 4th Ed. with the attacker having the option to choose the occasional hit.

It wouldn't surprise me to see GW come full circle on that. They strive to change the game without making it suck completely so they can change it again later. Unfortunately they made it suck pretty hard for a lot of people lately and many won't stick around or come back.

Id prefer a hybridized version like the current forest template (though it has problems still)

But man im glad for current wound allocation.

the previous would have people pulling from the back, behind walls which never made sense.

Honestly, we never really used TLOS with our friends. We've always been more "If it makes sense". The best discussion I've ever had on LOS was with a guy at our FLGS who was a veteran US Army Tank Commander. As part of his training he had to go through Sniper School as a cross-training exercise. While there he learned a lot about how to remain hidden obviously and as he explained the LOS mechanic from Flames of War he pointed out that if you were 2" in to a Forest Area, you couldn't draw LOS. Then he said "If I go 20 feet into that tiny woods across the road there at this time of day(~7pm) wearing even this dark blue shirt and jeans, you likely wouldn't see me!". He had a point.

Yes, be [Watch the language please - thanks. Alpharius] gone TLoS you worthless piece of gak game mechanic. For me this is the worst part of the game, even more than leafblower lists and servo skull taudar

Was going to mention the Flames of War LoS but I see the guy before me beat me too it. Infinity also does it well - essentially, you can see *into* area terrain but not *through* it.

Don't really mind the kills from the front thing, but hate how you use majority toughness but individual armour - crapping on Orks but benefitting Space Marines. Would prefer either this or "defender picks" over whatever the heck it was that caused "wound allocation shenanigans" from last edition

Ban your crappy censor program, not me.

IMO I feel TLOS is one of the better changes we have seen in the last two editions.

What's wrong with TLOS? You want to hide behind a ruin, where 2/3 of your models can draw a line of sight but since your 3 persons can see what's going on your entire squad can magically shoot through a ruin? What?

It goes the other way around too. What the feth is the point of moving your models into cover and your oponent just says "yeah.. that giant pile of metal plates counts as area terrain, so it doesn't hide your unit, so I can still shoot it... BTW my shot ignores cover.."

My biggest gripe with TLOS likely has to do with units crouching and the sorts. Technically, they don't get TLOS behind an aegis. Problem comes from the fact that 40k is an abstraction and that is only a pose. A character like that should be capable of being shot and vice versa.

your proposed replacement would make the current cover mechanic redundant, and make area terrain prevailent. The current system is good in that *all* terrain is important for cover purposes.

And 40k is too big for a counter system when rolling saves. The current mechanic may not be perfect but it's very easy and quick to roll saves. 90% of the time you roll all the saves at once and remove models from the front, which is a lot quicker than allocating them all, then rolling.

3rd worked fine with its abstraction, so much so it apears to have been used by several other companies as there in there own systems

I like the return to true line of sight. Now terrain is a bit vague by the book. The big thing we do is area terrain such as ruins on bottom floor and forests that contain more the a single tree count as blocking line of sight.

Dense forest tree base 5" wide we treat as pretty effective line of sight blocking terrain. Even in the real world.

Then again we always place a substantial amount of terrain. As a group even our tau players understand what's the point in playing in a open field gun range? With terrain they have to actually move and be tactical.

Terrain makes the line of sight work great. The other aspect is they list shooting as a and seeing a target lists body parts not just a hand but a whole arm or leg ect. So we tend to pass on the micro manage to obsession.

Don't get me wrong we do get evil but it's a agreement to dial up the cheese. Or at least we warn each other were trying out something overly broken.

Zewrath wrote:
What's wrong with TLOS? You want to hide behind a ruin, where 2/3 of your models can draw a line of sight but since your 3 persons can see what's going on your entire squad can magically shoot through a ruin? What?

It is assumed that the rest of the unit leaves or leans out of cover to shoot. It's the same with area terrain - the idea is that there is something in that area that the unit can hide behind. The issue with forest terrain is that it's never going to be as dense or as large as it is trying to represent. The example about being totally visible doesn't work if we assume that forest terrain is representing sufficient density to use as cover, or at least to obscure an enemy's targeting.

EDIT: Being able to "magically" shoot through their cover is the same as how they can shoot through each other, explained by the unit moving into optimum firing positions.

Absolutely. The 4th edition system with abstract terrain and model size categories was so good that Warmachine adopted it for its 2nd edition - at about the same time GW dropped it. Go figure.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Absolutely. The 4th edition system with abstract terrain and model size categories was so good that Warmachine adopted it for its 2nd edition - at about the same time GW dropped it. Go figure.

Except 4th edition also used TLOS. With a few exceptions, notably Area Terrain and models locked in combat.

Your definition of "true" in this context must be very loose.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Zewrath wrote:
What's wrong with TLOS? You want to hide behind a ruin, where 2/3 of your models can draw a line of sight but since your 3 persons can see what's going on your entire squad can magically shoot through a ruin? What?

It is assumed that the rest of the unit leaves or leans out of cover to shoot. It's the same with area terrain - the idea is that there is something in that area that the unit can hide behind. The issue with forest terrain is that it's never going to be as dense or as large as it is trying to represent. The example about being totally visible doesn't work if we assume that forest terrain is representing sufficient density to use as cover, or at least to obscure an enemy's targeting.

EDIT: Being able to "magically" shoot through their cover is the same as how they can shoot through each other, explained by the unit moving into optimum firing positions.

Exploiting a rule to make it entirely possible for a unit with 20 models to draw line of sight and have them all fire at a target, even when only 1 person i actually able to see the target, is no the same as shooting through your own units, where it is assumed your models aren't stupid.

Also, how will you justify the cover nerf to 5+ if you can't hide units behind cover properly, what's the point then.

And to the OP. I'm new to this forum but I've already seen you in multiple threads whining about an edition the vast majority of the playerbase has deemed very good (with exceptions of lack of clarity in some rules).
Now, I don't know about you or how you play, but I've had my fair share of games and reading on the many, many complaints you have about 6th edition, most of them seem to stem from severe L2P issues and straight up refusal to micro manage models just a little bit, because you think it's a bother, so rather than adjusting, you say it's unlogical and doesn't make any sense, because removing models from the back when they get hit by a shitstorm of bullets makes 10 times more sense.

Go find friends that are in just as much love with the melta/powerfist/IG/transporter/cookie cutter lists- spam 5th edition as you are and play with them and just leave it be.

Actually looking out my front window right now across the river I can tell you that I could easily see to shoot something in front of the trees there, but heck, even if the target were a few feet inside the treeline I'm sure it would be too obscured to waste the ammo. We're talking a few hundred metres here. Easily within bolter range...

Back on topic... should TLoS be removed? Well I hardly think that going back and forth on a rule like that across editions is a good business move so I'm pretty sure it's safe to say TLoS isn't going anywhere. Does it need work, yes, will arguing about it's necessity help? No.

I think TLoS is kind of wonky in that you could get into a situation where a model could poetentially "see" but due to it's pose it cannot. It gets messed up because in lots of other situation we assume that the model isn't "stupid", like for example firing through friendly units. There needs to be some kind of leeway rule that allows us to navigate this problem.

Until such a rule can be found we just need to remember that what we are talking about is largely abstract and while we use models to measure what is going on, there are many things that we take for granted. Perhaps the next time someone gets into an argument about TLoS during a game they should remember that.

Oh, and I almost forgot... paper!

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.

It has given me plenty of issues (especially for my devastators) but I feel it helps the game as well. It has caused players to be a lot more creative with how they deploy and how they move their high priority units. I feel it adds more depth to the game.

I love TLoS. You can't really flank Area terrain.

I recently started playing wherein we counted the bottom level of all sets of ruins as solid. All windows, bullet holes, and other stuff blocked LoS.

Game became a hell of a lot better, as you could no longer see 90% of the board from 90% of the positions on the board.

 Desubot wrote:
Id prefer a hybridized version like the current forest template (though it has problems still)

But man im glad for current wound allocation.

the previous would have people pulling from the back, behind walls which never made sense.

Other than.. You know people actually doing that in real life

I want rid of TLOS, I much prefured 3eds way of abstract terrain, it worked best in cityfight where being higher actually made a difference

TLOS as it is currently is a major sack of that can right off. I like it with vehicles weapons, but even then only loosely. So I say yea, it can be removed or at least heavily augmented. IMHO.

 Zagman wrote:
IMO I feel TLOS is one of the better changes we have seen in the last two editions.

I agree, TLOS is a good mechanic. The arguments around MFA are simply dumb. For every advantage you gain when modifying a model to be taller or shorter than it normally is, there are just as many disadvantages to doing so. You want to model that sniper to be on a 9" pedestal in order to get a clearer view, then fine because it allows far more of my army to have a clearer view to take it down. You want to model an entire unit as if its crawling on their bellies, also fine as you'll have a really hard time seeing over any type of walls.

Regarding forests, those rules certainly need some rework. Either they always block or they don't and simply always provide a cover save regardless of unit type or location within it. The reason why is simply that you have an allowance to rearrange the trees during the course of the game. If that's going to stay, which it needs to in order to ease movement through them during the game, then the rule needs to be abundantly clear.

Also, I like most of the current wound allocation rules. The multi-wound shenanigans of 5th made were just way OTT. Meanwhile allowing the shooter to choose were to apply wounds allowed sniping. I *might* be on board with some type of random allocation; however, that would just add yet more time to an already long running game.

Now, all of that said, I do think the rule set needs a big overhaul. It's a complicated and disorganized beast and a number of the recent changes are making it more so.

I think there is a rule in the BRB saying you can reposition individual trees however you want, to ease the placing of your minis in the forest, as long as you and your opponent have agreed on what the boundary of the forest is, and anything in that boundary, or anyone shooting through that boundary gets/confers a 5+ cover save.

clively wrote:
Also, I like most of the current wound allocation rules. The multi-wound shenanigans of 5th made were just way OTT. Meanwhile allowing the shooter to choose were to apply wounds allowed sniping. I *might* be on board with some type of random allocation; however, that would just add yet more time to an already long running game.

So you are telling me 6th edition's "tanking", i.e. placing a mini at the head of your squad to take all the wounds all by himself is a great thing?

4th ed had the best wound allocation rules imo. They were so simple compared to what we have now. Keep the sniper allocation rule (which is what they should have always had) and it will be great.

I honestly never had problems with TLOS. Then again, I didn't have problems with the LOS rules in 4th either.

I like TLoS but I use common sense when dealing with it. Crouching models are not magically unable to stand up. This is especially important as I use the Crisis Commander model that has a stupid pose that as it is modeled leaves it off the base. Me and my friend treat the "head" as being in the position if the model were actually standing on its base. We also use common sense when it comes to guardsman weapon teams. Remember the first rule. I have an additional second rule of don't be a git.

I like TLOS.

 Formosa wrote:
,,,I want rid of TLOS, I much prefured 3eds way of abstract terrain, it worked best in cityfight where being higher actually made a difference

Being higher does actually make a difference with TLoS. Put a model on a roof with line of sight to a model on the ground. Positioned correctly (The way they would position fluff-wise), the model on the roof gets a cover save where the model on the ground doesn't. If you don't see it intuatively, draw it out...

Yeah nerf that sucker from orbit. Get TLoS out of here. When people start telling me they're gonna bring a laser pointer to my house to prove TLoS that's when I start thinking bloated rules!

Simplify!