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.

Greetings designers,

Let's talk about everyone's favorite topic, Line-of-Sight (LoS). The traditional model of LoS has been to draw a straight line between the shooting model and the target. If it is unobstructed, you have LoS. However, in the cluttered battlefield of tabletop wargaming True LoS like that gets a bit more complicated. In addition, such methods may not be ideal when you are talking about more than a single model, different scale of games, and other variables, it is clear that True LoS isn't always the best option to go with.

Here are the ways I can thinking of to measure LoS, please add your own thoughts and examples of games that use these models:

1. True LoS- You draw a line form individual models to individual targets.

2. Squad Leader LoS- You use one model to represent the squad's LoS and draw it from that model tot eh model in the other squad to determine True LoS.

3. Area Terrain- Certain terrain is considered to block LoS up to infinity even if the model/terrain can't match those dimensions.

4. Area of Effect- Certain squads/units cover a predetermined area of Effect using templates or other measurements. Enemies in that area can me acted upon.

It depends on the game system really, model count, terrain expectations, mechanism and setting.

True LoS is the least complicated, least problematic, easiest to describe LoS rule out there id combined with the "magic cylinder" volumetric representation of the firer and the targets you have a system that works quite robustly.

But it works better for skirmish games were terrain, individual position ectr is important, in an "apocalypse" level game terrain and models could very well be counters and more abstract LoS rules were units and terrain have abstracted LoS blocking sizes would make the game easier.

I kind of liked the Clix LOS rules. Draw a line from the actor's square to the target's square. If it crossed and models/terrain/etc. squares, in cover. If no line could be drawn that didn't pass through such "opaque" squares, no LOS.

True LOS from "model's eye view" gets hairy very quickly. Trying to get such a literal LOS seems unnecessary when much of the game is abstracted or abbreviated anyway. Stylized LOS from a base, "magic cylinder", etc. generally accomplishes the goal much more elegantly.

PsychoticStorm also makes an excellent point about scale. In a unit based game, individual LOS rapidly becomes unworkable. In that case, it is probably better to treat the unit as such and just trace LOS from the majority of the models or even any model.

As to terrain, if the game is largely "flat", terrain height doesn't matter too much anyway. As terrain is often an abstraction, using terrain "areas" represented by felt, for example, often works well. Very few games actually seem to need much in the way of "3d" terrain rules. Height levels seems like it would be very workable in games that need it (for example fights in multi story buildings).

While I like Magic Cylinder, I don't want to explain Magic Cylinder...

For KOG light, I categorize LOS for 3-D tabletop play as:
- unobstructed to ALL of the target; or
- obstructed to ANY of the target (Cover).
I also have Sensor Lock for no LOS indirect fire.

I also prefer area terrain for generalized cover. but 3-D terrain with sharp vertical angles suggests some form of "true" LOS as the natural solution.

Is magic cylinder that hard to explain?

I reckon you give the game abstract height divisions, a bit like the contour lines on maps. You set the division at one inch and give each type of figure a height stat. This would be 1 for normal infantry and cars, 2 for cavalry, battlesuits and small armoured vehicles, 3 for tanks and small monstrous creatures, and so on. The height of everything in the game can be expressed the same way. Then LOS can be determined by rules that take into account the height levels of the target, the viewer, and the terrain they are on and what is in beteween them.

To go into a bit more detail, let's assume area terrain/figures with assigned height as Kilkrazy explained. Skirmish/individual model game. Determine LOS from any point on base or center of base? Why?

@kk - At the level of conciseness that I want in KOG light, it's impossible to get into magic cylinder. I'd need to explain the concept and the mechanic, and I don't want to make that such a big portion of the rules.
____

@jmurph - I prefer any part of square to any part of target, because centers are obscured by the base, while corners are not.