Switch Theme:

AoS How is everyone handling "visible" for line-of-sight rules?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User





Relevent rules quote:
In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must be [...] visible to the attacker (if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the attacking model to see if the target is visible). For the purposes of determining visibility, an attacking model can see through other models in its unit.


This used to have some straightforward solutions: can you draw a line from the center of attackers base to center of the targets base that does not cross any other bases? The rules on cover described how much of unit had to be visible to be in different levels of cover.

Now the target just needs to be "visible" which could mean that the tiniest tip of a spear point is visible through a deep screen of protective units.
How are people handling this in game? I'd like it to be feasible to protect a character from ranged attacks with a row of defensive units, but currently that would require modelling in some tower shields to block all visibility. (although building an honourguard unit with big shields could be fun)
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





True line of sight is the order of the day in AoS, and you no doubt know the Cover rules are a little scant. That means "The Most Important Rule" rules.

I'd suggest applying the rules for Fences from the Scenery PDF as a starting point for your discussion with your opponent (ie, +1 Save if you're attacking a unit on the other side of the "fence", provided he's within 3"). "Fence" in this context is obviously the intervening unit.

Just a suggestion.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




In my experience, which I don't like mind you, is everyone can see everyone in range. Without a complete blocking by terrain, as in high hill or wall, there is no way a single model will completely block out another model. I wish there was some sort of cover situation, but there really isn't. I do find it funny when people claim it is "real" LoS. But it really isn't.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Monngo wrote:
In my experience, which I don't like mind you, is everyone can see everyone in range. Without a complete blocking by terrain, as in high hill or wall, there is no way a single model will completely block out another model. I wish there was some sort of cover situation, but there really isn't. I do find it funny when people claim it is "real" LoS. But it really isn't.
Exactly this.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





AoS doesn't really have a concept of ranged cover (I believe it is just if you are completely within a terrain feature, you get the +1 save, but that applies to melee attacks too), so if one unit can see any part of another unit, even between the legs of another, it has line of sight and can fire upon it unimpeded. Certain terrain features override this, such as fences and the Ophidian Archway. Even then, the entire unit needs to be in cover or none of it is. This makes sense because you attack a unit, not a model, so if three models are in cover and one isn't, you'd just end up attacking the one that isn't and doing full damage to the entire unit. It should also be noted that, for the purposes of drawing line of sight, models do not block LOS of other models in the same unit.

In general, I don't have a problem with RAW, since the game is more melee orientated than shooting (you get one shooting phase for ever four melee phases you can act in) and the three inch zone of control around each figure impedes movement significantly, to the point where shooting might be the only way to get past a particularly tough unit blocking a wizard or priest. The way I see, units aren't just standing there, but moving around, fighting, so there'd be an opportunity to fire behind them in the commotion. Because you hit the unit, not the model, the concept of half-cover becomes meaningless, so cover itself, as a concept, is largely irrelevant to multi-model units, giving single model units a significant advantage they don't deserve. And in general, the places where cover would be most useful, like in forests or on Dreadhold walls, are already covered by the default cover rule of being completely within or on a terrain feature. And for obscuring terrain, you can just use the fence rules.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Sqorgar wrote:
AoS doesn't really have a concept of ranged cover (I believe it is just if you are completely within a terrain feature, you get the +1 save, but that applies to melee attacks too), so if one unit can see any part of another unit, even between the legs of another, it has line of sight and can fire upon it unimpeded. Certain terrain features override this, such as fences and the Ophidian Archway. Even then, the entire unit needs to be in cover or none of it is. This makes sense because you attack a unit, not a model, so if three models are in cover and one isn't, you'd just end up attacking the one that isn't and doing full damage to the entire unit. It should also be noted that, for the purposes of drawing line of sight, models do not block LOS of other models in the same unit.

In general, I don't have a problem with RAW, since the game is more melee orientated than shooting (you get one shooting phase for ever four melee phases you can act in) and the three inch zone of control around each figure impedes movement significantly, to the point where shooting might be the only way to get past a particularly tough unit blocking a wizard or priest. The way I see, units aren't just standing there, but moving around, fighting, so there'd be an opportunity to fire behind them in the commotion. Because you hit the unit, not the model, the concept of half-cover becomes meaningless, so cover itself, as a concept, is largely irrelevant to multi-model units, giving single model units a significant advantage they don't deserve. And in general, the places where cover would be most useful, like in forests or on Dreadhold walls, are already covered by the default cover rule of being completely within or on a terrain feature. And for obscuring terrain, you can just use the fence rules.


The problem with their cover system is it only applies when in the woods. Why not behind the woods? And a bonus to save is a terrible abstraction to harder to hit effectively, IMO. And I don't know the "fence rules" I hardly care to look it up, but the core rules have no mention of anything obscuring anything and affecting gameplay. Are you sure those rules are not just specific to that terrain?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Monngo wrote:

The problem with their cover system is it only applies when in the woods. Why not behind the woods? And a bonus to save is a terrible abstraction to harder to hit effectively, IMO. And I don't know the "fence rules" I hardly care to look it up, but the core rules have no mention of anything obscuring anything and affecting gameplay. Are you sure those rules are not just specific to that terrain?
The fence rules are located in the scenery supplement. It basically says that if all models are within 3" of a fence and on the same side, it gets cover from attacks made from the other side. The same rules are used with the Ophidian Archway.

Like I said, AoS doesn't really have a concept of ranged cover. There is only one very general purpose rule, and only two pieces of terrain explicitly give you cover (not including the cover granted by being in a garrison). So there's not really a problem with their cover system because there's not really a cover system to begin with.

The reason why being in a forest grants cover and being behind it is the same reason why intervening models don't provide cover - you attack the unit, not the model. It would be too difficult and time consuming to determine the cover status of a unit of 40 models, given that every single one of them would have to be obscured to benefit from cover. To simplify it, so that the shooting phase does not get too difficult, you are either "obviously in cover" or you don't get cover at all. Again, AoS is a melee-orientated game, with shooting being a supplementary special case of melee attack.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Sqorgar wrote:
Monngo wrote:

The problem with their cover system is it only applies when in the woods. Why not behind the woods? And a bonus to save is a terrible abstraction to harder to hit effectively, IMO. And I don't know the "fence rules" I hardly care to look it up, but the core rules have no mention of anything obscuring anything and affecting gameplay. Are you sure those rules are not just specific to that terrain?
The fence rules are located in the scenery supplement. It basically says that if all models are within 3" of a fence and on the same side, it gets cover from attacks made from the other side. The same rules are used with the Ophidian Archway.

Like I said, AoS doesn't really have a concept of ranged cover. There is only one very general purpose rule, and only two pieces of terrain explicitly give you cover (not including the cover granted by being in a garrison). So there's not really a problem with their cover system because there's not really a cover system to begin with.

The reason why being in a forest grants cover and being behind it is the same reason why intervening models don't provide cover - you attack the unit, not the model. It would be too difficult and time consuming to determine the cover status of a unit of 40 models, given that every single one of them would have to be obscured to benefit from cover. To simplify it, so that the shooting phase does not get too difficult, you are either "obviously in cover" or you don't get cover at all. Again, AoS is a melee-orientated game, with shooting being a supplementary special case of melee attack.


I would say there is a cover system in place, you said it yourself, it is just very limited. I would also say the limitations are the problem. I understand models do not get cover from things in the way, and that is my criticism of the cover system. I do not think it would be difficult to determine if something has cover or not, a quick glance would be sufficient. But, I do think the mechanical impact would be harder to determine simply because the AoS uses such a simplistic form of determining success or failure.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/25 19:21:20


 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: