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.

Hey there,


Although I've never posted on Dakka before, I've been playing 40K for a while now and have started to find a couple of issues. I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts. I'm aware that in being critical about a GW rulebook I may run the risk of getting flamed by some people, but everyone's entitled to their opinion and that includes me...


So, the True Line Of Sight (TLOS) thing. Great idea in principal, but have GW really thought it through? Me and my mates have found some holes in it.

First off, it says - basically- that if you can see it, you can shoot at it. Page 16 of the rules states that "...at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen." That is to say that if nine of my guys are behind one rock and nine of your guys are behind another, and only one guy in each unit can see each other, that all ten guys in each squad can engage, albeit with cover saves.

Doesn't this go totally against the idea of using TLOS? Surely, if you are using True Line Of Sight, then those other nine guys in each squad are unable to be fired on because they can't be seen. Isn't the idea of TLOS that you take the position of the miniature as sacrosanct, and that you determine from there what it can and cannot see? What is the point of allowing it to fire on what it can't see, if you're using TLOS? If only one model in a squad has Line Of Sight to a target, then surely only that model gets to fire? If you want the other models to stay out of danger, then they don't get to shoot either?

I'm aware that people will say the squad concerned might be moving around to get better firing positions and so on, but we reject that argument. To repeat, surely TLOS requires that the position of the model be inviolate, as we are using it to accurately determine what it can see. Why should the rules tell us that although we think our Marines are hiding behind a building 8" from the corner, the fact that one Marine can be seen means they can be engaged? As the controlling players surely it's up to us to carefully position the models to gain the best possible tactical advantage, covering them and their manouver with interlocking fields of fire and cover by heavy weapons and artillery/snipers. If we fail to do so then surely it's us that have failed. In the words of the designers themselves...

"We have chosen the true line of sight because it makes the game feel much more cinematic and 'real'."

But if your rules then tell me that models I thought were in cover can be attacked, then what is the point? If I have five Orcs with Sluggas and one with a Big Shoota, I can theoretically leave Mr Big Shoota exposed, hosing down the enemy while I try to absorb the return fire with the Slugga Boyz. I know Wound Allocation goes some way to addressing this, but surely it shouldn't need to be addressed at all. If only my Big Shoota is exposing himself, then surely he's the only one who shold be able to be targetted. Anything else simply encourages bad tactics and unrealistic troop handling. And I don't care if it's WH40K and (allegedly!) aimed at 12 year olds who wouldn't know fire and movement from a hole in the ground. Games Workshop charge a lot of money for their hobby and in the rules they just don't deliver!

On page 22 of the rules we find this - 'Models that are inside area terrain will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of that area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target. Remember, of course, that models still need to be able to see their target in order to be able to shoot at all.'
Is it not contradictory to tell me that although I need to be careful where I place my model in order to engage another one inside the same terrain, that I can then assume it has moved in order to take up a firing position? Surely, if I've taken care that my Cadian Trooper in a Wood has got LOS to the Orc he's trying to shoot then that already counts as a good 'good field of vision'. I've taken the trouble to ensure by moving the model correctly, so if the target is more than 2" away, why should it make a difference? I can either see (and therefore engage) my target or I can't. Again, GW tells us that although we have to use TLOS, there is the possibility that our troops have moved from where we put them. Doesn't that go right against the idea of TLOS? Surely the position of the terrain is just as inviolate as the position. I always thought the idea of TLOS was that whatever is on the table is on the battlefield - no more arguing over spotting rules and elevations - you either see it or you don't. Simple. Isn't it? Or do GW know something we don't?


And while I'm here, why is it that I'm only ever allowed to make one saving throw? If I've taken the trouble to wear armour, and hide in cover, why don't both those things count? Surely I should be able to roll both saves, if I've taken the time to avail myself of them. It just makes good tactical sense. Or do GW know something we don't?


And finally (sorry!), has anyone else noticed (I only just realised) that the 'Roll to Hit/Wound/Save' is messed up? Surely, given that a shot (be it bullet, bolter round, las shot or grenade shrapnel) will encounter Armour BEFORE it encounters flesh, shouldn't the second roll be the weapon versus the Armour, as opposed to the Toughness? T is surely a measure of the resilience and strength of the models body. It makes no sense to find out if a Wound was caused first, and then roll for an Armour Save. If the shot doesn't make it past the Armour then a Toughness test is surely irrelevant. Isn't it? Or am I being some kind of heretic, soon to be hunted down by the crack GW RulesHeretic Hunters? We shall see...!


Seriously, we love playing 40K, but these things (and more besides!) are beginning to irritate us. Are we alone? Are there others out there like us? It's cold here in the darkness, doubting the ever-knowing lore of Games Workshop... and yet... maybe, we think they might have (whisper it!) got some things wrong!!! Yes, we said it.. wait, NO, they're coming! GW found us.. they're close - we can hear them! AAAAAAAAAGH NOOO! SAVE US!!!!

You do know that with a few exceptions, you've been using true line of sight since at least 3rd edition.

Um, how exactly? I'm confused by that, given that it isn't really true! 5th ed. is the first on to go totally TLOS.

sherbet wrote: First off, it says - basically- that if you can see it, you can shoot at it. Page 16 of the rules states that "...at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit. If no models have line of sight then a different target must be chosen." That is to say that if nine of my guys are behind one rock and nine of your guys are behind another, and only one guy in each unit can see each other, that all ten guys in each squad can engage, albeit with cover saves.

This is part of your problem - you're misusing the rule. The part you're alluding to is for target selection: in order for one unit to fire at another unit, at least one model from the firing unit must be able to see at least one model from the target unit. If you keep reading, you'll reach the part where you check LoS for each firing model individually.

In your example, only one model could fire.

But the "magic bullet" syndrome, where you can shoot an entire squad because one of them is peaking around a corner is a bit jarring.

On page 22 of the rules we find this - 'Models that are inside area terrain will position themselves with good fields of vision. Therefore they may fire through up to 2" of that area terrain they are occupying without that terrain conferring a cover save to the target. Remember, of course, that models still need to be able to see their target in order to be able to shoot at all.'
Is it not contradictory to tell me that although I need to be careful where I place my model in order to engage another one inside the same terrain, that I can then assume it has moved in order to take up a firing position? Surely, if I've taken care that my Cadian Trooper in a Wood has got LOS to the Orc he's trying to shoot then that already counts as a good 'good field of vision'. I've taken the trouble to ensure by moving the model correctly, so if the target is more than 2" away, why should it make a difference? I can either see (and therefore engage) my target or I can't. Again, GW tells us that although we have to use TLOS, there is the possibility that our troops have moved from where we put them. Doesn't that go right against the idea of TLOS? Surely the position of the terrain is just as inviolate as the position. I always thought the idea of TLOS was that whatever is on the table is on the battlefield - no more arguing over spotting rules and elevations - you either see it or you don't. Simple. Isn't it? Or do GW know something we don't?

Area terrain has always been an abstraction - no tabletop is going to model every tree in a forest (and, if you did, the static bases of models would prevent you from moving anything through the forest).

And finally (sorry!), has anyone else noticed (I only just realised) that the 'Roll to Hit/Wound/Save' is messed up? Surely, given that a shot (be it bullet, bolter round, las shot or grenade shrapnel) will encounter Armour BEFORE it encounters flesh, shouldn't the second roll be the weapon versus the Armour, as opposed to the Toughness? T is surely a measure of the resilience and strength of the models body. It makes no sense to find out if a Wound was caused first, and then roll for an Armour Save. If the shot doesn't make it past the Armour then a Toughness test is surely irrelevant. Isn't it? Or am I being some kind of heretic, soon to be hunted down by the crack GW RulesHeretic Hunters? We shall see...!

It is statistically irrelevant which order you perform these actions; you could roll to wound first, then roll saves against the wounds, then roll to hit with anything that got through armor, if you really wanted to. The order is a game mechanic - it's more efficient to have one player roll all of his dice first, rather than intermixing rolls.

There are some annoyances in 5th, particularly with TLOS - if nothing else, it invalidates a lot of terrain people built for 3e & 4e, and the "magic bullets" (which break TLOS) are a nuisance. But many of your gripes stem from game mechanics intended to ease play; there are more robust systems available, but the cost is in number of players & time involved. 40k is a fast game, relatively speaking.

sherbet wrote: Um, how exactly? I'm confused by that, given that it isn't really true! 5th ed. is the first on to go totally TLOS.

Read the line of sight rules from the 3rd and 4th edition rulebooks where they tell you to bend over the model and get a "model's eye view". That's true line of sight. It's not a new game mechanic for 40K.

yea... Area terrain in 4th was a problem with most people not reading it. I didn't notice it till I read ghaz's post. If you could see it, you could shoot it in 3rd or 4th, the "only time it changed was when terrain was area"... sizes were only used for area and cc, and not all terrain was area.

the way the rules are written is very good in this edition comparitively speaking.

I am moving as this section is about actual rules interpretations.

The biggest problem with area terrain in fourth was the 'height' of the terrain and its application. The old 'I stand a lvl 2 model on a lvl 3 hill, now he's lvl 5 and can shoot over everything' argument.

I like TLoS. While it greats its own set of problems, I think its still better than third and fourth. Of course, I like LotR which has used that mechanic and was used to it.

sherbet wrote:Doesn't this go totally against the idea of using TLOS?

Of course it does. It's one of the many reasons I don't like 5th Ed, because they've gone and added yet another abstraction to the game when it didn't need one. It should have just ended at 'If I can see you, I can kill you, if I can't, I can't' - so you can only apply wounds and pull casualties from those in LOS.

Really, really not that difficult.

BYE

Exactly. More realistic and would have played into the need for better placement.

H.B.M.C. wrote: It should have just ended at 'If I can see you, I can kill you, if I can't, I can't' - so you can only apply wounds and pull casualties from those in LOS.

Really, really not that difficult.

BYE

This was the way that the first two editions of 40k played, and it worked pretty well. The issue was that they wanted the game to run smoothly with larger armies, and so the squad as target idea was applied, instead of a single miniature being the target. This initial abstraction is what creates a cascading need for more abstraction in targeting. What the new rules seem to do is create a clumsy hybrid.

Only the first two editions???

You couldn't pull unseen casualties in 3rd and I'm pretty sure you couldn't do it in 4th either, and neither of those were more complicated than 5th.

BYE

Well, I think TLOS fails for a completely different reason.

For a wargame to be realistic the estetic shape of the terrain must be absolute. The shape of the miniatures however, is abstract. To me, It seemed that to some extent, 4th edition saw both these factors as abstract. In fifth edition, both factors are absolute. Which is slowed.

TLOS works for vehicles, because they don't have the option to crawl on the ground. Not so for infantry.

Paul Atreides wrote:Well, I think TLOS fails for a completely different reason.

For a wargame to be realistic the estetic shape of the terrain must be absolute. The shape of the miniatures however, is abstract. To me, It seemed that to some extent, 4th edition saw both these factors as abstract. In fifth edition, both factors are absolute. Which is slowed.

TLOS works for vehicles, because they don't have the option to crawl on the ground. Not so for infantry.

Therefore, 6e will feature absolute terrain and abstract models? I'm trying to wrap my head around how that'll work, but I'm too tired, I think.

(And, for the record, Defilers are perfectly content to crawl, to say nothing of Brass Scorpions.)

H.B.M.C. wrote:Only the first two editions???

You couldn't pull unseen casualties in 3rd and I'm pretty sure you couldn't do it in 4th either, and neither of those were more complicated than 5th.

BYE

Indeed HBMC it was the same, its how things like using 2 rhinos to restrict a dread with twin las' LOS so it could only see say a sergeant with a PF or Lascannon marine developed and such like, sure it was an donkey-cave tactic that was only used in GTs most of the time but its more realistic and wasnt really a problem

In a more sophisticated ruleset there would have been an option to snipe at a model, with To Hit modifiers, and this would have obviated the need for LoS tunnelling.

However we now have rules designed for players who can't count higher than 10.

I type this after a pint of lager, a large glass of wine and a brandy.

In vino veritas?

Kilkrazy wrote:However we now have rules designed for players who can't count higher than 10.

Well, that's only true if they don't take of their shoes............

At my store there is confusion over how TLOS interacts with the terrain. Mainly, if there is no window or door, then nothing can shoot through a wall. Nor can it *move through the wall*. That just gives me a headache. It can move through the wall ... because the terrain is an abstraction ... right?

So in fact it would seem that we're NOT the only ones who think the TLOS system hasn't been thought out properly by GW!

Good to know...

Almost every rule doesn't get thought out properly at GW. That's why we love them so.

My gaming group argues and complains about it all the time. Personally I don't really have a problem with the rules - I think they thought it through, and decided on which abstractions they wanted.

Did they make the right choice? I don't know, but I hated character sniping in 4e, especially when someone would do something like turn their rhinos into a firing lane for a heavy weapon. It was kind of silly.

I guess I would say I...almost like the rules and think they work reasonably well, but I don't like them calling it true line of sight when it isn't. There's abstractions, some more appropriate than others, so it's definitely not TLOS.

The thing that drives people the most nuts from my experience is how it's inconsistent from the firing or firer's perspective. Oh, you can see half of one of my guys with your squad, feel free to open up and kill everyone. Too bad I would only be able to shoot you with one of my guys. Or...ok, I have to draw line of sight from my guy's head, so he can't see you, but you can see his left foot so you can shoot him...great. The second problem isn't as common but it's frustrating to have them go on and on about TLOS, and then use abstractions anyway, some of which are annoying while other better ones are missing (why not just use the old base-edge abstraction?)

Noisy_Marine wrote:At my store there is confusion over how TLOS interacts with the terrain. Mainly, if there is no window or door, then nothing can shoot through a wall. Nor can it *move through the wall*. That just gives me a headache. It can move through the wall ... because the terrain is an abstraction ... right?

The fluff justification (see pg. 14) for moving through walls, closed doors, etc. is that the models are "bashing their way past" obstructions. So yes - driving your tank through a solid wall is fine.

Kilkrazy wrote:I type this after a pint of lager, a large glass of wine and a brandy.

I like you better when you've been drinking. Now go and ban some people we don't like before you sober up.

BYE

It has been my experience that most people are pretty liberal when it comes to line of sight, and still more or less use the lest abstracted 4th edition mindset. Perhaps some Dakkaites have been playing against folks who need to chill out and remember it's just a game.

Many people couldn't be arsed to play TLOS. Instead they just play with an ubiquitous 4+ cover save.

I was a "conventional" LOS player for a long time, treating the 40k models as 3-D counters ("magic cylinder").

I'm currently OK with TLOS, even though I find some things somewhat odd. But if that's how 40k is going to

I rationalize it as recognizing that 40k isn't really played in turns, so at some point, the shooter got a look that they could take advantage of and squeeze a round off at.

At least, we're done with the basics of how to draw LOS.

Skimmers not blocking line of site + "TLOS" bothers me, especially with a Monolith that is based a quarter inch off the table top.

Either make it TLOS like old school Battletech, or give up on calling it that at all.

elijahdprophet wrote:Skimmers not blocking line of site + "TLOS" bothers me, especially with a Monolith that is based a quarter inch off the table top.

Either make it TLOS like old school Battletech, or give up on calling it that at all.

Ummm, there is no blanket rule that says skimmers don't block LoS. If your models can see under a skimmer, they can fire. If they can't, then they can't.

What defines shooting under a skimmer? firing from the body of a trooper can fit under most skimmer bases-does that qualify?

What about jetbikes with varying height bases? It all starts to get stupid.

Frazzled wrote:What defines shooting under a skimmer? firing from the body of a trooper can fit under most skimmer bases-does that qualify?

What about jetbikes with varying height bases? It all starts to get stupid.

What? TLoS stupid! Perish the thought.