Why do so many rules writers seem to think that this is a good concept to use? It sounds simple until you actually try to determine it during gameplay, when it then devolves into arguments about whether you can see the edge of a figure's helmet around that tree or something equally absurd.
Well, it's kind of an obvious thing to do when writing rules (hunch over and look to see what the models on the table actually see).
But yeah, I agree - it's better to either give models defined base sizes and then essentially quantum cylinders where they can expected to be in at any time during the game, or just measure from base to base and consider any intervening terrain.
For the sake of eliminating ambiguity, I'm way in favor of measuring base-to-base and then having rules for which base sizes or terrain pieces block the line.
I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative. I love sitting behind my swarm or my guardsmen for very different reasons!
If I want my wargames to be precise or competitive I'll play boardgames with cut and dry rules, precision square based movement, perfectly balanced or mirror matched sides etc.
If I want to play something with more relaxed I'll play games with TLOS. These fun games, I play with fun people, if a decision goes one persons way once we'll let it go the other way the next time, if the decisions are odd in number throughout a game then balance is ruined and I tend to tableflip.
Reality-Torrent wrote: I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..
Except, of course, for any other system.
The one thing that TLoS is good for is visualization - for those folks that want the miniatures to literally represent the warriors on the field.
During WH40K 2 and 3 we used to use laser pointers to determine if a figure could see - fun, but kind of silly....
Removing TLoS makes it a bit more abstract, but also a lot less fiddly. (And allows dramatic poses and dioramic bases without affecting game play - a friend has a Dwarf Ranger unit for KoW that is climbing a mountain....)
Unless you are playing a game where your miniatures are literally stone statues that slide around the battlefield one at a time, TLOS makes no sense.
systems like SST, WMH, and T:G all share the same core concepts - volumetric sizing, which is superior and totally removes LOS arguments and ambiguities from the system. It's one of the basic tenets of system elegance.
Alex Kolodotschko wrote: I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative. I love sitting behind my swarm or my guardsmen for very different reasons!
If I want my wargames to be precise or competitive I'll play boardgames with cut and dry rules, precision square based movement, perfectly balanced or mirror matched sides etc.
If I want to play something with more relaxed I'll play games with TLOS. These fun games, I play with fun people, if a decision goes one persons way once we'll let it go the other way the next time, if the decisions are odd in number throughout a game then balance is ruined and I tend to tableflip.
I have to agree. True LOS makes the game feel much more immersive (which is pretty much why I play tabletop games). When we play, we simply give the shooter always the benefit of the doubt. So if there's any doubt at all, the shooter gets LOS. Likewise, with partial cover -- if it's close, the target gets cover.
I rather like TLoS. You can see or you cant. The W40K rules expand on TLoS a little in that you're required to see, wholly, a models arm, leg, torso or head. For me it's pretty clear cut and dry. If I can draw LoS to a hand... Well a hand is not the 'whole arm' as the rules state and therefore I cannot 'see' to target the unit.
Tournament players take the idea of TLoS way to far IMO.
One has to wonder... Why do these nit picking rules disagreements always tend to surround tournament players?
oni wrote: Tournament players take the idea of TLoS way to far IMO.
One has to wonder... Why do these nit picking rules disagreements always tend to surround tournament players?
It's more that TLOS is ambiguous and can lead to different interpretations for not only tournaments, but pick up and play games.
Volumetric sizing is superior for all types of players, and not just the "rules should be ambiguous because games are meant to be fun and those tournament gamers can suck it!" crowd.
It's more that TLOS is ambiguous and can lead to different interpretations for not only tournaments, but pick up and play games.
Volumetric sizing is superior for all types of players, and not just the "rules should be ambiguous because games are meant to be fun and those tournament gamers can suck it!" crowd.
But it isn't superior for all types of games. Deadzone/Mars Attacks are better for using TLoS, for example (because of the style of gameplay and the implementation within the rules being pretty unambiguous). Volumetric sizing introduces its own problems if there is a lot of varied scenic terrain scattered about since you either have to classify it all by height at the start and remember it throughout the game (which is tedious) or you have to check LoS to an imaginary space the figure isn't completely occupying (which is worse that TLoS). Games which need to be scenery heavy like Bolt Action would not be improved by using volumetric sizing. On the flipside, I'm glad it is the method now used in KoW2 as it works well there.
If you're trying to determine whether one abstract representation of a soldier can see another abstract representation of a soldier on an abstract representation of a battlefield then no solution is going to be a great one.
My biggest problem with TLOS is that it is dependent upon the terrain models available. Two trees does not make a forest. Though some tourneys and clubs act like it is.
TLOS is only confusing if your trying to abuse it. From the models "eyes", can he see the target, it's either a yes or no question. Yeah, it's not the best system, but more immersive than "well, can his 1" tall .5" wide cylinder see the other 1" tall .5" wide cylinder" Ignoring that that sounds remarkably similar to LOS. Yeah, I know it's not the best, but it's fairly simple, immersive, and an easy concept to explain to new players.
zgort wrote: I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?
Rather than TLOS each model is esentaly given 2 extra stats, Base size / footprint and Height. As a result the game could be played using cylinders or blocks but we still use figures because they look better.
While attractive I find volumetric methods almost as bad as TLoS,
players who are prone to argue at length about whether their mini can see/be seen in TLoS games tend to do so in volumetric games as well (or argue that no that bit of scenery was meant to be size 3 not size 4)
(if you can put together full tables of scenery for a given game that all fits their size steps this does disappear but it's not very realistic)
zgort wrote: I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?
Rather than TLOS each model is esentaly given 2 extra stats, Base size / footprint and Height. As a result the game could be played using cylinders or blocks but we still use figures because they look better.
Thank you. In all honesty it sounds like it would have similar problems to true line of sight. Terrain sounds like it could benefit from these types of rules, though.
I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.
TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.
Riquende wrote: I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.
TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.
Hey, Age of Sigmarines is all about the fact that guy is always waving his sword around like that....
Riquende wrote: I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.
TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.
I agree, it's no more immersive at all and it's a pain in the arse a lot of the time. I was playing Infinity with some mates and we were basically using TLoS (because we hadn't read the silhouette rules) and all 4 of us saw something different when we tried to draw line of sight, some said they were in cover and some didn't, etc. I imagine a laser pointer would help but then that's not 'immersive' either and better LoS and cover rules would work just as well.
At least with 40k I vastly prefer not using TLOS. When the rules shifted to TLOS it seemed it was almost impossible to get out of sight on most boards as most terrain had some little hole that you could see through. This meant firing lanes didn't really matter and manouver became less important. Games are much more interesting when you can't shoot the whole board from anywhere, but instead have to make decisions about optimum placement and covering multiple approach lanes with limited options. This can be done with TLOS but is much easier with abstracted rules.
Talys wrote: I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative.
The narrative of a crouching Guardsman with a plasma gun, who apparently shuffles around the field on his knees at all times. And how his squad was tragically wiped out because when they took cover behind a wall, he was unable to stand up, and so could not see the onrushing Tyranid critter. Truly an epic of our times.
Talys wrote: I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative.
The narrative of a crouching Guardsman with a plasma gun, who apparently shuffles around the field on his knees at all times. And how his squad was tragically wiped out because when they took cover behind a wall, he was unable to stand up, and so could not see the onrushing Tyranid critter. Truly an epic of our times.
By the way, that was Alex Kolodotschko, not me (misquote, hehe). It's quite alright, though, because I agree with him.
Sadly, I don't have my tables at 40". I would love that, though.
TLoS work best with big models and terrain that is actually representing the "reality" of a battlefield. It's even better if those said models have different sizes of bases -like GW like to do. In that, it is indeed more immersive and "simple". Of course, it doesn't prevent some weird situations like crouching soldiers or jumping/flying poses...but usually, those games aren't really picky on the rules and rely greatly on the good will of players.
"Volume" LoS is better with small scale models (where it is really stupid to ask to "see through the eyes of the models", when that said model is a 6mm infantry scale), usually played in regiments rather than individuals. On that size, abstraction is nearly necessary and helps to keep the flow in game.
It is also good with models with standardized bases (not from GW, thus, because GW doesn't care about that at all). Warmachine/Horde is a good example, because they really put a thought about this in particular.
However, I'd also say the main question is a question of player preferences. Some like to play "cinematic" games, other are more adept of more abstract ones. They can also have different views about the importance of rules (and I'm talking about how they are written, as well). This is mainly here the pertinence of having TLoS can really have an answer, IMHO - and obviously, there isn't one absolute in that case.
TLOS is utter nonsense and assumes a figure posed waving their arms in the air is doing so even when supposed to be taking cover behind a wall. In a largely abstract game, TLOS is absurdly literal.
TLoS would work if you had a fixed ground scale, and terrain to the same scale. Few games have either
You still need a concept for area terrain, which is not that hard to add though and many games do.
Models scale, eyesight and light doesn't, this is before you get into issues such as seeing part of a hand and converted models.
TLoS gets used because it's easy to write and sounds like a good idea, in a scale simulation it his may be true but in 28mm with undefined time periods and a variable ground scale your shooting rounds corners when you use that laser pointer.
Not saying it's a bad system, but you need to know what it implies for the rest of the game
Reality-Torrent wrote: I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..
Except, of course, for any other system.
The one thing that TLoS is good for is visualization - for those folks that want the miniatures to literally represent the warriors on the field.
Except then it's still terrible. I mount a character on a piece of statue for his base. He isnt lugging that around the entire time on the field. His arm isnt locked into position with the sword raised overhead allowing him to be shot easier. TLOS is the worst of both worlds. It's ambiguous and prone to arguments, encourages modeling for advantage, and is nonsensical which to me, breaks any immersion.
Games are abstract by necessity, LOS should reflect that as well. The Malifaux style system of assigning a model and all terrain a specified height is far better IMO.
zgort wrote: I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?
Rather than TLOS each model is esentaly given 2 extra stats, Base size / footprint and Height. As a result the game could be played using cylinders or blocks but we still use figures because they look better.
Thank you. In all honesty it sounds like it would have similar problems to true line of sight. Terrain sounds like it could benefit from these types of rules, though.
Malifaux's terrain rules incorporate that, including height 0 terrain for things like rough ground, water, etc. Walls are assigned a uniform height, so even if there's a small break or a stone out of place, it's all considered the same. It speeds up play because you don't have to waste time trying to figure out every possible angle to manipulate the figure when in reality the person seeking cover isnt in the pose of their model anyways.
Bossk_Hogg wrote: You don't have to waste time trying to figure out every possible angle to manipulate the figure when in reality the person seeking cover isnt in the pose of their model anyways.
I always adopt the pose of the model seeking cover, this for me is full immersion. It is also the rules for Age of Sigmar.
Bossk_Hogg wrote: You don't have to waste time trying to figure out every possible angle to manipulate the figure when in reality the person seeking cover isnt in the pose of their model anyways.
I always adopt the pose of the model seeking cover, this for me is full immersion. It is also the rules for Age of Sigmar.
That still doesnt fix the issue that the *model* is not hunched over, or is mounted on a base which changes their LOS, or has a feather sticking out, or some other stupid crap. It still wastes time as you do the equivalent of pixel bitching to get the figure just right.
When playing Infinity I find that it isn't exactly "obvious" on LOS. Our view from our own eyes is different from what a model may or may not be able to actually SEE, let alone hit. A simple point to point system makes it clear and removes all question.
Someone above mentioned that it is always tournament players that care about such things and I would agree. Tournament players need a fair, balanced game with as few ambiguities as possible... in a tournament, the game is about the rules. If you don't care about the rules (GW!) then it doesn't really matter. If you have to roll dice, constantly interpret, or completely guess at what the rules mean, then they are poorly written rules. More clear is always better in gaming when you are pushing toys across a table for strategic competition.
If you are pushing toys across the table and don't care, then these discussions really are meaningless to you
TLOS is also really much more of a problem on dense, varied boards.
We played some Necromunda for old times sake, and the sheer difficulty of checking TLOS some of the time is astounding. Without a laser pointer, you often have situations where you simply cannot put your eye, your model, and your opponent's model in a line without scenery blocking your head (or stabbing into the side of your face). We had more models knocked over by 'checking LOS' than by our fumble-fingered attempts at moving them!
As GW has produced larger and larger models (admittedly, awesome models) they have also been largely moving towards displaying 'games' that are staged on relatively empty boards. The terrain on these boards is not particularly dense, nor is the terrain packed closely together, nor is it particularly 'varied' terrain, where models might be displayed on many different levels with many varied lines of movement and sight. It's often big blobs of buildings.
When they do feature very dense, varied terrain, it's generally as a single shot for an image, and isn't something that is played on.
I love their Imperial Buildings, but I can tell you from experience that an incautious LOS check can risk eye damage (thanks, glasses!).
How about we set our games in universes where bullets hit a massive invisible wall about a foot in front of whoever is being shot at? It certainly takes a lot of the guesswork of whether you can hit out.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: How about we set our games in universes where bullets hit a massive invisible wall about a foot in front of whoever is being shot at? It certainly takes a lot of the guesswork of whether you can hit out.
Useless post is useless.
The Auld Grump
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course then you have figures like this, by Statuesque -
Sorry, but your TLOS is only to the cover that I carry around with me....
My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.
TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.
TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.
Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.
TLOS is the simplest and easiest way to write rules about one of the most complex situations which is LOS, it relies on the intuitive ability of the human to draw an parallel line with his or her eyes between two points and determine if object B can be sen from point A.
Simple easy elegant.
The way Infinity abstracts object B in an augmentation of TLOS rules again is simple and does not break with odd rules the simplicity or elegance of TLOS (PP does that too and from earlier, but they do not use silhouettes), rectifying the problem some people have by reading too literal the TLOS rules.
The abstract LOF rules have many issues, true they can and will end up in a black/ white scenario resolution, but, first of all need more rules and more work on the rules to iron out abuse, secondly, the terrain is unimportant, throw an irregular piece of paper say lvl 2 forest, call it done.
Essentially the abstract LOF rules make unnecessary the need for terrain or models and are frankly better served in a contained environment were the irregularities of wargaming both in terrain and in pieces placement does not impair them or create a need for extra long rules, hence why they are used with great effect and are the norm in boardgames.
I have never played Infinity. How does it work in that game? Please explain this "silhouette" thing.
I'm not for a total abstracting of the rules. Neither am I for a 100% TLOS game. Both have their downfalls. I could deal with a mostly TLOS game, if area terrain was dealt with better. Perhaps somewhat more like how it was in 3rd, or 4th edition. As it is right now woods either provide no protection, or are so dense you can't move through them physically. That needs to change.
essentially all models have a silhouette value which defines both the base and the space they occupy, imagine it as models been cylinders for LoF purposes, and parts of the model out of that cylinder do not count likewise, any part of the cylinder visible is a valid target either it has model part in it or not.
By the way Infinity rules are free on the website so you can look yourself the design decisions the limits and virtues of the system.
The biggest difference between PP and this is that the silhouette is a physical product and not a defined height which can and cannot be measured correctly.
PsychoticStorm wrote: essentially all models have a silhouette value which defines both the base and the space they occupy, imagine it as models been cylinders for LoF purposes, and parts of the model out of that cylinder do not count likewise, any part of the cylinder visible is a valid target either it has model part in it or not.
By the way Infinity rules are free on the website so you can look yourself the design decisions the limits and virtues of the system.
The biggest difference between PP and this is that the silhouette is a physical product and not a defined height which can and cannot be measured correctly.
That's the volumetric LoS people were talking about earlier
When the volumetric is entirely centered in the models then ye,s it can be useful, when the entire LOS system becomes "volumetric" it hardly is a good solution.
I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
Although I'm not a fan of the system as a whole, Deadzone has one of the better TLOS concepts I've seen.
If I can see any bit of your model, it can be targeted. Period.
If I can see the entire model with nothing obstructing my view then I get a bonus to targeting that model.
Game immersion is more broken when the question of is a model can see another model goes for a few minutes, sure you can justify the cylinders as either a targeting solution HUD the troopers have or not bother at all with justify and just use them to resolve a resolution in under a minute and go on.
From a game designer perspective the shorter the time players need to resolve one situation the better the system is, a volumetric representation of the models not only helps with this, but also makes the unit contained, this helps not only with the rules and balancing of models (and helps the model companies build models that are not all standing with the gun abreast).
I do not consider deadzone a good LOF system, essentially its pure TLOF and while it demonstrates the good parts of pure TLOF system it shows the problems, how do you balance the two close combat enforcer sculpts? the standard and the special character who is kneeling? the later has a clear advantage approaching its target.
It also makes the few dynamic models of deadzone a clear disadvantage to field.
This is why the TLOF while a really good rule needed to enter the modern era.
On the other hand the terrain level due to the vast variance of terrain and its impossibility of codifying the terrain from different manufacturers and hand made by the players is a bad rule system that will quickly bloat out of control and will still need an extensive effort from players to really work.
Its interesting to read about the problems that people have with this rule, In nearly thirty years I have never really had a problem with the TLOS, I always assumed that it was the easiest and most straight forward way to do it, in fact we always use TLOS for every game we play, we just ignored the volumetric stuff and some other LOS systems because it seemed like a solution for a problem that did not exist.
It is just the most simple way to write it like you say, I guess the time needed to devise a different system is taken into consideration too, They obviously think that TLOS is the best suited to the games at the end of the day, certain systems suit different methods I should imagine, I think if i were going to write rules I would have used TLOS as well.
Seems like all of the problems with the TLOS rule, stem from people disagreeing and It basically comes down to offering a system that does not require two people coming to an agreement, which is fine and very much needed in certain competitive situations.
It does also seem a little sad to me, I would not want to play with someone that I could not come to an agreement with, but then again, I don't do tourneys or anything like that.
Thats one thing I love about gaming, there is such variety, I think I might suggest we do it volumetric style next time we play WMH, if we ever get around to it !
I don't like True Line of Sight because there is no point adjustments for the way the minis are made.
I mean you can have 2 equally spec minis and equally costed in points, but one can have an advantage if it's smaller and can hide easier. So therefore those 2 minis are not equally point adjusted but GW doesn't take this into consideration. So TLoS is not fair
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: players who are prone to argue at length about whether their mini can see/be seen in TLoS games tend to do so in volumetric games as well.
This. The only real difference/advantage of volumetric games is that they make modelling for advantage a non-issue, otherwise it's exactly the same thing.
I'm actually thinking about getting a mat with hex-tiles for a lot of my games (including infinity). Not that I ever have disagreements about LOS personally, but I really hate ballsing about with measuring tape, and people's rubber measuring, and accidentally nudging scenery. It seems so much easier just to have a grid that you can see, and I think it could also be helpful when LOS is unclear.
I think what I like even more than grids are the big ~3"x3" areas that get used in a lot of Fantasy Flight board games. They make movement so easy, as you are moving in larger increments, and they take all the pain out of figuring out LOS and blast weapons (if you are in this area, then you can be hit).
The only thing sadder than watching two grown men argue about toy soldiers, is watching your opponent spend >30 seconds carefully measuring how far a model can move, only to have it fall over and nudge some terrain... Then realising he's got to do this 60 more times before it's your turn.
The overprecise measuring is one of the things that really bugs me about wargaming. I'd be favour of any system that eliminates the need for that sort of thing.
cuda1179 wrote: My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.
TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.
TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.
Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.
Quoted for much truthiness. I like making fancy models that look great, and punishing models mechanically for nice poses or fancy bases seems really poor, besides, yes, your model isn't stuck with their arm held high or whatever when seeking cover.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: players who are prone to argue at length about whether their mini can see/be seen in TLoS games tend to do so in volumetric games as well.
This.
The only real difference/advantage of volumetric games is that they make modelling for advantage a non-issue, otherwise it's exactly the same thing.
I'm actually thinking about getting a mat with hex-tiles for a lot of my games (including infinity). Not that I ever have disagreements about LOS personally, but I really hate ballsing about with measuring tape, and people's rubber measuring, and accidentally nudging scenery. It seems so much easier just to have a grid that you can see, and I think it could also be helpful when LOS is unclear.
I think what I like even more than grids are the big ~3"x3" areas that get used in a lot of Fantasy Flight board games. They make movement so easy, as you are moving in larger increments, and they take all the pain out of figuring out LOS and blast weapons (if you are in this area, then you can be hit).
The only thing sadder than watching two grown men argue about toy soldiers, is watching your opponent spend >30 seconds carefully measuring how far a model can move, only to have it fall over and nudge some terrain... Then realising he's got to do this 60 more times before it's your turn.
The overprecise measuring is one of the things that really bugs me about wargaming. I'd be favour of any system that eliminates the need for that sort of thing.
You realize your solution moves the game from been a wargame into been a boardgame, making a hybrid that has the worse of both?
spiralingcadaver wrote:
cuda1179 wrote: My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.
TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.
TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.
Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.
Quoted for much truthiness. I like making fancy models that look great, and punishing models mechanically for nice poses or fancy bases seems really poor, besides, yes, your model isn't stuck with their arm held high or whatever when seeking cover.
That's why TLOS has evolved to have the volumetric rules, 4th had a huge amount of issues in LOS, evident on the length the LOS rules length, but also on assigning terrain for advantage by the players and the lengthy discussions on why the terrain placed was or was not the level the player placing it declared it to be. it also created issues with multi leveled terrain and complex terrain pieces, but the worse was the fact that models and terrain under these rules mattered not, the battlefield was flat.
PsychoticStorm wrote: You realize your solution moves the game from been a wargame into been a boardgame, making a hybrid that has the worse of both?
Firstly, what game does it "move"? This topic is about LOS, not a specific game. Lots of board games are also war games featuring LOS, and many do it with far less ambiguity than TLOS, so it's hardly the worst feature.
Secondly, it is not my "solution", it's just something I would like to have on my own table to make measuring more convenient. Just because the grid is there doesn't mean you are forced to obey it, or change any rules. It just provides a framework for moving without measuring, which is way easier for the vast majority of movements that don't require millimetre precision.
Any wargame really, wargames are messy and imprecise boardgames are contained and precise, by creating a board for a wargame you contain the wargame in a grid and create the precise and sterile conditions of a wargame, so movement, terrain, miniatures, weapon ranges and LOF must be melded to follow the grid.
Allow me some design bias in what I write, you are right in "wargames" been available in both wargame and boardgame form, in various scales scopes and forms, but for me the main difference between a boardgame wargame and a "true" wargame (quotes to show differentiation and not to show devaluation in either of the two) is the environment the rules are in, in boardgames the world is more or less flat, the LOF rules are simple and precise because the rules writer takes into account both the actual flatness of the world and the precision the board brings in, terrain is designed by the designer for the game and no outside variables need to be taken into account.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play. Really helps the immersion
You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.
It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Allow me some design bias in what I write, you are right in "wargames" been available in both wargame and boardgame form, in various scales scopes and forms, but for me the main difference between a boardgame wargame and a "true" wargame (quotes to show differentiation and not to show devaluation in either of the two) is the environment the rules are in, in boardgames the world is more or less flat, the LOF rules are simple and precise because the rules writer takes into account both the actual flatness of the world and the precision the board brings in, terrain is designed by the designer for the game and no outside variables need to be taken into account.
I hope you understand now what I am saying.
I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure I 100% agree. There are certainly some boardgames which are flat and contained, but I don't think playing on a board precludes a game from using a mechanic like TLOS, or a player from making his own scenery etc... Neither does playing on a scenic battlefield prevent a game from having a high level of two dimensional abstraction.
Well, I suppose if you like that sort of thing. I'm not against the 'unconstrained' way that miniatures can move and shoot in tabletop games, but sometimes the ambiguity is more trouble than it is worth. A lot of people do get annoyed by TLOS, the arguments it can cause make games less fun. I think games are usually better, when you take away the bits that aren't fun.
It's taken them 10 years but I think they have got it dead on with 3rd edition Infinity. Takes away the abstraction, provides a consistent response to how to take each shot.
Definitely been a reduction in how many 'discussions' we have had about whether something is in cover or not, which I think really is the ultimate measure.
I do think for mass battle/non-skirmish games TLOS is perhaps not the way to go. In those cases there is a definite need for a level of abstraction.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.
It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.
I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.
It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.
I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.
I'd have agreed, up until about ten years ago, when I ran into TFG.
He wanted to use the original Eldar Avatar, because it was easier to hide.
He had his Edar Dreadnoughts modeled so they were crouching - but insisted that they could stand up to fire. Ditto for his Edar Guardians.
After that... cylinders it is!
(On the flip side - in my KoW group there is a dwarf player that has his rangers modeled so that they are planting a banner on top of a mountain. He has never once tried to insist that units could hide behind the convenient moving mountain....)
My IG don't have a lot of choice, thats all they are issued with..
Ahem..
TLoS is rubbish, but very simple to write a rule about, so it gets used, its passable (as long as you accept the various issues around warping realty you end up with within the rules) if you have the concept of 'area' terrain, FoW has this about right (though for 15mm so a bit lacking in variation) - e.g. a 'wood' and a lone tree are different, a lone tree can provide concealment to a single team or vehicle (maybe). A wood is an area which blocks LoSthrough it, and allows LoS into or out of it up to 6", while concealing units within it. more than 6" in and you can only be seen by another unit within 6" (i.e. within the wood). Works and is simple.
Easy to scale as well, its not in FoW but a 'dense' wood could have 4" LoS, a sparse one 9" and so on, easy.
Similar mechanic used for smoke screens, with a 16" LoS range.
Biggest bugbear has to be terrain out of scale with the models, followed closely by GW bolting this on to the current games without bothering to adapt the rest of the game, or the terrain models they sell. Irritaed me no end with the FAQ for "Cities of Death" basically saying to bin the workable terrain rules they had, and replace them with TLoS...
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.
It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.
I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.
I'd have agreed, up until about ten years ago, when I ran into TFG.
He wanted to use the original Eldar Avatar, because it was easier to hide.
He had his Edar Dreadnoughts modeled so they were crouching - but insisted that they could stand up to fire. Ditto for his Edar Guardians.
After that... cylinders it is!
(On the flip side - in my KoW group there is a dwarf player that has his rangers modeled so that they are planting a banner on top of a mountain. He has never once tried to insist that units could hide behind the convenient moving mountain....)
The Auld Grump
Funny. That Ranger mountain thing has been noted as a cause behind Mantic adding height stat to KoW, wasn't it?
As to the guy with the Eldar, that isn't an issue with TLOS. That's an issue with opponent choice.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
I've played Warmachine and Malifaux for five years, and that hasn't happened once. Just measure from the base edges to the height for listed miniatures of that base size (standard measurements in WM, inches equal to the Height stat in Malifaux), done. I'm getting the feeling you haven't played that sort of system, and you're fishing for silly exaggerations to try and dismiss them out of hand.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
I've played Warmachine and Malifaux for five years, and that hasn't happened once. Just measure from the base edges to the height for listed miniatures of that base size (standard measurements in WM, inches equal to the Height stat in Malifaux), done. I'm getting the feeling you haven't played that sort of system, and you're fishing for silly exaggerations to try and dismiss them out of hand.
Same here. Better yet, assign height to terrain like the Malifaux rules actually say.
I'm not a fan of TLOS mainly because it breaks immersion for me - looking from the "model's eye view" is quite nifty the first few times until you deduce that every crouching model would have to be permanently crouching, every prone model must be crawling everywhere on its belly, etc...not to mention the MFA potential.
I would much rather take a bit of time to learn things like height/footprint categories for each unit if it meant less time stooping over tables and squinting through gaps in terrain. This doesn't have to involve vast amounts of bookkeeping...if you had an army book or unit card the height value could be printed right next to the unit.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
I've played Warmachine and Malifaux for five years, and that hasn't happened once. Just measure from the base edges to the height for listed miniatures of that base size (standard measurements in WM, inches equal to the Height stat in Malifaux), done. I'm getting the feeling you haven't played that sort of system, and you're fishing for silly exaggerations to try and dismiss them out of hand.
Same here. Better yet, assign height to terrain like the Malifaux rules actually say.
Another +1.
Yeah, I really don't think there are any mechanical disadvantages to the system. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but find it hard to believe anyone who's spent time with a decent abstracted LOS system thinks it's worse than model pose affecting mechanics.
The main disadvantages of abstracted lof terrain is complexity of rules for complex situations, more rules for the same thing, no need for a 3D terrain and of course modeling for advantage becomes making terrain for advantage.
You cannot avoid the "for advantage" someone wanting to use an exploit will find and abuse the exploit.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.
It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.
I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.
I'd have agreed, up until about ten years ago, when I ran into TFG.
He wanted to use the original Eldar Avatar, because it was easier to hide.
He had his Edar Dreadnoughts modeled so they were crouching - but insisted that they could stand up to fire. Ditto for his Edar Guardians.
After that... cylinders it is!
(On the flip side - in my KoW group there is a dwarf player that has his rangers modeled so that they are planting a banner on top of a mountain. He has never once tried to insist that units could hide behind the convenient moving mountain....)
The Auld Grump
Funny. That Ranger mountain thing has been noted as a cause behind Mantic adding height stat to KoW, wasn't it?
As to the guy with the Eldar, that isn't an issue with TLOS. That's an issue with opponent choice.
Not that specific example, as far as I know - but dioramic bases in general were.
And, no - it is the rule that allows that kind of opponent - both TLoSand that player should be gotten rid of. (Not an either/or situation at all, at all.)
He can point to the rule in the book - and he is right - going by GW rules.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
I've played Warmachine and Malifaux for five years, and that hasn't happened once. Just measure from the base edges to the height for listed miniatures of that base size (standard measurements in WM, inches equal to the Height stat in Malifaux), done. I'm getting the feeling you haven't played that sort of system, and you're fishing for silly exaggerations to try and dismiss them out of hand.
You're getting the wrong feeling. I played WarMachine for years and didn't run into issues that I can recall from the LOS (although seems like you could do some crazy stuff by putting smaller based stuff in proximity of larger based models IIRC.
My point is that the crouched guy model has a lower profile so he's harder to hit, true. He also, under TLOS, has a much harder time getting off many shots because terrain blocks him where a standing figure could see over things. I see them as a trade off.
Wanna take an entire army of hobbits? Fine. They won't be able to be seen as easily as humans in TLOS. They also will have to move further into the open to get good shots. In essence, a balancing occurs if you want to try to abuse model poses.
Unless he doesn't want to shoot and only needs to avoid being seen, not get LOS himself. CC specialists for example. And on the other side, a model that has good defences and a big gun doesn't care if he is seen but wants good shots so model extra height for best views.
For some of my characters I have alternates where they're standing/laying prone or crouching. In my turn I use the standing ones and then swap in the crouching ones during the other guy's turn. Makes sense from a battling perspective.
TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote: For some of my characters I have alternates where they're standing/laying prone or crouching. In my turn I use the standing ones and then swap in the crouching ones during the other guy's turn. Makes sense from a battling perspective.
I... can't believe that flies. Wow. Seriously. Am I missing the joke?
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: Unless he doesn't want to shoot and only needs to avoid being seen, not get LOS himself. CC specialists for example. And on the other side, a model that has good defences and a big gun doesn't care if he is seen but wants good shots so model extra height for best views.
Good points. Of course, that player might be a little less likely to field such a force if his opponent pool started handing out the same medicine (short cc guys and Hulk Buster Ironmen with Nova Cannons)
TLOS can work, but I don't really see it as being any more immersive, and it only really works well for games where everything is somewhat similarly posed.
It breaks down a bit when you have things like machine gunners who are (realistically) kneeling or prone while the rest of the squad is standing, so your most powerful gun ends up being the only one that can't get line of sight while the rest of your squad dies around you Or things like regular non-armoured infantry standing behind a waist high wall almost completely exposed when in reality they should be crouching behind the wall for cover.
I don't think "modelling for advantage" is a huge problem really, at least not that I've observed. It's more just the stupidity and immersion breakingness of your models doing completely illogical things.
I also don't love the idea of silhouettes really.
I think the best thing is probably some sort of compromise between TLOS for open areas with intervening terrain and using area of effect terrain where the player can choose what level of cover the unit is trying to take (maybe using counters or something to indicate it).
So, for example, a unit that is 2" away from a waist high wall could choose to take full cover and hide behind the wall (making them hard to hit but also making it hard for them to hit anything) otherwise they could choose to take up partial cover behind the wall (making them not quite so hard to hit, but still harder than open ground, but their own firing is not reduced). You place a counter next to the unit to indicate what they're doing.
You could obviously make the system more elaborate, but I think it's a good compromise where you don't get a dumbarse sniper standing behind a wall that they should be kneeling behind it, or a machine gunner who's busy laying prone against a shrub while his lesser armed standing squad mates all get gunned down.
privateer4hire wrote: I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion
I've played Warmachine and Malifaux for five years, and that hasn't happened once. Just measure from the base edges to the height for listed miniatures of that base size (standard measurements in WM, inches equal to the Height stat in Malifaux), done. I'm getting the feeling you haven't played that sort of system, and you're fishing for silly exaggerations to try and dismiss them out of hand.
You're getting the wrong feeling. I played WarMachine for years and didn't run into issues that I can recall from the LOS (although seems like you could do some crazy stuff by putting smaller based stuff in proximity of larger based models IIRC.
Such as what?
My point is that the crouched guy model has a lower profile so he's harder to hit, true. He also, under TLOS, has a much harder time getting off many shots because terrain blocks him where a standing figure could see over things. I see them as a trade off.
Wanna take an entire army of hobbits? Fine. They won't be able to be seen as easily as humans in TLOS. They also will have to move further into the open to get good shots. In essence, a balancing occurs if you want to try to abuse model poses.
"Argh! A giant alien is charging towards us! Bob, shoot it!"
"Sorry, guys, I'm crouching behind this 4ft wall, and I can't see it."
"So stand up and shoot it!"
"Can't....bend....knees!"
"Bob, you suck--argh!" (sounds of being devoured)
Still, at least they have it easy compared to the commander. Modelled standing on a big rock because that looked impressive, he apparently carries that rock around the battlefield with him and will always stand on it, even when he'd much rather be behind cover.
The idea that I'm commanding of an army of manneqins who always glide across the battlefield locked into the same pose is quite funny, true, , but it also kind of guts the argument that TLoS is more immersive.
The idea that I'm commanding of an army of manneqins who always glide across the battlefield locked into the same pose is quite funny, true.
If this is really an issue then the best thing to do is avoid those models, or convert them to more standard poses.
It may or may not be a problem, but I'm explaining why it negates the "immersion" argument for TLoS, by leading naturally to some very strange and unrealistic conclusions.
Seems that if I want to use cool models or large scenic bases for my commanders, the best thing to do is to use a system that understands that model poses are abstractions of "this guy is here" rather than frozen positions the soldiers literally hold for the entire battle, regardless of circumstances.
Sounds like Terminator has borrowed a lot of Malifaux regarding size/LOS, which makes me like Malifaux, as Terminator has the best LOS rules I've ever read.
For me, true line of sight is terrible, plain and simple. And it's terrible for several reasons. Firstly, sometimes its difficult to get down to the model's point of view when there are a bunch of other stuff on the table like terrain and other models. Then theres the problem of models having dynamic poses or models that are crouching or prone. And, unless there are teeny tiny cameras attached to your models eyes you can never get a truely accurate reading of what he can see. TLoS is just setting the game up for arguments. Cylindrical volume all the way for me. It makes the game run smoother. It makes the game run faster and it makes the rules tighter.
Assume there are no pieces of blocking terrain, and give a modifier for each piece of terrain or unit in the direct line between the unit and its target.
Solid terrain like hills and bunkers can have a larger modifier than soft terrain like vegetation and other units.
spiralingcadaver wrote: So, like, guy on the other side of a mountain, in a bunker with no windows, would still be able to get hit by a rifle?
Sure, just roll a 20 on a six sided die.
Been ages since I played, but I am sure there is a game system or two that can actually do that. Or maybe a 8,9 or 10 on a six sided dice. Can't remember if it can reach 20 or not.
TheWaspinator wrote: Why do so many rules writers seem to think that this is a good concept to use? It sounds simple until you actually try to determine it during gameplay, when it then devolves into arguments about whether you can see the edge of a figure's helmet around that tree or something equally absurd.
To many blind and/or cheating players out there. TLOS is good on paper, but terrible in practice. Even with red laser beams you can paint a target plainly, and people will still look at you like they were just told aliens exist. Then, you ask them to check LOS themselves, and now their red laser beam is all over the terrain, on the ceiling, in the parking lot, confused as to how to aim the thing properly. Dumpster TLOS for all future games, please. Take note, Kickstarterers out there!
In point of fact, the cylinder method works just fine - I have seen almost no arguments, and those arguments have been by people that really don't want it to work. (And have modeled their crouching Wraithlords....)
Just make sure that folks remember that it works both ways - that fighter is measured to where his head would be, not where he is waving his sword in the air, yelling 'Yoo hoo! Over here!' like the miniature shows....
The worst method, though, is the one used by Age of Sigmar... where you do measure to the bits sticking out....
spiralingcadaver wrote: So, like, guy on the other side of a mountain, in a bunker with no windows, would still be able to get hit by a rifle?
If you want to make it simple, yes. Though why you should shoot at him with a minus 10 modifier when there was some other target behind a hedge with a minus one modifier, I don't know.
spiralingcadaver wrote: So, like, guy on the other side of a mountain, in a bunker with no windows, would still be able to get hit by a rifle?
If you want to make it simple, yes. Though why you should shoot at him with a minus 10 modifier when there was some other target behind a hedge with a minus one modifier, I don't know.
If people want justification, it is easy to invent fluff reasons in SF and Fantasy games why someone could pull off a highly unlikely shot, for example, a quartz crystal on top of the mountain reflects the laser into a ventilation shaft where it hits a fan motor which shorts out and high voltage electricity arcs over to the target and kills him.
If people want justification, it is easy to invent fluff reasons in SF and Fantasy games why someone could pull off a highly unlikely shot, for example, a quartz crystal on top of the mountain reflects the laser into a ventilation shaft where it hits a fan motor which shorts out and high voltage electricity arcs over to the target and kills him.
That's a nice narrative you forged here, sir!
Nowadays, I play a lot at Firestorm Planetfall, a 10 mm "mass battle" tabletop miniature game. Of course, it doesn't use TLoS but base to base with categories determining what blocks LoS. It's quite abstract, but it's really needed at this scale - looking "through the eyes of the model" is quite difficult when the said model has actually two to four infantry sized models with different poses and 10 mm heigth. Not talking about vehicles, sure.
