So, I'm sort-of-working on a ruleset for a 28mm game for playing larger engagements (40K sort of level model count). I say 'sort-of' as according to the dates on the earlier pages in my notebook, I started it in 2007...
Anyway... One of the big sticking points for me right now is how to work Line of Sight. There are two main 'systems' that I'm familiar with for this sort of game, and neither of them really does the job as well as I would like.
- True LOS (The 40K approach)
Taking the 'model's eye view' to resolve line of sight is the most 'cinematic' method, and I've always been a fan of it in principle as it really adds something to the player involvement to be getting down and seeing what the models see. The downside is that it is so very open to abuse through 'creative' modeling, and is problematic when dealing with a ruleset that is designed around more than a single range of miniatures to represent each troop type due to differences in size and/or posing.
You can get around the abuse issues by using a LOS template, but I would prefer to avoid requiring any sort of gaming aid other than dice and a tape if at all possible...
- LOS from the base (The Warmahordes approach)
LOS is traced from the model's base, and is blocked if it crosses other models' bases or LOS-blocking terrain. Simple and straightforward in essence, but requires models and terrain to be categorised so that short models don't block LOS to tall ones, and so that models can see over terrain features where appropriate and the like. This can get clunky if there are a large range of size bands for the models, and is just painful to categorise terrain unless you go the 4th edition 40k route of just listing all terrain the same size and calling the job a good'un.
So... is there a better system out there? Is there a way of tweaking either of the above systems to make them more functional?
Depends on how flat and featureless you want your system to be.
40k 4th edition had an easy system of terrain height and models height problem is it needs problem was that rules needed a lot of text and the existence of terrain was meaningless, you could use paper cut in shapes with the height written on it and play the game (actually that was better since complex terrain created issues).
TLOS will always have the advantage of been intuitive, Infinity substitutes the model with a volume to avoid the model for advantage and this is for me the best solution, an evolution from the PP base solution.
4th edition 40K was a bit of a dog's breakfast, due to having Size based LOS when area terrain or close combats were involved, and True LOS the rest of the time... and an awful lot of players didn't understand the rules.
The size categories weren't a bad idea, but they didn't have enough of them... an Ork Buggy, a Chimera, a Land Raider and a Forest were all the same Size.
The problem with extrapolating that system is down to granularity... To avoid the size bands leading to silly comparisons, you need a lot of them (small models, human sized models, large models, Dreadnoughtish-sized models, small tanks, large tanks, giant models... and then carry the same bands across to terrain) which is a lot for players to remember.
Adding the size in as a stat is an option, I suppose (my rules only have 4 characteristic stats, so adding Size in as a 5th wouldn't be a massive issue) but I'm still concerned about this being a pain to implement for terrain, short of labeling each terrain piece with the relevant size...
Edit - The 'volume'-based TLOS idea is one I've never been a fan of, as it leads to situations where you're drawing LOS to empty air. It's right up there with the 'swap out your converted model for a standard one' thing so far as lack of precision and general ickyness is concerned.
The main issue with using models as is is how blunt and unimaginative the models used must be for it to work out, TLOS breaks down the moment you have dynamic and variable models, while the volume substitution works on the principle that the model exists somewhere in that volume.
Does the Malifaux LOS system fall under the volume based TLOS? Where LOS is drawn from the base, but cover etc is dependant on if you can see both base edges?
I think it works for a game of that scale but idk about something on a larger scale/scope.
I like the "magic cylinder" of volume LOS. Alternatively, base-to-base LOS can work if everything uses the same base measures. The third way is center of mass to center of mass LOS.
Those are my preferred methods. I do not like TLOS.
TLOS is way too fiddly for anything but a very casual game. There is just too much model and terrain variation to make it very workable. Measuring from base center to center or to any point on target base is my favorite, as the minis are representative markers. I like the whole cross any terrain = cover. For height, I would use categories. for 28/30mm or 1:48 scale, just use 1 or 2 inch increments (depending on if you want to go closer to 1/48 groundscale or 1/100). Models block LOS for smaller categories and provide cover for equals size targets. So, with a 1:100 groundscale, small models are anything less than say 0.5 inch and would be height category 0, normal infantry are height 1 (1 inch or less, appx 8 ft. to scale), big guys (ogres, giants, etc) 2 (up to appx 16 ft in scale), really big guys 3, etc. Or use a doubling method if you get into really big stuff. IE 1 = 1 ", 2 = 2", 3 = 4", 4 = 8", etc. Or just use a few height bands like a simplified range band.
As most games use different horizontal and vertical scales. TLOS is not very good at representing what is happening in in 'true scale' most war games.
(If 40k had the same horisontal and vertical scale a bolt gun would have an effective range of about 400" )
However , horisontal TLOS eg base to base works fine.Eg a straight edge placed on the table to see if a models base has a clear line to another models base.
If there is a system to deal with the vertical scale.
Eg 'height bands' or simple pre game classification agreed by the players.''Those walls and hedges give cover to infantry but not tanks etc.''
I like crouching down and looking through terrain at the level of my miniatures. It is fun to do, has some interaction as players watch each other move and plan shots.
I also like dynamic miniatures or things posed in interesting or active movement instead of just standing there at attention. Sniper miniature look much cooler kneeled down to shoot.
The line of sight I tend to like more is probably considered cylinder. It is probably a mix of Infinity style. You don't have to have to swap miniatures but there is a silhouette, for the most part the cylinder lets you abstract it fairly well without the need to swap out. Only a couple times have I had to actually use a silhouette.
How many games are there that don't have standardised base sizes?
Having been raised on hex map style board wargames, I've never had a problem with magic cylinder LOS rules, and really they don't seem particularly difficult to formulate and to grasp.
TLOS is easier to explain and use for complete beginners who already are having to cope with scads of new rule concepts in everything else.
Some games allow variable bases. GW, for example. There's the issue of plinth and scenic bases.
Magic cylinder is a useful abstraction, but it presumes all models are of the same height. I think Heavy Gear has a silhouette to standardize targeting where the model itself is in question.
I agree that TLOS is for newbies, for whom LOS itself is a new rules concept. That's why I use it for KL - it allows me to avoid defining base size and height for every model as in 40k 4E or Heavy Gear or Relic Knights, further reducing the stat count.
It's the other way around, surely. If your captain figure is on top of a heroic rock plinth, it's a problem for TLOS, because he's much higher up than all the rest of the men in his platoon. Whereas for "magic cylinder" all "class 1 humanoid" figures are the same height whatever height of base they are on.
In fact now I come to think of it their bases could be counted as a standard width whatever their actual width. Admittedly it does create another stat, but 40K is excessive in number of stats and it's easy to create rules with fewer stats.
That Captain simply isn't (can't be) as big as he is supposed to be. He's an inch taller, so he's clearly outside the cylinder. The inverse is having LOS to the enclosing volume that doesn't have any part of the model in it. Under magic cylinder, there's no obvious way to know the proper height of the cylinder for determining LOS. If you're swapping reference cylinders for LOS determination, then you're possibly changing the position as you swap models back in or out. Which raises the question of why you aren't playing with cylinders in the first place.
OTOH, TLoS can simply ignore the base, and the Captain is still just as big as the model actually is, in whatever pose he happens to be in. That is the simplification that TLoS brings. Either you can draw LOS model to model, or you can't. Granted that you want a laser pointer or somesuch if your back isn't up to all of the bending and stooping. But it's not the worst alternative.
Why? Under TLoS, it makes no difference. Some models will be easy to hit, others hard to spot. We don't pretend that shooting has to be "equal".
Because it results in models that are theoretically identical functioning differently due to the player's assembly choices. A trooper always counting as being half as tall as another identical trooper just because the player chose to put kneeling legs on one and upright legs on another is a little silly.
Convenient for determining LOS... but silly. And allows for shenanigans if players assemble models specifically for a given LOS profile.
Magic Cylinder does at least remove modeling choices from the equation.
For me there is no "casual play" when writing rules, you write a rules system and it must be tight and balanced, ideally without limiting your models range while doing so.
"casual play" is an excuse GW has set to justify poor rule sets, I would wish this mentality erased from the minds of other game designers.
TLoS is for casual play, so go ahead and make a kneeling guy. Or jumping. Or wall-running.
See, on that note I would completely disagree. TLOS is only suited to casual play if you're playing familiar opponents. For pick-up games, it's too open to abuse.
Magic Cylinder, on the other hand, is simply unacceptable for competitive play, as it leaves you in some cases drawing LOS to empty air. It's not precise enough for competitive play.
For my money, base edge to base edge with defined heights is the best system for purely competitive play, with TLOS with rules governing 'appropriate' modeling running a close second. Magic Cylinder is a horrible system and should never be used by anyone, anywhere.
The problem for me is that either of the systems that I prefer for competitive play require too much specific definition to work properly for casual play... so I was hoping that someone would have some clever alternative.
There absolutely is a difference in writing rules for people who've never played before, vs people who can be expected to have played a wide variety of wargames in the past. There also a difference between writing rules for people who will be playing on a lark, vs playing for money.
The case of TLoS vs Magic Cylinder makes that abundantly clear. Magic Cylinder is incompatible with playing with models, as is standard height bands a la 4E.
If you intend to play with actual models, then you play TLoS. If you don't want to mandate particular poses, then you accept a certain amount of modeling for advantage as a potential side effect.
If you don't give a flying feth about competitive pick-up games, then it's not a problem. When I play, IDGAF over who "wins" or loses. And I feel sorry for players whose game reduces to something so petty.
In my case, I'm targeting friendly casual play, so TLoS works perfectly for me. The argument for needing some kind of "balance" between a kneeling, prone, or standing model falls on deaf ears. As the designer, I declare it NOT to be a problem in my game. Particularly as I am supplying all of the models.
Also, the idea that "casual" rules can't be "good" suggests that the critic doesn't understand that there are different audiences out there. KOG light is casual game for gentlemen. If you cannot play KOG light in a gentlemanly fashion (per Rule One), then you probably should not be playing KOG light at all. I believe that this would also be GW's perspective, as well.
Magic Cylinder, on the other hand, is simply unacceptable for competitive play, as it leaves you in some cases drawing LOS to empty air. It's not precise enough for competitive play.
You do understand that the base and height rules have exactly the same flaw, but instead of assigning a volume to just the model assign a volume to the models and all the terrain features.
@JohnHwangDD
I cannot disagree more on that sentiment, I never said game rules for "casual" games rules are bad, but I did say that "casual" had been used as an excuse for bad rule systems way too many times, there is some difference wen writing rule systems for different audiences and in some audiences some things can pass by or even wanted and in other are forbidden, but this is not a reason to deliver a poor or plain bad rules system.
GWs mentality is a relic of the past were players are expected to moderate their games and self balance, we are not in the 70s any more and my design standards are more strict than that, when a customer purchases a rule system the system must be clear precise with as few things needed to FAQ as humanly (and physically) possible and balanced, they do not pay with their time and money to do what the game designer and developer should have already done.
Now as far as the models go, models are a representation of a trooper, yes it can me done with a cylinder or a chit, but the idea that the 3D aspect of the model is required by the rules is for me a flawed one, the combatant will try to squeeze on the smallest of cover and will not be stuck in a perpetual "arms in the air" pose because he was sculpted that way or be unable to shoot through a window because it was sculpted crouching sound ridiculous, the abstraction introduced by volumetric representation of models serves a better purpose than pure TLOS.
Thank you for confirming that your entire criticism of "casual" gaming is completely irrelevant to KOG light, that we are at cross purposes:
- KOG light is indeed written for players who can moderate themselves.
- KOG light is a FREE ruleset, not something that would be purchased.
And, yes, 40k has issues much larger than TLOS vs Magic Cylinder vs some other LOS mechanic. 40k isn't a bad game because of TLoS or the casual intent. And having TLoS and/or casual intent like 40k doesn't make a game bad, either.
I really like predefined height for terrain and models. You can make it simple or complex, though simpler is usually better. A simple height stat, as mentioned, should work fine.
You can gain a cover save / modifier if an intervening item is within 2 points of your height. If something is equal to or higher, it blocks LOS.
Models have Odd values, cover has even values. Using 40k as an example, Infantry could be height 5. Light vehicles like Buggies or Rhinos are height 7. Medium vehicles like... a Russ... are Height 9. Large vehicles like a Land Raider are height 11. An IK is height 13. Just throwing numbers out there.
A single story ruin is height 6, or maybe 8. Playtest to find the proper values. A two story ruin would be height 12.
Getting complex, you could have unusual models, like a Knight, fire it's cannons at height 9, but shoulder weapons at full height. I probably wouldn't go that route, but you could do that pretty easily.
A low wall would be height 4. High enough for cover for an infantryman, but not high enough to provide cover to a Russ. It's not terribly hard, you just need a chart with sizes to refer to.
Area terrain give you cover if you're within it. If you're within 3" of the edge, you can shoot out and be shot at.
I prefer that system for unit vs unit combat, as you don't have to worry about fiddly 1/8 of an inch positioning to make sure everyone can shoot out the window. It speeds movement as you can be less model-by-model sensitive in your positioning, compared to TLOS. TLOS is ok for skirmish games, but once the model count rises to unit vs unit, I find it breaks down and becomes tedious.
Casual always benefits from clearly defined rules. You can choose to make things sloppy if you and your casual buddy want to, but a pickup game is always best if you don't have to negotiate for 20 minutes before you start a game. Players can agree to make things more loose if they want to, but competitive players can't necessarily tighten up a game if it's loose.
It really depends on the game, in some WW2 games I think TLOS doesn't work very well because you'll often have things like machine gunners or snipers in crouched or even prone position. When realistically they might want to set up on a wall, taking partial cover but still being able to fire. Because the model is prone they can't do anything useful while their squad mates who are modelled standing get gunned down because they are visible to the enemy over the wall.
Cover systems I think can work better by assigning soft, medium and heavy cover and then using counters to represent whether a unit is actively making use of the cover or not.
I haven't tried it, but I think Battlefront uses a system where you have to roll to determine if one unit can see another unit. Maybe something like that could work, have a table with modifiers based on what obstructions are in the way and roll to know if the enemy unit is spotted. Maybe that'd get too complex, depends how easy it is to construct and then read the table.
I think if your table doesn't have topography it's easy to come up with a simple system for LOS because you can just assign what is and isn't LOS blocking terrain, as soon as you start including some hills or varying levels it gets tricky though.
I think Heroscape has one of the most balanced, clean, and simple rules. Heroscape is like FFG X-Wing for models of creatures and humans. LOS was all true-LOS but they also had on the card of each model a description of what could/couldn't be seen. However there was also no such thing as cover and you got cover/more-dice by being higher than your opponent instead. Models were assigned "sizes" to determine how high they could climb/fall and all that too. It also came with the requirement of playing on a hex-board, but that was fine because of how self-contained and problem free it was.
That Captain simply isn't (can't be) as big as he is supposed to be. He's an inch taller, so he's clearly outside the cylinder. The inverse is having LOS to the enclosing volume that doesn't have any part of the model in it. Under magic cylinder, there's no obvious way to know the proper height of the cylinder for determining LOS. If you're swapping reference cylinders for LOS determination, then you're possibly changing the position as you swap models back in or out. Which raises the question of why you aren't playing with cylinders in the first place.
OTOH, TLoS can simply ignore the base, and the Captain is still just as big as the model actually is, in whatever pose he happens to be in. That is the simplification that TLoS brings. Either you can draw LOS model to model, or you can't. Granted that you want a laser pointer or somesuch if your back isn't up to all of the bending and stooping. But it's not the worst alternative.
I disagree. The point of Magic Cylinder is that you define classes of target profiles then assign figures into them. It doesn't matter if the captain figure is lying down or jumping up from a tall plinth, he is still target profile class 1, and so is an Elf kneeling, and a Dwarf standing, and whatever you have classified into this class.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Thank you for confirming that your entire criticism of "casual" gaming is completely irrelevant to KOG light, that we are at cross purposes:
I think you really must dissociate KOG light with the general discussion we have here and in general not take criticism on game mechanics as an underground attack on your game.
Every game system is done with many design decisions dictated by many different choices, here we discuss elements in isolation in their purest form.
I my "criticism" on casual is non existent because I have not criticised casual games, I have criticised heavily on game developers using casual as an excuse for poor workmanship and while I do think the self moderating and balancing mentality is practically dead from a design standpoint, at least if you want some professional looking game system, I do not think that a well made and balanced rule set cannot be casual, if nothing else it is my firm belief that the tighter and more balanced the rule set is the more the casual players benefit.
You are criticizing the approach that I have chosen, and not applying it to reality. I am working from concrete realty.
I think that simpler rulesets are what would benefit casual players most.
Like it or not, 40k 7E is a very tight ruleset, written in legal form. The problem is that it's not balanced, and that's a direct function of the unchecked Codex bloat and sprawl that the game has seen. In many ways, 40k 7E is following SFB down the rabbit hole of an excess of rules, to the point that they become impenetrable to new, casual players.
You are mistaken, each project is unique and its a accumulation of design choices and manufacturing restrictions that make it a whole and design choices that may be "poor" in general work wonders in specific systems.
For example in "mech games" manufacturers model the mechs (mostly) in static poses and one does not expect the mechs to go prone in this situation pure TLOS works well, in a skirmish game with humanoid models that are modeled in dynamic poses the magic cylinder is a better solution to solve the quantum state the models are supposed to be, in a boardgame clearly defined terrain is far far better.
All that been said things can mix and match according to each systems specific demands.
A rule system benefits everybody if it is well written and balanced, simple or complex do not matter that much in my opinion as long as they are not complicated and a simple rule system can be well written and balanced, those two do not preclude a system been simple.
I must add that the "magic cylinder" is a TLOF variant.
Magic Cylinder can draw LOS to thin air, that is true, but it is a variant of TLOS because you have to use LOS to determine if you cans see the cylinder or not.
The basic of TLOS is to look from the models perspective and determine if the target is visible, if you want a purist perspective is the target must be the actual model as it has been sculpted, Magic Cylinder is a variant where the target is abstracted with a volumetric representation of the area the model is, if you want the magic cylinder represents, as the base does too the are where the model is actually occupying, not where the model actually is (a bit quantum I know but...) there are other variants but most centre on deleting parts of the model to make the purist TLOS more workable like weapons and banners do not count, x% of model must be visible, models parts must also be inside the base area ectr.
In TLOS if the model is standing on tall stilts on top of a scenic base featuring a tall rock, his head is going to be several inches above the head of the figure next to him that is lying prone on a normal base, and since you measure from the eyes of the model to the target, the figure on stilts has an advantage and disadvantage because he can see and be seen over intervening walls and stuff. Furthermore, there may be complications of looking through narrow windows and between model tree trunks and the like.
In Magic Cylinder, both the figure on stilts and the normal figure and the intervening terrain have been assigned to classes that define the ability to have line of sight whatever the physical design of the models and terrain.
This is my understanding of the two basic approaches to this aspect of game design.
TLOS has a rather minor issue that some models are posed differently, but I think that, in practice, that the posing issue is not really an issue. From my understanding, the issue is really with non-standard Vehicles, like Ork Trukks modeled like billboards to manage LOS.
The fundamental problem with Magic Cylinder is that we are generally playing with models that are *not* cylinders of the appropriate size. There is a certain amount of inherent imprecision whether LOS exists to a cylinder that does not exist.
If we look at TLOS where we ignore weapon barrels and appendages, to the point that each model is reduced to head & torso (or central hull), I suspect that removes all of the posing problems.
Fundamentally, it comes down to a making tradeoffs for modeling reality. Whether we want to count the actual model, an arbitrary stand-in for the model, or just part of the model.
A sniper sculpted kneeling or prone should be able to see out of a window the model next to it sculpted standing can see without the need for a table to next to the window for it to climb on.
This is the fundamental problem of TLOS and why it kills dynamic poses if it is enforced in its purest form.
I had never noticed Magic Cylinder before.... I kinda like the system, I just do not like there being air-space above the model that can be seen as it feels awkward game-wise. Having to measure each model to see if I can see them wouldn't be very fun. Maybe if Magic Cylinder's cylinder made the top-most part of the model's body the top of the cylinder. This way a head, or in the case of a handstand the feet, would be used similar to TLOS but then anywhere up to that point and to the edge of the base is fair game for targeting? That way it is like 4th grade graphing, just connect the points.
I'd be allowed to model Commandoes that are doing handstands without screwing over my TLOS!
TLOS' main problems with dynamic poses, in my opinion/experience, comes from dynamic BASES instead. If you stick your commander on a heroic base that makes him twice as tall... you start bringing confusion of a whole new level. When it comes to prone/squatting/standing, the players I have seen with just naturally adjust their choices to the needs of each model. If they have a mixture of poses they position their models in terrain accordingly. It might be clunky in some cases but it suckles at the teets of common sense and seeing-is-believing.
PsychoticStorm wrote: A sniper sculpted kneeling or prone should be able to see out of a window the model next to it sculpted standing can see without the need for a table to next to the window for it to climb on.
This is the fundamental problem of TLOS and why it kills dynamic poses if it is enforced in its purest form.
The fundamental rule of TLOS is that anything that can shoot, can be shot at. A kneeling model can see over a low wall or window sill. As can a standing model. Both would have cover from the wall. There is literally no difference in how either pose is addressed from a shooting / targeting standpoint under TLOS. A prone model would neither see, nor be seen. Again, basic TLOS preserves symmetry of shooters being shot at.
I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.
NB - I am assuming all-or-nothing cover, such that blockage of LOS to any portion of the model is "cover" to the entire model. I find that this sort of cover works well with TLOS.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.
Because it produces stupid situations where a machine gunner or sniper modelled in a prone position can't see over a low wall to fire at the enemy while the members of their squad who are modelled standing up can't take cover behind the wall and so get gunned down. Or the stupid situation where a lightly armed soldier in a standing pose is visible behind a chest high wall when he should be hunched slightly so he can't be shot at.
In real combat you make you body as small as it needs to be to fit behind the cover you have available. If all you have is a knee high mound of dirt, you go prone it, if all you have is narrow columns, you stand tall and make yourself narrow.
TLOS is a compromise because it is in itself an absurd abstraction in the same way models spending an entire battle in 1 pose is an absurd abstraction.
Da Kommizzar wrote: I had never noticed Magic Cylinder before.... I kinda like the system, I just do not like there being air-space above the model that can be seen as it feels awkward game-wise. Having to measure each model to see if I can see them wouldn't be very fun. Maybe if Magic Cylinder's cylinder made the top-most part of the model's body the top of the cylinder. This way a head, or in the case of a handstand the feet, would be used similar to TLOS but then anywhere up to that point and to the edge of the base is fair game for targeting? That way it is like 4th grade graphing, just connect the points.
The Magic Cylinder works this way
It is a bit exaggerated in the image for illustration purposes, but the top of the green is were a standing models head would be as seen here more properly
Yes, you can target "empty space" but likewise that empty space can target back.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.
Because it produces stupid situations where a machine gunner or sniper modelled in a prone position can't see over a low wall to fire at the enemy while the members of their squad who are modelled standing up can't take cover behind the wall and so get gunned down. Or the stupid situation where a lightly armed soldier in a standing pose is visible behind a chest high wall when he should be hunched slightly so he can't be shot at.
In real combat you make you body as small as it needs to be to fit behind the cover you have available. If all you have is a knee high mound of dirt, you go prone it, if all you have is narrow columns, you stand tall and make yourself narrow.
TLOS is a compromise because it is in itself an absurd abstraction in the same way models spending an entire battle in 1 pose is an absurd abstraction.
First off, a standing model absolutely can take cover behind those walls, assuming that one uses all-or-nothing cover, as I assume. Further, there is no reason that a model should ever be immune to counterfire. The model will receive cover benefits, and that should be sufficient.
It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem. In none of your examples does Magic Cylinder or height band provide a more "realistic" result.
In fact, MC is worse, because a model posed 20mm tall behind a 1.0" high wall is still targetable if the 28mm cylinder is taller than the wall itself. The enemy may legitimately target the Magic Cylinder of a model that cannot be seen at all - something that is impossible with any flavor of TLOS to the model. Similarly, a Morley-posed model can actually hide completely behind a 3/4" wide column, whereas a 25mm diameter Magic Cylinder remains fully targetable. Given the obvious absurdity of targeting a Magic Cylinder where no portion of the actual model is visible, TLOS is clearly superior.
That TLOS cannot model the real world perfectly is not a knock against it when things like Magic Cylinder do an objectively worse job of modeling reality. TLOS is simply the least bad option in many cases. The fact is, the closer the game gets to having realistic terrain, the more obvious it is that TLOS is less flawed than MC or height band.
And the GW version of ignoring bases, limbs and weapons? That's arguably the best version, where it converts every model into a Magic Torso of essentially identical size for targeting purposes.
But arguing that the lesser imperfections of TLOS make it bad? That's laughable and nonsense.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The model will receive cover benefits, and that should be sufficient.
In some cases it is, in other cases it's not.... like the one I just stated where a machine gunner is modelled prone while the rest of his squad is modelled standing.
This is the case with many models between WW2 and modern times because rifleman are often modelled as standing or running forward while machine gunners, rocket launchers and snipers are often modelled kneeling or prone in firing positions.
It produces the stupid situation where if you use TLOS your support weapons can't see to support the basic troops who should be hiding if they're not being supported but are less able to do so because they're modelled standing up.
Do you not think it's a stupid situation to be in?? Using a TLOS system a squad parked behind a waist high wall or in a ditch.... the only people who are visible and uncovered are the riflemen while the machine gunner is tucked away out of sight? If you don't think that's a stupid situation then we just disagree on what a stupid situation is
You can largely fix the problem by just not modelling part of a squad as kneeling/prone and part of it as standing, but that's often not practical or easy to do.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem.
I didn't. You seem to be conflating different thoughts here. I don't particularly like the magic cylinder idea either, MC isn't practical in a lot of games.
But arguing that the lesser imperfections of TLOS make it bad? That's laughable and nonsense.
I think you're taking this way too personally for some strange reason. I don't think I ever said TLOS is bad, I was simply debating your point that TLOS didn't have any problems.
TLOS has flaws and it has benefits. You can either decide those flaws are acceptable given the benefits or you can find a different system. Just because YOU like TLOS doesn't make it the best system, just because someone else doesn't like TLOS doesn't make it a bad system.
I was simply pointing out some of its flaws, which, oddly enough, you mostly ignored and went on a tangential rant.
Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.
@ASS - Your reply implied that *only* TLOS had these issues, when these issues are common to every system of abstracting the real world to the tabletop.
My position is that TLOS produces the fewest obvious problems, and I use it for that reason.
The flaws that people keep calling out are common to all tabletop LOS systems, not just TLOS, so those criticisms are irrelevant because they don't distinguish TLOS from MC or height bands. They don't create a distinction that would naturally lead someone to choose a different LOS system.
Now, if you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it.
It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem. In none of your examples does Magic Cylinder or height band provide a more "realistic" result. .
Yes, it does.
The example of the kneeling or prone model is it in a nutshell... When you have a unit that contains a standing model and a prone model behind a low wall, in the TLOS system only the standing model can see and be seen. Magic Cylinder allows you to assume that the prone guy doesn't actually spend the whole game crawling around on his belly.
But it does so by allowing you to draw LOS from- and target empty air above him, which is less than ideal.
Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @ASS - Your reply implied that *only* TLOS had these issues, when these issues are common to every system of abstracting the real world to the tabletop.
You need to learn the difference between infer and imply.
Though MC has less problems than TLOS in that area, it wasn't really what I was thinking when I wrote it. MC still has problems but not as many (you aren't going to get the problem that a machine gunner can't see an enemy that the rest of his squad can see and likewise the enemy can see the rest of the squad).
The flaws that people keep calling out are common to all tabletop LOS systems
Yes but there's abstracted systems that can better deal with situations like I mentioned.
Now, if you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it.
Sorry you probably missed the ninja edit I made while you were typing your response....
Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.
insaniak wrote: Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.
The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.
Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.
After thinking about it for a while, I think that might be a good system. You could use counters for "taking cover", "firing position" and "on the move", then write up a simple table that relates a 'to hit' modifier to the height band of the model and terrain to the cover status of the unit, with the extreme sides of the table being "no modifier, count as unobstructed" and the other extreme being "can't see well enough to shoot". Not being able to see well enough to shoot might still allow you to do something like provide suppressing fire though.
I guess you just have to balance of the level of abstraction and complexity to your desired goal.
The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.
Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.
insaniak wrote: Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.
The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.
You can use the height band as an actual height (eg, height = 2 means 2" tall) to account for those situations where models are on different levels.
The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.
Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.
The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.
Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.
Or that might work better.
It's how 4th ed 40k handled elevation with the Size bands... Except that nothing could be bigger than Size 3, and the vast majority of terrain that had a Size band was Size 3, so it was a largely pointless rule.
In a system with more size differentiation, it would work better.
Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.
Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.
Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.
But what happens under height bands?
This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.
Some complex height priorities rules to evaluate if the model can see and can be seen, height bands in warzone and 40k 4th suffered greatly when they were vertically combined, but none of the two systems was a stellar workmanship of rules writing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.
Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.
Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.
But what happens under height bands?
This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.
That's why I think a TLOS system but with some abstraction might be good. But maybe it'd get too confusing, it comes down to whether you can tabulate the results in to a single table easily enough so as to not confuse people.
So I'd say TLOS, they can't see each other. But then I'd abstract it by having a counter that you place next to the model in the tower saying whether the model has taken up a firing position or taken cover behind the tower walls.
Consider a game with 3 counters; "normal", "covered firing position" "taking full cover".
Then further consider that a model can be "obscured", "partially obscured" and "not obscured", and that could either be from a height band thing, TLOS or a magic cylinder.
If you're "taking full cover" while obscured or partially obscured, the enemy can't draw LOS because your model has hidden behind that object. If you're "taking full cover" in the open it might represent going prone, you're still visible but harder to hit, so get a cover bonus.
If you're "covered firing position", you can see past obscuring terrain within close proximity of your own model, but likewise the enemy can see you but you get a cover bonus.
If you're "normal" then TLOS/magic cylinder/height band takes effect.
So lets say you have a model on a tower and that tower has waist high parapets and an enemy at the base of the tower and another enemy a long way away from the tower. You might not place any counter next to the model, so TLOS would take effect, the enemy far from the tower would be able to draw LOS, the enemy at the base would not. Alternatively, you place a "taking cover" marker next to the model, so then TLOS is overridden, neither the enemy far away nor the enemy at the base of the tower can draw LOS to fire on you. Otherwise, you place a "taking up firing position" counter next to it, again TLOS is overridden and you assume the model has taking up a firing position on the edge of the tower, it can draw LOS to the model at the model far away AND the model at the base and in turn can be fired upon, but might get a cover bonus when being fired upon.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.
Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.
Which has always been a flaw in the TLOS system. At the very least, the model at the top should be able to lean over the side of the tower to shoot the guy directly at the base of it, but because his head is further back than the edge of his base, he can't.
Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.
No more odd than the kneeling guy being locked in that position for the entire battle, really...
But what happens under height bands?
Under height bands there would be no obstruction between the models that is taller than either model, and so they would have LOS.
It's interesting to see who thinks the models should or should NOT see each other, and why.
The notion of making a balanced matrix of "realistic" stances vs cover actions vs LOS makes my hair stand on end compared with accepting a certain amount of abstraction for playability's sake.
And for the record, I'd deal with a "want LOS to shoot" by moving the upper model so the base goes out past the edge of the tower, rather than merely butting up against it. Naturally, this means mutual LOS exists, so return fire comes into play.
To give Mantic design a well-deserved thumbs up, Deadzone 1.0 had TLOS that addressed a lot of the silliness, IMO. If you could see the entire model you got a bonus to shooting it. If even a foot or a finger were behind the slightest obstacle/intervening anything BUT you could still see any part of the model you could shoot it. The defending player got advantage of cover unless he moved out clearly in the open and the attacker got a hefty bonus if the target was clearly in the middle of a street, football field, etc.
That Deadzone 1.0 mechanic is very sensible; I approve.
Of course, it's mere coincidence that KOG Light uses the same basic TLOS mechanics, where either:
a) you can see ALL of the target model; or
b) ANY part of the target is obscured, giving cover to the target.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.
Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.
Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.
But what happens under height bands?
This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.
Presumably, the rules would deal with situations where models are situated on terrain. So maybe they would say that if the sightline crosses such terrain, the target gains cover but could still be shot so long as the model wasn't completely behind the terrain. Maybe the rules would say that LOS is blocked one way or the other.
Wouldn't it pretty much be identical to a situation where the target was at the side of a long wall that the shooter was up against?
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
SolarCross wrote: I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
I tried something like this for a mixed arms mecha game. There really wasn't any LOS, cover was minimal and no ranges and the game kind of sucked. Why? There was almost no tactics to it.
SolarCross wrote: I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
If I am firing a weapon, the beam / projectile has to get from me to the target. They're not all super-homing IF rounds. If I'm armed with a laser / rifle / bazooka, and you're behind a hill, then it makes no difference whether my drones / sats / whatever can see you - my direct fire weapons won't do jack gak until you clear that hill. LOS will always matter.
Unless the weapon is powerful enough to fire straight through what is in between you and the target.
For example, a .50 Cal can shoot through concrete walls. Therefore, if a drone spotter/satellite image could tell me where the target was behind the wall, it would give me LOS, I could theoretically hit the targets on the other side of the wall with the .50 Cal.
So, there is an argument that in sci-fi games LOS wouldn't matter is the assumptions is you always know where the enemy is, and your weapons are sufficiently powerful to ignore cover. However, I played a mecha game with those ideas and it was kind of boring as there was little to do tactically excpet blast away at each other. .
Beyond the "destroy everything in path" and guided/ "magic bullet" weapons shooting something needs a physical path and the two above categories will usually be expensive enouph to not be used lightly on the battlefield.
The enchanted information situation modern warfare will enter in some decades and what is theoretical normal in sci fi will enhance reactions and battlefield awareness, as well as giving real time info and intelligence, but not much more.
The soldier will usually know how many enemies he is facing and their relative position, maybe even how much ammo they have (assuming the spy satellite/ drone can count shots fired ectr) but not much more.
SolarCross wrote: I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
I tried something like this for a mixed arms mecha game. There really wasn't any LOS, cover was minimal and no ranges and the game kind of sucked. Why? There was almost no tactics to it.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Spoiler:
SolarCross wrote: I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
If I am firing a weapon, the beam / projectile has to get from me to the target. They're not all super-homing IF rounds. If I'm armed with a laser / rifle / bazooka, and you're behind a hill, then it makes no difference whether my drones / sats / whatever can see you - my direct fire weapons won't do jack gak until you clear that hill. LOS will always matter.
Easy E wrote:
Spoiler:
Unless the weapon is powerful enough to fire straight through what is in between you and the target.
For example, a .50 Cal can shoot through concrete walls. Therefore, if a drone spotter/satellite image could tell me where the target was behind the wall, it would give me LOS, I could theoretically hit the targets on the other side of the wall with the .50 Cal.
So, there is an argument that in sci-fi games LOS wouldn't matter is the assumptions is you always know where the enemy is, and your weapons are sufficiently powerful to ignore cover. However, I played a mecha game with those ideas and it was kind of boring as there was little to do tactically excpet blast away at each other. .
I think you guys missed a key line in Solar's post....
SolarCross wrote: I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.
So what Solar was saying, I believe, was separating LoS from cover. So if there's a building between your model and the target model, it can be "seen" but you may not actually be able to hit it with a direct fire weapon due to cover bonuses due to the solid intervening terrain.
Cover would still be important, but would require it's own system for determination separate to LoS.
No. I am saying that you don't even get to take the shot if the intervening stuff is solid granite. Assigning "cover bonuses" to 100s of feet of impenetrable solid rock is just stupid. If it's more than a foot of rock, it's just not happening.
Well I don't know what Solar specifically had in mind, but I was thinking something along the lines of a look up table for cover that has for solid intervening terrain either a "can not hit" or "-6' which on a D6 would effectively be the same thing. A softer intervening terrain, maybe like a house, might be penetrable depending on the weapon.
But whatever, I can't read Solar's mind as to what he meant, but I read it as meaning direct fire weapons wouldn't be magically be able to shoot through solid terrain... rather just a system that separates "LOS" from "cover" such that units always have "LOS" but might have too much "cover" to actually hit.
Back to fundamentals of LOS. Why would you use a cylinder instead of center to center? Since it is already an abstraction of a moment in time anyway, why not work with what is already on the table? I guess you could still use heights for elevation.
Mainly because it brings the question of the volume of the model and the volume of the base.
The cylinder creates a quantum state where the model is and is not occupying the volume associated with its type allowing the abstraction, call them Schrodinger's cylinders if you must.
essentially allows the model at the same time to be at the best position for it to get cover but also out there to be shot.
Manchu wrote: Yes, put a bit more simply, center-to-center still assumes the target stands stock still in the pose of the model representing it.
As well, holding a tape measure up over the model and trying to get it just right in the centre can be more annoying that putting it as low as possible and measuring base to base.
I like the conception of a soldier being in a probabilistic location within the volume though I think I am arriving at a modified volume system that excludes anything that doesn't make sense. So if a soldier is hugging a low wall and didn't shoot and chose some sort of "gone to ground" action, they're probably not occupying any part of their volume that sticks above the wall so no LOS across the cover. But if they shoot, then they're occupying the volume up to just above the cover. So apply cover rules. Battletech has a rule where the defender gets to choose if there is line of sight between hexes where one hex blocks but whatever choice applies to them as well. And if the mech previously shot down the line any terrain modifiers that applied to them would apply to return fire.
Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.
Like that but assuming the optimum choice based on what the soldier in question does. If a MG team is behind cover that completely obscures it because it is prone but then shoots, then you know the "volume" you should use.
PsychoticStorm wrote: The cylinder creates a quantum state where the model is and is not occupying the volume associated with its type allowing the abstraction, call them Schrodinger's cylinders if you must.
essentially allows the model at the same time to be at the best position for it to get cover but also out there to be shot.
This asymmetry is bad design. A fundamental rule has to be reciprocity, such that I can see you if you can see me.
I think he was describing the probabilistic nature of the representation rather than making an exclusive claim about it.
At the core of it a a miniature on the table is a representation of a soldier (or vehicle or monster or whatever). As it is an abstraction, however it is handled is going to not map perfectly at some time or another. For MC, that's when models are attacked or attack out of a point the soldier represented either would not or could not be. For TLOS, the issue is reversed and there will be instances where a model has it's LOS blocked only because of the sculptor or model builder choosing a particular pose. And thus cannot attack from a place the soldier would or could be. Or a soldier on top of a building unable to fire at someone at the base because there is no way for the pose to become one of someone pointing their gun down (the frozen in time issue).
Different people will find these products of abstraction intolerable to differing degrees. What one person hand waives away, another will want addressed.
And they can be addressed. And in doing so you end up with an approach that is not pure TLOS nor pure cylinder. There are loads of ways of compensating for the shortfalls in question and pretty much the only people who are stuck with the shortfalls are purists who insist on 100% adherence to a single approach.
What do you think? Shoot at anything in LOS? Closest LOS? Some kind of test?
Does requiring shoot at closest encourage gamey play (IE intentionally blocking LOS to pick off better targets? What about firing "through" friendlies?
jmurph wrote: target priority.
What do you think? Shoot at anything in LOS?
Does requiring shoot at closest encourage gamey play (IE intentionally blocking LOS to pick off better targets?
What about firing "through" friendlies?
How intelligent are your shooters? If you assume a battlenet, then they might coordinate on larger threats vs minor opportunities. It's OK to let the shooters be as smart as the player.
"Closest first" is *extremely* gamey, and mechanically heavy to constantly measure closest unit to target. I would not play a game like this.
If you're TLOS, the firing through friendlies is emergent based on LOS positioning and Cover rules.
To what degree is target selection something the designer wants the player making decisions about? Is there another design goal that takes precedent over that? Is "getting it right" (in terms of fictional or historical source material or inspiration) more important for a particular design? JohnHwangDD, avoiding the mechanical heaviness of measuring distances all the time would be another example of a consideration that might preempt a more direct assessment of what the player experience will be.
It's actually a very interesting assortment of factors that goes into this. You don't have the turning of models to artifically remove potential targets from LOS without a firing arc rule, for example. Similarly there might be a "obviously closer" approach that reduces the mechanical heaviness by 90%+. Like how people who are experienced X-Wing players only have to measure their range bands when attacking when it's not obvious.
As a general rule, the job of the designer is to give the player the opportunity to make mistakes, the bigger the better. Ergo, target selection is better left to the player than to a rule. This is the fundamental difference between an automated (wind-up) simulation and a game to be played. That isn't to say there can't be a higher goal, but it had best be a darned good one when we're talking about severely restricting targeting choices this way. As above, while it is possible, I don't find it desirable.
As a general rule, it's usually mechanically better to shoot at closer targets, given that they are usually easier to hit, and/or more of an imminent threat. The default decision to shoot and engage a closer target is emergent from the mechanics, rather than an artificial constraint.
JohnHwangDD wrote: As a general rule, it's usually mechanically better to shoot at closer targets, given that they are usually easier to hit, and/or more of an imminent threat. The default decision to shoot and engage a closer target is emergent from the mechanics, rather than an artificial constraint.
my friends and I use a system of the terrain doing it for us.
if you're on the base of the terrain you get its benefit aka cover or LOS blocking. models partially on do not get te benefit.
A multi lvl ruin can have different benefits when it comes LOS blocking. say the ground flour has full wal it blocks LOS, top 2 floors have windows?= cover save 4+ etc.
Might take a bit of skill out of positioning but it does avoid arguments and slog.
Da Kommizzar wrote: I think Heroscape has one of the most balanced, clean, and simple rules. Heroscape is like FFG X-Wing for models of creatures and humans. LOS was all true-LOS but they also had on the card of each model a description of what could/couldn't be seen. However there was also no such thing as cover and you got cover/more-dice by being higher than your opponent instead. Models were assigned "sizes" to determine how high they could climb/fall and all that too. It also came with the requirement of playing on a hex-board, but that was fine because of how self-contained and problem free it was.
The above is true, but there is a difficulty in using heroescapes system on a table that doesn't use heroescape terrain.
Heroescape terrain is tightly defined. Heights are actual levels of terrain high, and widths of hexes remain consistent as well. Forming a 3D grid work for an actual game rather than a simulation. But nearly every war game table lacks such tight consistency, since you use whatever terrain you want rather than heroescape terrain.
But if there ever was a barometer to compare to for how to use los, heroescape should be considered the acme to compare against.
)
