Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Played a Tau player today. A real nice guy and a great sport. His army was all shooty, mine all foot sloggy. So I start marching across the board with my mobs and he's blasting them left, right, and center. The problem is he's gotta fellas in various ruins and such and they're all popping my guys. So finally I start pointing out that 1/3 of this squad and 1/4 of that squad couldn't see my boyz. So he started checking LOS and such but he was a little miffed because it slowed down the game; I felt like a rules-lawyer for asking that he do it. I've noticed this happens with a fair number of 4th edition veteran players. I've got a great laser pointer from work that I've started just leaving on the table. I wouldn't care so much in a friendly game if my army could shoot back. In the future I think I'll just tell folks at the beginning of the game, "Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on just about anything but I'm a foot slogging army so TLOS is really important to me as far as getting shot up."

Has anyone else had awkward games because of TLOS? Any tips on how to handle it in friendly games?

I find that your description of the other player disagrees with your description of his actions. He's a nice guy and a great sport, except that he was miffed when you asked if he could follow the rules?

Rules-lawyering is when you try to bend or break the rules using specious argument. Asking that someone simply play by the rules isn't being a jerk or a rules-lawyer, it's quite reasonable.

The guy got miffed because the game was slowed down. You don't know he wasn't following the rules as he understood them. (TLoS is supposed to speed things up.)

Out of interest, what proportion of his squads were unable to draw an LoS to a member of the target squad, when checked by laser pointer?

BTW It was totally fair and justified to ask for the LoS to be checked as you had doubts about it.

Uh, I do know that the guy wasn't following the rules, because olympia had to point out their application to him, and it slowed the game down when they were applied. The fact that he was 'miffed' by this slow down points to him not being a nice guy and a great sport, because nice guys and great sports don't get miffed when their mistakes are pointed out.

I had a similar game a few weeks ago against a guy who'd read the 5th Edition rules but hadn't played yet. He ran into several situations (wound allocation being one of the big ones) where he was caught completely off-guard and got all grouchy about it. He's a really nice guy, but because he wasn't playing the same rules I was (even though I was correct), he was frustrated. Sounds like your guy falls into the same category.

Don't ever let anyone make you feel like a jerk for playing the way the rules say you should. They may not like 'em, but it's what allows all of us to play the same game.

Nurglitch wrote:Asking that someone simply play by the rules isn't being a jerk or a rules-lawyer, it's quite reasonable.

Not according to people who don't want to play by the rules...

Kilkrazy wrote:The guy got miffed because the game was slowed down. You don't know he wasn't following the rules as he understood them. (TLoS is supposed to speed things up.)

Out of interest, what proportion of his squads were unable to draw an LoS to a member of the target squad, when checked by laser pointer?

BTW It was totally fair and justified to ask for the LoS to be checked as you had doubts about it.

Out of three fire warrior squads it worked out to be three-four models from each squad. Significant indeed. He was a nice guy but he clearly was used to playing 4th edition (I never played 4th and I have no idea how it did LOS). He was 'grouchy' about TLOS. But enough about him, the larger issue I'm trying to raise is the extent to which TLOS is being followed.

Nurglitch wrote:Uh, I do know that the guy wasn't following the rules, because olympia had to point out their application to him, and it slowed the game down when they were applied. The fact that he was 'miffed' by this slow down points to him not being a nice guy and a great sport, because nice guys and great sports don't get miffed when their mistakes are pointed out.

I meant we don't know he wasn't following the rules as he understood them. That is, the rules as understood by a player with a good understanding of 4e who is new to 5e. We have no idea whether he understood the new rules correctly or not. He either understood them and was deliberately cheating, or he did not understand them.

We also don't know why he got miffed. Perhaps it was embarrassment at not knowing the rules properly. Perhaps his wife had promised him sex if he got home in good time and the slowing down of the game would make him late.

Iorek's comment supports the interpretation that long-term 4e players may have trouble with some of the changes in 5e.

To be honest I can't remember the 4e LoS rules completely as my rule book went to Japan a year ago. So I may adapt to 5e more easily. I certainly intend to follow TLoS -- I think with practice it will become second nature to position figures with a good field of view. As I have not had the chance to play a game I don't know.

olympia wrote:Has anyone else had awkward games because of TLOS? Any tips on how to handle it in friendly games?

I had similar complaints about "sniping" via TLOS. It cuts both ways.

You'll need to wait for 5th to become more familiar. TLOS is OK, although it takes a certain amount of getting used to.

I think you are already doing one of the best things that you can with the laser pointer.

I haven't really had any trouble with the TLoS rules and that includes 5 games at the LVGT.

IMO it should be easier to handle in friendly games because it should be just that FRIENDLY.

The only suggestion that I would have is exchange places and look literally from the other guys point of view if things get a little sketchy.

Sportsmanship wise, there are shots that I would not take with the TLoS rules, but would allow my opponent to take if they really wanted. That is just how I roll though. If it is close especially in a friendly game, just don't take the shot.

All that said, you should never feel bad about playing by the rules.

I agree with Kilkrazy and Iorek. There’s going to be a bit of a tricky adjustment period for people accustomed to 4th ed LOS. Just be patient with it.

TLOS is also screwy because there is a lot of terrain that used to work great that now is absolute garbage. For example, a lot of imperial ruined buildings used to be great for my Fire warriors - I'd sit them up on floor 2 or 3 and shoot out. Now the crouching ones can't see over the wall they're supposedly shooting over.

I think some people get annoyed by TLOS because it causes really minor modeling differences (the crouching dude vs the standing dude vs the laying down dude) that used to be done only for variety/making the squad look interesting now have real game effects.

I also have yet to understand how TLOS speeds up the game...I thought it was only added to be more realistic, as in "it's more realistic that my kneeling guy is too dumb to ever stand up and look over this wall he's staring into"

Anyway, rant over - you should never feel bad about playing by the rules. But TLOS is one of the biggest changes that causes the most arguments/confusion in the new rules, so expect this to happen.

Yes, in some ways TLoS is complete nonsense.

Are players allowed to swap models in and out of the game to get them in prone/kneeling/standing poses as required?

lambadomy wrote:I think some people get annoyed by TLOS because it causes really minor modeling differences (the crouching dude vs the standing dude vs the laying down dude) that used to be done only for variety/making the squad look interesting now have real game effects.

They always did.

LOS has always been drawn from the model's head. So modeling standing vs prone has always affected LOS.

I also have yet to understand how TLOS speeds up the game

Not having two different systems within the one game for determining LOS is what speeds up the game, as you have fewer arguments mid-game over how LOS actually works.

is some guy cheating me? if 1 person can see can the whole squad see? and can you see through floors in ruins if they are under you?

karlfranz wrote:is some guy cheating me? if 1 person can see can the whole squad see? and can you see through floors in ruins if they are under you?

No, individual *models* shoot at squads. If any of his firing *models* can see ANY part of your squad, then they can shoot. If he has 9 models that can see you, and one who can't, then those 9 specific *models* can fire. However, if only one model is in range and visible from your squad, any model that can see that one dude can fire at your entire squad.

So it sounds like the guy is either cheating or, more likely, misreading the rules. Just because one guy can see the target doesn't mean his entire squad can shoot. However, the models that can see a member of your squad are shooting your entire squad.

thx. not sure if he did that exaactly but he did something like that and im a little bit of a noob so i wasnt sure. Couldnt find it in the rules

So let me get this straight, as I think I've just learned something today.

Each of my models only has to see one model in the target unit to shoot, but wounds can be allocated to every model in the unit?

Bingo. Prevents range and line-of-sight sniping.

onlainari wrote:So let me get this straight, as I think I've just learned something today.

Each of my models only has to see one model in the target unit to shoot, but wounds can be allocated to every model in the unit?

That's correct.

Kilkrazy wrote:The guy got miffed because the game was slowed down. You don't know he wasn't following the rules as he understood them. (TLoS is supposed to speed things up.)

I may be wrong but I don't think anyone (including GW) has ever claimed that always using a model's eye view line of sight speeds up the game.

A complete size classification system for terrain and models would undoubtedly be the quickest and easiest way of handling line of sight issues, but it wouldn't emphasize the fact that the game uses 3D models and terrain at all, which is what using a model's eye view and the actual placement of models on the table in relation to the terrain does do.

I find that almost every game i am asking people to double check their TLOS, and multiple times a game i am having to remind people to allocate wounds correctly. Often times i feel like they are annoyed at me for it, or embarassed that they didn't know, but there's not much that can be done about it.

They can always recognize that new stuff takes some getting used to and show a little gratitude for you taking the time to help them get it right.

LOL, TLOS is very putzy but it is the rule... I think they introduced 5th edition to kill that evil competitor who made that Apocalypse rule set... Oh that is the same people? Hmmm...

I do greatly dislike the rule as I think it has no business in 2500 point battles with 200 + figs on a side. But again, it is the law of the land in 5th edition and old-timers like me have to adjust back to second edition-like rules again. Any one for individually tossed grenades and scatters or jamming weapons?

I dislike how nothing but man-made structures and hills truly block line of sight. I tremble at the thought GW thinks this solved problems as they reduce the cost of figures so armies are now even larger than before.

What I am seeing in tournaments is reversion to 4th ed. LOS with 4+ cover saves now being granted liberally. Try playing 5 or 6 turns in two hours when someone asks you to check the TLOS for 30 orcs and that is one unit!! So if I insist you will throw your hands up in disgust when the judge calls time because we barely managed to get through 3 turns.

<sigh>

Just don't let anyone make you feel like a jerk for insisting that we follow the rules that are currently in force and I ask you to be patient with the newbie who points out all your faults when 6th edition is released.

yakface wrote:

onlainari wrote:So let me get this straight, as I think I've just learned something today.

Each of my models only has to see one model in the target unit to shoot, but wounds can be allocated to every model in the unit?

That's correct.

I have 5 models called a, b, c, d, and e shooting at a unit of 10.

a and b see 4 models

c, d, and e see 10 models

Do they get a cover save?

What if a, b, c, and d see 4 models?

onlainari wrote:

a and b see 4 models

c, d, and e see 10 models

Do they get a cover save?

No cover save. The majority of the models in the target unit are 'out of cover' from the majority of the models in the firing unit.

What if a, b, c, and d see 4 models?

The target unit gets a cover save. In this case at least half of the models in the target unit are 'in cover' from the majority of the models in the firing unit.

And I assume I can replace "cannot see 6 models" with "cannot see 3 models and 3 models are obscured", as they are the same thing, right?

onlainari wrote:And I assume I can replace "cannot see 6 models" with "cannot see 3 models and 3 models are obscured", as they are the same thing, right?

Yes models in the target unit that are out of LOS are 'in cover'.

Uh, isn't it the case that if most models in the unit are outside of LOS to all models in the attacking unit, that the entire unit can claim cover saves?

Not sure what you're suggesting nurglitch. Do your answers to my questions differ? If so, what are your answers.

Onlainari:

No, I misread Yakface to be implying that models got cover saves, rather than units.