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.

In another thread I voiced my concerns with the reliability of the TLoS rules in 5e. Other posters feel these are the most robust LoS rules we've had so far. I'd like to get more clarity.

Two issues immediately come to mind as I consider the new rules in the context of the games I've played in the past.

So, to preface this, this is all how I used to play. If I was misapplying 4E rules, and nothing has really changed in 5e, let me know.

Here's the big quote that it all revolves around: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms)."

1) Marines in Buildings:

When I'm playing my Marines, I tend to have a least a few squads sitting in buildings and shooting (Devs, Las/Plas, etc). At my FLGS there are a bunch of generic foamcore "building ruins" that basically look like multistory cubes with regular windows, and then some degree of battle damage. They're simple but effective pieces of terrain, and I like them a lot. In the past, I've just plopped my Marines in them, maybe spread over levels, more or less just "in the building." I didn't worry if every guy was right in front of a window, I just put them in the building and assumed they all could shoot out, and that the building itself wasn't going to create LOS issues, so long as they were generally near a window. I also spaced them oot nicely to avoid blasts. Nobody I played ever took issue with this, and it seemed to be generally the way everyone else played too.

Now what? If I take the new rules at face value, a model that doesn't have LOS to a model in the target unit can't fire. So now I need to take the time to place every model at a window? If a model happens to be just a quarter of an inch too far left or right, so he can't see the obvious cluster of charging Daemons, he can't fire at all? Even if the model, IRL, could just lean a bit and shoot? And what aboot terrain with lots of detail to it, lots of rubble, that makes it hard/impossible to do this, even if I wanted to take the time to carefully stick everyone at a window? That points me to p13 and "wobbly model syndrome" which says I can leave models in safer positions... Am I seriously going to do that with a whole unit? Is this not pointing to how stupid it is to take the model's position totally literally, when it's clearly not possible?

2) Crisis Suits Behind Buildings:

With the same buildings described above, just as everyone understood that being inside the building meant you could see oot and get a cover save, everyone also understood that being outside and behind the building meant it blocked LOS. So, I would put my Crisis Suits behind the building, J-S-J with them, and nobody would start claiming they could shoot through the building because their Devestator could see part of a Crisis Suit's shoulder (or whatever).

Now what?

I don't even entirely know what the rules are saying in this situation. Do they mean you have to be able to see any part of the body? Even a sliver of leg is enough? Or do you have to see all of one "part?" I.e. you have to be able to see all of the head, or all of the legs, or all of the torso?

These are just two examples where I can see the TLoS rules falling apart, or becoming more of a confusion and hassle than they're worth.

In closing, let me add that I'm aware I can write house rules that things have to operate however I want. This is not a helpful response, since my goal (and I think most everyone's goal) is to be able to find a game easily, and to have a consistent understanding of the rules with any opponent you might come across.

Phryxis wrote:Now what? If I take the new rules at face value, a model that doesn't have LOS to a model in the target unit can't fire.

That's correct. Area Terrain now works the same for LOS as all other terrain does... and the way all other terrain did in 4th edition.

Note that Buildings and Ruins are actually two seperate things now. Intact buildings are treated more or less like Transport vehicles now. Ruins are WYSIWYG area terrain.

That points me to p13 and "wobbly model syndrome" which says I can leave models in safer positions... Am I seriously going to do that with a whole unit?

People have been doing so, without the benefit of a rule that actually allows it, for as long as I've been playing. It's not really that big a deal in practice, since from my experience most people put at least a little thought into how models are going to be able to stand on it when building the terrain in the first place. I've not yet come across a terrain piece that required an entire unit to be placed in anything other than their actual locations.

Is this not pointing to how stupid it is to take the model's position totally literally, when it's clearly not possible?

How?

If the terrain for a miniatures-based game is built in such a way that models can't be accurately positioned on it, that's a failing of the terrain, not a failing of the rules.

I don't even entirely know what the rules are saying in this situation. Do they mean you have to be able to see any part of the body? Even a sliver of leg is enough? Or do you have to see all of one "part?" I.e. you have to be able to see all of the head, or all of the legs, or all of the torso?

If you can draw a LOS to one of those defined parts of the body, you have LOS.

It's that simple.

I like the rule but the problem is that current terrain even cities of death is really making it a pain to have windows to fire out of.

I reread these rules in 4e. They're significantly more vague. In some respects, I can see why one might argue that this is in fact an improvement.

My concern remains, though... When something is sloppy and informal (as TLoS is) it's best to treat it as sloppy and informal. I feel like that's what the 4e rules did. The 5e rules are trying to be much more strict in the interpretation of something that doesn't really support it.

For example, of the 5 or 6 Eldar Ranger sculpts, all but one are standing, and that one is kneeling. If we take these rules seriously, that model pretty much can't ever fire oot of a ruined building with windows higher than his eye level.

I'd argue that a reasonable thing would be to say that as long as a model is near a window, even if he's crouching too low to see oot, he can shoot and be shot, through that window. The 4e rules did generally support that interpretation, or at least didn't specifically negate it. The 5e rules do.

So no matter how many times you say they're the same rules, they're not THE SAME. They're quite similar in motivation, but 5e attaches all manner of very specific conditions which fundamentally change the character of the rules.

This is a critical difference between 4e and 5e: In 4e, they just say 'see if the model has line of sight.' What this ultimately ends up meaning is "be a reasonable human being, and see if it looks like the shot would work." That's literally as good as you're going to get with a TLoS system (which is one reason I don't like it).

In 5e, as you've implied, that's still more or less what the rule actually is (and they admit it). Only now they've attached all this impossible detail and rigor to the process, which does nothing but limit the game and create confusion. Now we're locked into the bizzare, static poses or models take, and it's ridiculous.

The new take on TLoS is NOT more helpful, it's foolishness. It's all based on the incorrect assumption that TLoS can do any better than ask the players to be reasonable.

But, enough editorializing on my part. I want to know how I'm supposed to play these rules.

1) If I've got my squad of Eldar Pathfinders in a building, and I can't place the crouching model so he can see oot a window, what should happen?

2) If I've got my Crisis Suit behind a building, and an enemy Devestator can see one of his toes through a hole in the ruin, what should happen?

Phryxis wrote: The 5e rules are trying to be much more strict in the interpretation of something that doesn't really support it.

Ok, now I am confused.

You don't like true LOS because it's sloppy and vague... but 5th ed is worse because it's less sloppy and vague?

Here is something to add to the morass. Coherency. When you are lining up your models in that building or behind that ruined wall you still have to adhere to unit coherency rules. This should add to the difficulty in placing troops. Vertical firing lines behind a window? You can still shoot through your own troops.

One thing I think you are failing to consider here is the fact that your troops are still behind cover and the cover save rules have been beefed up if I remember right. This should balance out the fact that more shots are going to be taken at your troops.

Just my two cents.

You don't like true LOS because it's sloppy and vague... but 5th ed is worse because it's less sloppy and vague?

No, I don't like it because it pretends things that are sloppy and vague aren't, and then makes the game beholden to that false assumption.

Lame analogy time:

Let's say you've got a new job making widgets, and they've got performance metrics. Something like "100 widgets a day" would be nice, right?

But that's not what you get. You get "enough widgets." What's "enough?" Who knows, it's sloppy and vague.

Ok, if that's what the deal is, fine. We can still make it work if management is cool aboot it, and comes to you and says "look, we need more widgets, can you pick up the pace?"

That's what 4e was. They accepted that statically posed models on handmade terrain was a sloppy and vague arrangement, and they said "hey, be cool aboot it."

Now 5e comes along, and it's pretending like things aren't sloppy and vague. If you miss your metrics for ONE month, you're fired. It'd be one thing if the metric was clear. 100 widgets, and you keep your job. But it's not clear. It's "enough."

That's BS.

It's treating sloppiness as real data.

So, put simply, I don't like sloppy, vague rules. What I like even less are sloppy, vague rules that don't get what they are, and then tack some draconian BS on top.

MORE lame analogies:

The 4e LoS rules were like a clumsy drunk that needed to be humored to be tolerated.

The 5e LoS rules are like a clumsy drunk with a kaiser helmet and spiked elbow pads. I don't want to tolerate.

Go play Warmachine, or even better, go play Classic Battletech where it is 100% ok to use cardboard cutouts as your models, and the game is simply a process of equations.

We get it. You don't like TLoS. you've written three seperate threads to tell us you don't like TLoS. We understand. you don't like TLoS.

You're, so far, alone in this.

Two of the best minds in our industry/hobby, Insaniak and Yakface (who's FAQs seem to always become the basis for GW's official FAQs), have both told you you're howling at the moon. They've told you you're wrong - not in your opinion, that's 100% yours and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong in your assumptions that the TLoS rules are ineffective/worse-than-they-have-been/etc.

My suggestion: chalk your opinion up to "you don't like it" and move on. Keep playing, don't keep playing, whatever, but it's time to move on.

And yes, we know, you don't like TLoS.

Warmachine is TLOS also just so you know (except for screening).

And Battletech rules, don't be hating.

LOL, I know, I know...

The warmachine thing was cause that's where all the disgruntled former GW players go. Its just funny to me there are an awful lot of people that think Privateer press $#!7$ sunlight and happy fun times, and it's usually because some innocuous thing "drove" them away from GW.

As for battletech, it popped my gaming cherry, nothing but love. But it might solve some of the OPs complaints, there is absolutely nothing debatable about Battletech LOS rules.

The real failing of the new LOS rules is their confusion of abstract and non-abstract concepts.

1) Models out of LOS/Range can be wounded because the position of the models in a unit are "abstract" those models could actually be anywhere in the footprint of the unit.

2) To draw LOS to a model, you need only clip its right elbow with a laser.

So you use the exact pose and position of one model to allow you to damage any number of other abstractly positioned models? Shennanigans.

But as with all things, we will get used to it and play the game. Its that or leave the larger community. Since 40K is a social hobby first and a game second - the rules are lower priority than simply playing.

My group was trying to figure out if firers within area terrain shooting at vehichles causes the vehicles to get the cover save or not?

A little different, but overall I like the new TLOS thing a lot, admittedly I have to build all sorts of new style terraint to allow for at least some hiding places on the table, but that wont take to long!

Phryxis wrote:

But, enough editorializing on my part. I want to know how I'm supposed to play these rules.

1) If I've got my squad of Eldar Pathfinders in a building, and I can't place the crouching model so he can see oot a window, what should happen?

2) If I've got my Crisis Suit behind a building, and an enemy Devestator can see one of his toes through a hole in the ruin, what should happen?

1) Place the crouching model slightly outside the terrain. All you have to do is have the majority of your models in your terrain so you're good to go. When your unit suffers a casualty, pull the kneeling model if it's not a good fit for the terrain you're in.

2) Your Crisis suits get shot, albeit with a 4+ cover save.



After reading all of your posts I think it's fairly clear (apologies if I'm misconstruing your intentions) that you wanted the game to fully move to a 2D system with size categories used to handle height differences. The fact that the game hasn't moved to this place seems to be bugging you. However you have to realize that 40K since its inception (yes even rogue trader) has used the 'model's eye view' as the basic determining factor for drawing LOS.

If you're playing a game with 3D models on 3D terrain a model's eye view is the *only* way to fully utilize the unique three-dimensional nature of the game. Any other system strips the three dimensionality out in favor of simplicity.

Obviously you're in favor of losing this element of the game for ease-of-play but there are many of us (including the game's designers) that this element is what makes the game *great* and unique and therefore should be celebrated, protected and treasured.

40K is a game of 3D models interacting with 3D terrain. If this core idea doesn't sit well with you then you are indeed going to have a hard time playing the game.

DeathGod wrote:Two of the best minds in our industry/hobby, Insaniak and Yakface (who's FAQs seem to always become the basis for GW's official FAQs), have both told you you're howling at the moon. They've told you you're wrong - not in your opinion, that's 100% yours and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong in your assumptions that the TLoS rules are ineffective/worse-than-they-have-been/etc.

C'mon now. My opinion isn't any more valid than Phryxis. Either way they're just one gamer's opinions.

Augustus wrote:My group was trying to figure out if firers within area terrain shooting at vehichles causes the vehicles to get the cover save or not?

A little different, but overall I like the new TLOS thing a lot, admittedly I have to build all sorts of new style terraint to allow for at least some hiding places on the table, but that wont take to long!

Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures need to actually have 50% of the model (or facing in the case of vehicle) physically obscured by terrain (or intervening models) in order to get a cover save.

In short, area terrain isn't going to provide cover to vehicles or MCs unless the actual terrain elements in the area terrain are big enough to obscure the vehicle/MC model (like some individual tree models are big enough to obscure a vehicle or MC model).


It's the one thing (besides Troops being the only scoring unit) that slows down the Godzilla Tyranid army. It is much harder for them to get cover saves now.

that you wanted the game to fully move to a 2D system with size categories used to handle height differences.

I'm not sure it'd take that exact form, but I would like to see something a little more generalized, which doesn't (as I complain aboot in more detail in another thread) lead to ridiculous outcomes and put a damper on creative, bold models.

I mean, I sat here and thought aboot it for 5 minutes, and I come up with this simple solution:

Added to p16, new paragraph, after "majestic wings, etc."

"Some poses may cause models to be unable to establish line of sight in situations where a living, breathing soldier might reasonably do so. If at least one model in the firing unit has line of sight to at least one model in the target unit, then the controlling player may temporarily substitute any model of the same type, and from the same unit, for the problematically posed model. This substitute model may then be used to determine line of sight as normal, and once a determination is made, both models must immediately be returned to their original locations."

I'm sure a bit of cleanup and impact analysis is called for, but come on... How simple is that?

The problem with that solution is that as soon as you start allowing players to substitute models, you create arguments.

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

While a lot of poeple aren't going to care over-much about a model moving a couple of mm sideways during the swap... a lot will.

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

Sure, but try measuring range without jostling the odd model. Try moving around terrain without periodically bumping something and toppling/moving models.

I see your point in general, but I think that anything that presumes that the models will maintain exact position, and which relies on that exact position, is operating under a false assumption.

While a lot of poeple aren't going to care over-much about a model moving a couple of mm sideways during the swap... a lot will.

Right, but this game is aboot fun, and GW isn't going to kowtow to a few bad apples, right?

One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

Phryxis wrote:

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

Sure, but try measuring range without jostling the odd model.

I do it all the time. I'm fairly sure I've never seen anyone actually touch a model to measure range. I've rarely seen situations (barring somewhat enclosed cover) that couldn't be measured by just holding the tape measure above a model's base and measuring. In terms of bumping terrain, sure it happens. What, maybe 1 in ever 2nd or 3rd game? How often would it happen to a terrain that is housing some unit that may be 12" away... or maybe 13?

Phryxis wrote:
I see your point in general, but I think that anything that presumes that the models will maintain exact position, and which relies on that exact position, is operating under a false assumption.

Bumping terrain is something that happens once in a while, usually won't overly impact the game, and is just something you take in stride. Beyond that, though, I can't really see many scenarios where the models are moving unless they're being moved purposefully for either movement, run, assault, counter-assault, or massacre. I think that if your opponents' models are not staying in the same place outside of movements, you might need to call shenanigans. Especially if models are changing position during range measurements, because that's sketchy at best.

yakface wrote:

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

What I believe he is saying is that this



used to be represented on the tabletop as this



but now, under 5th edition, to actually represent the first pic on the tabletop you have to model something like this



If you placed a tank in the 2nd pic, under 4th edition, you'd just move some trees around and the tank would still get "hull downed" or whatever.

What holden88 was saying is if you place the tank in the last pic under 5th, and you move some trees around in order for the tank to fit, the tank is no longer 50% obscured, and thus it won't get a cover save, due to TLOS.

Personally, I think it is quite okay, in friendly games at least, to declare before the game starts that wood templates count as thick woods and block LOS, and that models in it get a cover save regardless of TLOS.

Phryxis wrote:

I mean, I sat here and thought aboot it for 5 minutes, and I come up with this simple solution:

Added to p16, new paragraph, after "majestic wings, etc."

"Some poses may cause models to be unable to establish line of sight in situations where a living, breathing soldier might reasonably do so. If at least one model in the firing unit has line of sight to at least one model in the target unit, then the controlling player may temporarily substitute any model of the same type, and from the same unit, for the problematically posed model. This substitute model may then be used to determine line of sight as normal, and once a determination is made, both models must immediately be returned to their original locations."

I'm sure a bit of cleanup and impact analysis is called for, but come on... How simple is that?

I personally disagree that something like this should be in the rulebook (and this coming from the guy who likes to have every detail spelled out in a tournament FAQ).

The more caveats added to a rule, the more the simplicity and clarity of said rule starts to get watered down. Right now, the rule is pretty much perfect in terms of being easily understandable. Some veterans are having a hard time wrapping their head around the perceived changes because some tended to play the game in some form of magic cylinder style of play.

But I think if you took the rules and had a new player read them, they'd be pretty easy to pick up (and a heck of a lot easier than the last edition of the game, for example). Besides models in the unit that is firing, when you bend over to draw LOS, if you can see your target you can shoot it.

Not only is this idea easy to grasp but again it emphasizes the unique 3D nature of miniatures on a 3D modeled tabletop, which IMHO can only be a good thing.

The sacrifice for this simplicity are some of the issues you've described. In some situations oddly shaped models can be penalized (or get benefits), but I'd say that upwards of 95% of the time, the system works fine as is because of its simplicity.

As soon as you start introducing exceptions to the rule you also possibly introduce new and different ways for loopholes to be found. While I think something like your suggestion might work in a tournament FAQ, I don't think it belongs in the rules because any added benefit of clarity is outweighed by the difficulty of actually implementing the rule in-game, especially with new players. For me personally, I would hate to play in a game where my opponent started swapping his models around in order to draw LOS. It would slow down the game and just be annoying.

Why not just leave the couple of kneeling models outside of the terrain? Just work within the given rules and suck up the rare occasion where it is actually a hindrance to you.

yakface wrote:

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

Yes, I realize that. That's my point. By nature of moving the tree's around it affects what cover save I may have been granted. I think it's an added headache to now have to worry about where the tree's are positioned on the terrain and also to make sure that they get placed back where they came from when your vehicle moves on.

Also, moving the tree's around affects the save granted to other units too. Lets say I have a unit behind some woods. If the enemy were to shoot at me, I'd get a cover save. Then my opponent moves his vehicle into the woods. He removes some trees in order to accomodate his vehicle. Now there are no trees screening my unit so they lose the cover save (even against other more distant units).

I enjoyed not having to worry about the exact position of the trees in 4th.

Actually, the rules don't really accommodate moving the trees to place the models any more.

They mention that you might need to move them in order to more easily move the models, but tell you to put them back after you have finished moving in case they affect LOS.

So if you want to be able to move vehicles into area terrain, you're going to need to build your area terrain with space for the vehicles.

Remember that a forest base doesn't need to be only trees. You can add smaller plants, rocks, fallen logs, and the like to further break up LOS.

We are going back to using plug in trees. You can pop them out and back in as needed, so you always know exactly where they are.

Terrain will need to be modified at most shops. As even our gaming tables started seeing people put out green felt for trees, and grey felt for ruins. No need for the actual terrain, it was just an abstraction anyway.

I'm fairly sure I've never seen anyone actually touch a model to measure range.

Seriously? I mean, I was playing something of devil's advocate in my post, but you've NEVER seen somebody touch a model when measuring range? I've seen it countless times. Sure, when things are clearly in range, the old "hover and show" is enough, but when it's tight (Meltguns for example), I see it all the time.

Also, I should have been more accurate. I also meant movement, assault, etc. When people move and assault, I see them touch the model with the tape virtually every time. Of course, the model is aboot to move, so it's less a factor, but still.

Anyway, the rule I propose allows for the movement of models, and calls for their replacement in their original location. While insaniak is right, there might be some disagreement over this, I'd point oot two things:

1) You don't actually have to move the models. Just as you do the "hover and show" when it's obvious that something is in range, so too might you point to the next model over from the crouching one, say "he'd be in LOS" and not move anything, because both players can see it without doing so.

2) It doesn't actually matter. These models were moved to where they are, or placed there at the start of the battle. The player controlling them no doubt put them where he wanted to put them in the first place. There's no advantage to be gained in shifting them around a bit. Or, if there is, the cheater already had ample opportunity to fudge an extra half inch in the movement phase.

All academic, of course, the books are printed, and nobody cares what I think. I just want to demonstrate that with MINIMAL effort, we can have more of the best of both worlds.

The more caveats added to a rule, the more the simplicity and clarity of said rule starts to get watered down.

Simplicity yes, clarity sorta, but only insofar as it requires more thinking to become clear. I don't think it's important that the rules be easy to learn, so long as once they're learned, they're clear, tight, and tactically nuanced. Clearly GW doesn't agree.

Note also that this rule has the added benefit of being unnecessary to follow. You don't have to know it to shoot, the game doesn't fall apart if you forget aboot it, but if you do know it, you can squeeze a bit more effectiveness oot of your army.

I would hate to play in a game where my opponent started swapping his models around in order to draw LOS. It would slow down the game and just be annoying.

I can fully understand this, and I would agree. However as I said above, I don't think it'd really come to that. I think it's going to be very clear when models have LoS the great majority of the time. I simply wrote it as I did to capture the situations where a model aught to be able to shoot without just saying "if it looks like he could, hey, go for it!"

It's a thought experiment, mainly. Just putting my money where my mouth is. If I'm going to say I think GW wrote shoddy rules, I should at least have a plan to fix them.

Phryxis wrote: There's no advantage to be gained in shifting them around a bit.

There's all sorts of potential advantages to be gained.

- if the player only just realised that his model isn't quite as far into the cover as he thought
- if the model was out of sight when initially placed, but is now borderline visible due to enemy movement
- if the model was right on the edge of being in range

That's just 3 straight off the top of my head.

At the end of the day, it would just add an extra opportunity to fudge things, whether intentionally or not.

The group I regularly play with use "plug in trees" and they work quite well.

With the new LOS rules it really requires a mind shift as to what "area terrain" actually does.

Under 4th area terrain provided cover saves, affected movement (making it difficult and or dangerous) and blocked sections of LOS. Under this system a pile of rubble provided exactly the same protection as a forest.

Under 5th area terrain simply affects movement (difficult / dangerous). The LOS issues that different types of terrain caused are now resolved by TLOS. Now a forrest does a much better job of blocking LOS.

This is a big "system shock". I was very upset by the whole TLOS thing when I first found out about it. Just like I was upset by the whole shooting through enemy units provides a cover save, but can't hurt the intervining unit. Once you get your head around it, in the context of the whole rule system, it is quite good.

I think TLOS will cause most people "issues" until they have played several games with it and get used to the change in what area terrain actually does.

TLOS seems to be the same as "what I can't assault out of my rhino?" was when they changed from 3rd to 4th. Once you get used to it .... it isn't a problem anymore.

That's just 3 straight off the top of my head.

And I have to be honest and give you those. There are advantages to be gained by shifting models. I just think there's a chain of reasons that minimize those to the point that they're a nonfactor.

I've itemized those, and I feel like you're being a bit obtuse by just focusing on one piece of the equation.

I mean, think through the chain of events.

1) A model has to be oot of LoS due to some sort of pose issue. Shouldn't be TOO common, or you wouldn't be so comfortable with TLoS.
2) Model has to be oot of LoS in a way so borderline that it's not obvious that he could just stand up like the guy right next to him to have LoS.
3) Player doing the moving of the models has to want to cheat.
4) Player doing the moving has to be able to change the ootcome in one of the ways you list with only a very small, unnoticable move.
5) That move has to be possible at all. For example, you can't move a guy closer through a wall. You can't nudge a guy right through another model. Etc.

How often is all this going to come together?

Also, I'd argue that the game rules are already so open for abuse in so many ways, this is just a drop in the bucket.

Take your examples...

if the player only just realised that his model isn't quite as far into the cover as he thought

To what major advantage? To get a quarter inch further into terrain? I'm not sure I see a huge benefit here.

if the model was out of sight when initially placed, but is now borderline visible due to enemy movement

Certainly a noteable advantage to be gained with this, but hardly something that can't be done ootside my proposed rules. Cheater bends down to check LoS, sees it's not in, but taps the guy with his finger to nudge him the right way "this guy has LoS." Well, now he does.

if the model was right on the edge of being in range

First off the rules don't call for range to be measured until after LoS is checked. Indeed, a unit can waste its shooting by being in LoS boot oot of range.

Even then, can't the actual measurement be used as a cheating point more easily than what I'm proposing? When you're measuring there's a big bulky tape measure in the picture, and often it's predictable where the players are looking. The cheater can be stretching oot the tape from the base of his model, watching the opponent see if it comes up short, even as he slides his model forward with his other hand.

At the end of the day, it would just add an extra opportunity to fudge things, whether intentionally or not.

I think that's true, but I also think it's irrelevant in a game that already ceases to function when confronted with a cheater.

Isn't "hey, if you want to cheat and ruin it, we can't make rules to stop you" one of the themes from GW with this release?

But hey, how aboot this: GW makes a line of special plastic markers that fit around bases to perfectly mark the model's original position. Another thing to sell! We all win!

Speaking of which, your points make me wonder aboot the laser pointer guys... As they're down there, rooting around to get the pointer next to the model's head, could they not start bumping things to favorable spots?

I'm not going to go through and respond to everything there on a point by point basis, because this is all spiraling into silly land.

The point was simply that adding extra complexity, or extra opportunities to cheat/confuse things/whatever is not necessarily a good thing.

Point out however many problems with the current rules as you like... it won't make adding more problems a good idea.