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.

If I'm parsing rexscarlet right, the point seems to be simply that people are having trouble adjusting to the new LoS rules. Not necessarily that they're bad, or good, or wrong, or right, just that in the OP's experience, the transition is fraught with questions and confusions.

I'm not sure what can be done aboot this. People need to read the new rules and get used to them. I don't think there's anything at all confusing aboot the new LoS rules, the only places I can see issues coming up is when people already have expectations for how it works, and then don't actually read the new rules.

in order to help make the terrain and the different types of terrain distinguishable and functional?

Yes, definitely. I would hope that the terrain GW supplies will already have this in mind, but there's no question that the new rules demand a new look at terrain.

It would seem that some people (insaniak has said he's one) have been playing a very 5e version of LoS for a long time, so there's no surprise for them, and their terrain is probably fine.

However, for others, who treated LoS a little more loosely, it may be necessary to cut windows a little bigger, at a little more useful/consistent height, in order to avoid unduly hampering shooty armies.

A green base of woods 12” X 12” would have a darker green center 6” X 6” to distinguish the 6” from the edge; in order make clear the 6” to shoot out/in rule.

Very clever and very useful in 4e, but obviously no use in 5e. Instead, 5e seems to demand that woods be far more "densly planted", possibly with removable trees, if they're to provide the 50% obscurement a vehicle would need to get cover behind them. It's my feeling that a vehicle totally behind a forest, which used to be totally oot of LoS, should get at least a 4+ save now. Unfortunately, this requires that the terrain be built to do this, and it leads to rather annoying terrain as a result.

That's optional for infantry. It adds to the look but is not compulsory.

Speaking as someone with 6 games of 5ed under his belt now and witnessed or watched many others, any true LOS "problem" is VERY quickly resolved.

Player A: "Hey, my guy can shoot your guy, I can see him through the window."
Player B: "Ah lemme take a look. Hmm, ok, but it looks like I have cover to me."
Player A: "Really? I think I can see him pretty plainly" <looks again>. "hmm, maybe, if I look from way over here...lets call it -1 to the cover save?"
Player B: "Sure, shoot away"

or

Player A: "Lascannon to your Falcon, I hit, sweet a pen!"
Player B: "Ok, 4+ cover"
Player A: "Huh? You don't have 50% tho"
Player B: "You sure? Looks just about 50% to me"
Player A: "Hmm, MAYBE...it's kinda close. 5+ cover"
Player B: "K, <rolls>"


Any player that wants to continue to argue and argue and argue over 1 more number on the die roll isn't someone you want to play against again. The rules aren't the problem in that case, it's the PLAYER.