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.

Antonin wrote:Yakface - here's the issue. They go to a "true" LOS system, but then promptly carve out big, big exceptions, including, but not limited to, being able to kill models behind terrain. If they are using a true LOS system, why not use an actual true LOS system?

I agree with you, I hated range sniping, etc. - but their new approach is still pretty schizo.

Why not just go to true LOS, which means that models behind terrain cannot see or shoot, and also cannot be seen or shot. Why not do that? They are making us roll saves for individual models, so they aren't worried about slowing the game down that much.

True LOS is used, as has been explained in their podcasts and designer notes, because it helps to emphasize the 'miniature' in the miniature gaming, in that it forces players to become intimately involved with the three-dimensional nature of the game and helps to separate it out from a standard board game.

The reason you can't use 'true LOS' for casualty removal is really simple: Players get to move and then immediately shoot. That means it gives you the ability to set your models up in a way to determine exactly what they can see or can't see, which allows you to unrealistically 'snipe' models that have no business being sniped.

In other words, it makes the 'game' extra 'gamey' as players scootch their models a quarter of an inch in order to line up the perfect shot. This does not sit well with a game which is generally designed to encompass an entire army of models.

Anyone who played 2nd edition can probably remember players using the 'arc of fire' of each model to line up a shot at a particular model they would normally not be able to shoot at because of the targeting restrictions.


Armor saves in 5th edition are only rolled separately if the models are different from each other. Any models that share identical profile/weapons are rolled together.

Overall the rules are so much cleaner and easier to understand. Instead of two different systems for armor saves (regular and mixed) you have one. Instead of two types of LOS rules (regular and size classifications) you have one. These new rules now handle a much wider variety of situations without resorting to special rules which means they are infinitely more adaptable to whatever strange game scenarios get thrown at them, which can only be a good thing IMHO.

Antonin wrote:Yakface - here's the issue. They go to a "true" LOS system, but then promptly carve out big, big exceptions, including, but not limited to, being able to kill models behind terrain. If they are using a true LOS system, why not use an actual true LOS system?

I agree with you, I hated range sniping, etc. - but their new approach is still pretty schizo.

Why not just go to true LOS, which means that models behind terrain cannot see or shoot, and also cannot be seen or shot. Why not do that? They are making us roll saves for individual models, so they aren't worried about slowing the game down that much.

Because if you use True True Line Of Sight®, the game would take to long. Players would want to optimise their movement to gain cover, and the opposition would want to check every single model's LoS to every possible target.

Yakface wrote:True LOS is used, as has been explained in their podcasts and designer notes, because it helps to emphasize the 'miniature' in the miniature gaming, in that it forces players to become intimately involved with the three-dimensional nature of the game and helps to separate it out from a standard board game.

The reason you can't use 'true LOS' for casualty removal is really simple: Players get to move and then immediately shoot. That means it gives you the ability to set your models up in a way to determine exactly what they can see or can't see, which allows you to unrealistically 'snipe' models that have no business being sniped.

There's an assumption that you have included - that true LOS meshes in any way with the arbitrary casualty removal rules. What models have no business being sniped? None, in true LOS. If you are shooting what you can see, then you can shoot that heavy weapon trooper - forget that his buddy is standing next to him.

So what we have is this frankensteinian construct where LOS for shooting purposes is "true", but casualty removal and targeting are not. I think they should not have gone to true LOS for shooting, but instead wiped out the rangesniping and the requirement of only taking models in LOS - if they are going to make this a game, then forget about true LOS. If they are going to make a battlefield simulation, based on the models as they look, then apply the same LOS rules to everything.

I have no dispute that you are spot on with the casualty removal rule that the OP asked about, by the way - I'm pointing out why their flop of arbitrary LOS and true LOS is nonsensical, given their flop of true casualty removal with arbitrary casualty removal.

As an aside, anyone else have problems with how LOS is handled regarding charging into HtH? Here's how it works; assume you can't see someone because they are behind a tree (assume the tree is solid, though true LOS says you can shoot between the branches.) You are assumed to know where they are for charging purposes, but you cannot use a flamethrower on them. How does that make any sense?

I'd be fine with everything in the current LOS rules minus the can be killed out of LOS and can be killed out of range. Model sniping is fine, it was hardly ever abused anyways and if the guy with the missile launcher is standing in the open while his buddies hide, there's nothing 'unrealistic' about him getting waxed for it.

If there were 3 guys in the open and 5 guys out of sight/range, then start allocating wounds to those 3 guys. If you want to defend your special weapon model, then you'd better get out here and do it!

True LOS was imparted on area terrain to remove a gamey abstract aspect of the rules - and then killing models outside of range/los was put in to ratchet the gamey back up a notch and make it just as abstract.

I think they would have been fine to use exactly the current LOS rules, but add one sentence at the end: "Any models in the target squad outside of LOS or Range from any firing model are not eligible to receive wounds and are not counted when determining if the majority of the unit receives a cover save."

Would this be so bad?

KilKrazy- nothing personal taken mate
I like the game and have opponents who like the game. If the guy at the club who brought this up wants to play I'd be happy to take him on and would take great pride in beating him and his missile launcher. Whatever he does I could do as well and as Yakface said it would be done by manouvering so I could take out his unit with the missile launcher as well as the rest...
Mick

Because "Absolutely True" rules would suck. There is *always* going to be some abstraction.

A model with a toe behind a brick is the same to hit as one where all you can see is their head
It is the same to hit a wraithlord as a grot.

The only question is how much abstraction.

In this case, it is abstracted that the target squad is moving around. This goes two ways. I can see one, I can kill all. (advantage shooter) If I can see one, and kill one, it doesn't have to be the one I see. (Advantage target)
Both of these stem from the abstraction that the target squad is moving around.
To use "really absolutely true" LoS, we need to roll to see if we notice a unit, then determine how much is visible, calculate how that affects our liklihood to hit, then see what effect the cover may have, etc.

Mick A wrote:KilKrazy- nothing personal taken mate
I like the game and have opponents who like the game. If the guy at the club who brought this up wants to play I'd be happy to take him on and would take great pride in beating him and his missile launcher. Whatever he does I could do as well and as Yakface said it would be done by manouvering so I could take out his unit with the missile launcher as well as the rest...
Mick

In my experience, when someone uses the rules in that kind of way (in any wargame) the best method to deal with it is to dump so severely on the "cleverly protected" heavy weapon guy (or whatever) that it becomes clear that him setting up in in that kind of way is a death sentence.

greenskinned git wrote:And yet if you look through the pictures in the rulebook, I find that almost every table shown has what I would call a severe absense of terrain.

Yes... because the terrain isn't as necessary under the new rules. That was my point...

Antonin wrote:So what we have is this frankensteinian construct where LOS for shooting purposes is "true", but casualty removal and targeting are not.

Except, once again, that casualty removal and targeting do use true LOS because you are drawing LOS to the unit, not the models.

That's the big shift in this edition that people need to get their heads around. You're no longer targeting individual models. It's all about the unit.

You are assumed to know where they are for charging purposes, but you cannot use a flamethrower on them. How does that make any sense?

When you go charging in the general direction of whatever it was you heard that gave their position away, you can adjust your charge once you get close enough to actually spot them. While firing a flamer blindly into the shrubbery has a good chance of missing them completely and giving them time to get out of the way.

Or maybe it's just one of those areas where a ruleset intended more as a game than a simulation doesn't entirely convet into real-world terms.

yakface wrote:
Finally, there also isn't any reason you shouldn't have several completely LOS blocking pieces of terrain on the table that create a bit of variety in the game. If you don't, you're definitely missing out.

Except if you read the section about setting up the battlefield. It says the standard missions were designed to play on a 6'x4' table with 25% terrain. It goes on to say that should be 6-7 roughly 12"x12" sized pieces that are evenly varied by type. So 2 pieces that block LOS, 2 pieces that obscure "area terrain", and 2 pieces that don't block LOS but give cover saves.

So technically, you should not do several. But I do agree with pretty much everything else you say Yak.

At first, I was really, really against the new LOS rules. And while I still think 4th area terrain rules were better, and a mix with the current would be ideal, I am dealing with what we have.

That means I pretty much have to start my terrain collection all over.

Gah! Darn Quote button where the Edit button should be!

The problem with the 4th edition LoS rules was that so many players just didn't understand them. (Area terrain, height bands, magic cylinders...)

In the real world it is fairly common to shoot speculatively into areas of cover that are suspected of hiding enemies. And lots of "cover" offers only limited protection against high velocity bullets and explosives. For example, woods offer minimal protection against artillery bombardment, such that closely formed troops suffer worse from secondary missiles (wood splinters) than they do if bombarded in open ground.

40K is certainly more of a game than a simulation and the rules are written to support this.

Why not just go back and read the rules again to answer your question.

I would just call over a ref and have the guy banned or have his single guy removed from the top of the hill. The object of the game is to have fun and this is clearly a way to bend the rules of which any tourny Judge will rule in your favor.

Even if he does play it this way either roll off a D6 and or roll a D6 to give him a five plus instead.

Inform him with this type of play will result in a negative mod on your sports as well.

Tarval wrote:... and this is clearly a way to bend the rules of which any tourny Judge will rule in your favor.

This isn't bending the rules at all. If you can see one model in the unit, you can see the unit. So it makes no difference whether he has the one guy out in the open, or a number of them out there, you can still cause the same number of casualties.

Your still taking a rule and bending it to an unfair advantage. Yes I understand that if you can see one you can see all. The fact of the matter is that your finding a loop hole and using it to your advantage in the game. This in all respects is incorrect way to play the game and if somebody is doing this to you then I would get a judge.

I understand the point, the fact still stands that your taking a rule and bending it for an unfair advantage.

The rules do allow you to roll for a five plus save.

If all else fails hit him with the dreadsock and when he wake up inform him that he lost and was tabled. Place all his model on the side as if you killed them all.

Although you are in some sense right, Tarval, the obvious remedies for this "rule bending" would bring back more complexity and other problems such as LoS sniping.

What if the heavy weapon guy is "hull down" behind the crest of the hill, and so are all the other guys? The practical result is the same. They get a cover save and the owning player can remove the other guys anyway. The only difference is he can shoot with the other guys too.

Tarval wrote:Your still taking a rule and bending it to an unfair advantage. Yes I understand that if you can see one you can see all. The fact of the matter is that your finding a loop hole and using it to your advantage in the game. This in all respects is incorrect way to play the game and if somebody is doing this to you then I would get a judge.

I understand the point, the fact still stands that your taking a rule and bending it for an unfair advantage.

The rules do allow you to roll for a five plus save.

If all else fails hit him with the dreadsock and when he wake up inform him that he lost and was tabled. Place all his model on the side as if you killed them all.

I'm confused. What is the loophole that is being abused?

I think you had the audacity to actually read and follow the rules that are in the book, instead of just playing the "Tarval Way"

Antonin wrote:
There's an assumption that you have included - that true LOS meshes in any way with the arbitrary casualty removal rules. What models have no business being sniped? None, in true LOS. If you are shooting what you can see, then you can shoot that heavy weapon trooper - forget that his buddy is standing next to him.

So what we have is this frankensteinian construct where LOS for shooting purposes is "true", but casualty removal and targeting are not. I think they should not have gone to true LOS for shooting, but instead wiped out the rangesniping and the requirement of only taking models in LOS - if they are going to make this a game, then forget about true LOS. If they are going to make a battlefield simulation, based on the models as they look, then apply the same LOS rules to everything.

I have no dispute that you are spot on with the casualty removal rule that the OP asked about, by the way - I'm pointing out why their flop of arbitrary LOS and true LOS is nonsensical, given their flop of true casualty removal with arbitrary casualty removal.

As I said in my post you quoted, true line of sight is used because it a system that helps to emphasize the 3 dimensional nature of a miniature game, not because it makes more 'sense' to use with abstract casualty removal rules.

The fact is, in an army scale game played with individual miniatures, having the rules based around units as opposed to individual miniatures as much as possible is the only way to make the game streamlined for armies the size we tend to play 40K at.

The cover, range and casualty removal rules based around units are what is required for this style of game. The rules have been ever so slowly moving to this point over each edition, but we're finally at a point where I think they've reached a happy medium between allowing individual models to still have an impact on the game but having the overall position and status of the unit itself be the most important factor.


But when it comes to using a line of sight rule with a three dimensional game you have two choices: Include more two-dimensional rules to simulate line of sight, or stick with the actual three dimensional miniatures and suck up the few bizarre situations that creates.

Obviously games workshop decided that having the rules emphasize the true three-dimensional nature of the game was worth the sacrifice.


And just remember: even though you are drawing true line of sight to a particular model, in reality you are just drawing line of sight to the unit. So although the literal placement of the models is the ultimate determining factor it is still the overall status of the unit that determines how the shooting is resolved.

If I can't see *any* models in the target unit then the unit is out of LOS and cannot be shot.
If I can see between one to half the models then the unit is going to be in cover and get a cover save.
If I can cleanly see more than half the models then the unit is not going to get a cover save.

Dont you have to take casualites from those not in cover first? Or do I have my 4th and 5th edition rules mixed up?

kaiservonhugal wrote:Dont you have to take casualites from those not in cover first? Or do I have my 4th and 5th edition rules mixed up?

Yep, you're mixed up.

Casualties pretty much have no restrictions at all ever now, except for that when you have to allocate a wound to a particular model because his different from the rest when you fail his save you have to remove him.

But nothing about having to remove those in or out of cover.

Ugh - I can see this getting ugly. Best to just charge the dude with the heavy weapon they leave out in the open (I assume he will be the closest to my army since I can see him) and win decisively in Close Combat.

kaiservonhugal wrote:Ugh - I can see this getting ugly. Best to just charge the dude with the heavy weapon they leave out in the open (I assume he will be the closest to my army since I can see him) and win decisively in Close Combat.

Again, why is this ugly? What is going on?

As long as that one model is visible you can shoot and kill his entire unit while only his heavy weapon can fire back at you.

What are you having a hard time with?

It's one of those theoretical situations which if you only look at one side of it seems unfair but in reality hardly ever turns up in games.

Anything that removes LOS-sniping from the game is of the good. Anything that makes the Impenetrable 5"x1" "Forest" of Doom go away is of the good. Rebalancing the game away from the domination of mech and monster armies... well, you get the idea.

5th isn't perfect, but it's fun.

I disagree about the forests. I quite liked how area terrain worked in 4th. But really, this is no worse than the turn based system that is the basis of the entire game- every game must have abstractions and this one is not too important. One missile launcher isn't going to make me sweat- those ten "wounds" would be better used aggressively, capturing objectives and such.

Don't worry. Im sure that GW will change the rule again for 6th. ed. to the new and improved LOS and wound allocation system. Heck why would they even try to make a perfect game.. They could never sell any new rulebooks...