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.

A friend of mine liked the kneeling wraithlord idea for it's modeling side so he stuck a tree on its base that's regular lord size to use for LOS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Also: what could be more consistent than "if you can see it you can shoot it"? It is waaay more consistent than the series of if thens you had in 7th.....

Try this: Is 2 a smaller number than 3?

Depending on the axioms you choose: maybe.

Try this: if you have a point, maybe state it rather than posing inane questions.

I think Mike makes some good points (and he does so eloquently and courteously). And I'll agree, the basic concept for TLOS is a better one than any other.

It feels strange that we all admit that we could model our stuff to abuse the rules, but then we also say we're not allowed.

I don't think the problems are in extreme cases like those mentioned above (mentioned, I believe, more as hyperbole than anything else), but in smaller, more realistic ones.

Would someone be disqualified if their Wood Elf archers were all sitting in tree branches, giving them a little edge in the shooting phase? I hope not; it would look cool. What about a unit of Thunderers that are bunkered down behind a wall on their movement tray?

My main problem with this idea is that it gives a hard-and-fast answer to a situation that is anything but. Games Workshop seems bound and determined to occasionally attempt a solid rule system, but then purposefully leave holes in other places because "it's supposed to be fun".

See all the threads where "rule of cool" has been mentioned.

Gaming is a social contract. BReach it and fear the wrath!

A TO can DQ someone for any reason at any time. Or, in the case above - ask the player to treat it as a normal wood elf model. Or, decide it looks cool, and noone has a problem with it.

Any of the above are valid.

Yes, and that's sort of what I'm a-getting at. Do we need a system like this if we just toss out anything that doesn't comply with what we think is reasonable? Some people are generous, and some people are sticklers, but most of us sit between them, and even those in this middle ground still disagree on what is or isn't reasonable when it isn't an extreme, because we've all got our own individual sense of judgement.
I wish GW would have set some rigid, arbitrary rules for this sort of thing for the sake of consistency. Like "a monster can be, at most, 2" taller, shorter, thinner, or wider at its most extreme point than the respective point on the original GW model". Something that would just clear up the questions definitively. Sure, the answers might be unsatisfying to some, but at least they'd be there.

That's a good point Warpsolution. If GW would even say "Hey, we don't make a model for this yet, so here's the general shape we are thinking about for it" that would be a step in the right direction.

Hell, I would settle for each unit entry listing the base size. Makes me nuts that they don't do that, given how important it is. Having to guess what a War Shrine is not only supposed to look like but how big it is ticks me off to no end. How hard is it, really, to have a line in each entry saying "Base Size: 25x25" or "Base Size: 50x100". At least 40k only has 3 options...

And while I am at it, you damn kids get off my lawn!

@ Wehrkind: Amen about listing base sizes

I am not a fan of TLOS, mostly because it becomes a problem at the points where emotions tend to be at their highest. One guy is stoked he can see and shoot your hero and the other guy is upset that he modelled his hero on a rock to make it more dramatic.

As a gamer who likes to model his character models as taller than the unit models (rearing horses, heros on rocks, etc.) Do any of you think it would be a problem to ask your opponent before the battle if he would not use it to his advantage?

Like if you can see my hero's head but you wouldn't if he were the height of a regular model in the unit, can it not count of LOS?

Also do you think anyone in a tournament would agree to this?

Thanks

Even if I was in a tourney where the TO was hardcore TLOS TO THE MAX I would not attempt to fire at a model that was obviously posed differently for dramatic effect if I couldn't normally draw LOS to something approximating the original model.

Bstion - which is why you *communicate* withyour opponent during / before the game.

When moving models get them to agree if the model / unit can be seen or not. Exactly like happens in 40k...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

MikeMcSomething wrote:and leads to overgaming the system via guys being modelled as peeking their heads out of the ground or pancake-flat monsters or dwarves all standing on baby grudge stones so they can see over more stuff.

Erm, nope. No it doesnt. Already been addressed in earlier posts in fact.

If you attempt to model for advantage, you get called on it.
Either DQ, model(s) removed, or it is used as if it were standard.

Or have you not ever played with hills, where you used TLOS even in 7th? Or have you never played in any 40k tournament for the last 2 years?

All of these are tiny, almost nonexistant problems in reality. The kneeling wraithlord was a joke you know....

Also: what could be more consistent than "if you can see it you can shoot it"? It is waaay more consistent than the series of if thens you had in 7th.....

What do you do when you have a unit straddling a hill? Pull each one off the movement tray? My 15 wide 2 deep movement trays (12" wide) put some models an inch or two in the air when I straddle a hill. How about steep hills, where models fall down?

The easy answers to these questions is, don't use true line of sight.
The "correct" answer is the game comes to a screeching halt as models are removed from trays, so proper position can be determined to figure out how many need 5's, and how many need 7's.

-Matt

Oddly enough the same complaints were made about 5th ed 40k, with games "coming to a screeching halt" and noone being able to finish a game.

Oddly enough it didnt happen. Same for fantasy. I love the doom and gloomers, they're always there, every army book / rulebook change....

BTW you were supposed to use true line of sight for hills in 7th ed as well. The fact many people didnt (considering them infinitely tall, or a large target size, or similar) ......

Yea TLOS seems to be alright all around. I had it come up with one guy at a tournament, and he was a pretty solid douche anyway. While it can happen, it never seems to between reasonable folks.
I do think they should have put in a little bit with suggestions on what to do if TLOS hits those "breakdown" points people worry about. Just putting those friendly suggestions in the book makes people more likely to agree upon them at the table, sort of "house rule acculturation."