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.

No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.



I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

I think he was referring to the fact that you're at a disadvantage when on a scenic base as you won't get cover as easily as otherwise.



Nice base though!

Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I think he was referring to the fact that you're at a disadvantage when on a scenic base as you won't get cover as easily as otherwise.



Nice base though!

I've had issues where I didn't get cover, and I've had people complain about my bases. It goes both ways.

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Any change in the rules can generate debates after 2 years, you can never satisfy everyone.
And honestly, Fish of Fury was stupid.

Just put your Devilfish on the tallest flight stands and call it a day. You'll be able to see your opponent, but in return they will be able to see you

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

What, the true LOS rules that have been in the game for years, and it was 4th that really screwed the pooch with idiotic area terrain and skimmer rules?

The only army that the removal of 4th ed area terrain rules really messed up was Tau JSJ annoyance army, and good riddance to it.

pdawg517 wrote:If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

The problem is the alternative - an attach IC or the HW bearing trooper being the "only thing seen" this ended up being abused and thus the 1 equals all in peril rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

TLOS is fine and dandy when you talk 20 or so models per side but invariably it falls apart with 100+ models per side. I don't want to get into rehashing this so lets just agree to disagree. I will still play with everyone using the pseado TLOS rules that seem to prevail. I will not say I am happy with it but I am not saying burn every book and never play 40 k again either.

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

DAaddict wrote:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

TLOS is fine and dandy when you talk 20 or so models per side but invariably it falls apart with 100+ models per side. I don't want to get into rehashing this so lets just agree to disagree. I will still play with everyone using the pseado TLOS rules that seem to prevail. I will not say I am happy with it but I am not saying burn every book and never play 40 k again either.

TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

It was a big change for a lot of players, who used area terrain exclusively (or erroneously applied the area terrain LOS to everything in the game)... that's where a lot of the complaints come from: People were playing it wrong last edition, and think that TLOS is a 'change' as a result.

Alright -

1 . TLOS means anything that can see can target.
2 . Members of the unit involved do not block.

Situation: 30 orks with shootas and big shootas intermixed with two other 30 ork mobs want to fire at a squad of marines that is also intermixed with 2 other squads of marines. Now you will get no argument from me that some of the 30 orks can see the marines to be targeted. Therefore you will get no argument that all of the marines are legal casualties. However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

NM. Not getting into it.

pdawg517 wrote:No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.

I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

My only issue with this solution is it asks for mandatory cheating one way or another which bothers my sense of gaming ethics, either you cheat because you accidentally have portable cover or he cheats by being able to see through it, pretending he has a line of sight when he does not. Personally I prefer playing line of sight honestly so long as players are not abusing scenic elements for cover.

DAaddict wrote:
The problem is the alternative - an attach IC or the HW bearing trooper being the "only thing seen" this ended up being abused and thus the 1 equals all in peril rule.

My personal gripe with this is that LOS should always be a two way street between comparably sized things (i.e. infantry to infantry, vehicle to vehicle, etc...) so I think the abstraction I would prefer to be treating LOS as a unit to unit issue rather then individual models (since most other 40k rules are unit not model based). So a whole unit can be casualties but that same whole unit can shoot back at those same attackers (also fixes the issue with altered weapon placement on modified or different vehicle models which is nice, as you could simply draw LOS from the hull).

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

I presume he means armies that suddenly found themselves inadvertently modeling for advantage, rather then just Tau being unhappy.

sirrah wrote:
TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Uhm...I don't think so, take marines a Tactical squad was 300 points in 2nd ed.

Jack

DAaddict wrote:Alright -

1 . TLOS means anything that can see can target.
2 . Members of the unit involved do not block.

Situation: 30 orks with shootas and big shootas intermixed with two other 30 ork mobs want to fire at a squad of marines that is also intermixed with 2 other squads of marines. Now you will get no argument from me that some of the 30 orks can see the marines to be targeted. Therefore you will get no argument that all of the marines are legal casualties. However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

(edit: Whoops! Messed up completely! Ignore what follows! You're right, you should make me check LOS for each model, but you had to even with the 4th ed. rules, no?)

That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

Emphasis mine.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

DAaddict wrote:...However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

I've been playing Orks since second edition... and I have always checked LOS from each model before shooting.

People try to make out that it's some huge, game-breaking time-sink, but in actual practice even with the biggest unit it takes a few seconds to skim along their heads checking which models have LOS and which don't.

Jackmojo wrote:

sirrah wrote:
TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Uhm...I don't think so, take marines a Tactical squad was 300 points in 2nd ed.

Jack

A 20-man mob of Boyz was 240pts (without wargear), I can't remember any codex other than Orks (Marines were silly expensive, though.).

sirrah wrote:That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

That allows the unit to choose the enemy as a target, yes... but you can still only shoot with the individual models that have LOS themselves.

insaniak wrote:

sirrah wrote:That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

That allows the unit to choose the enemy as a target, yes... but you can still only shoot with the individual models that have LOS themselves.

Bugger, really? It doesn't really change much though, checking one model is about as quick as skimming a whole squad.

edit: right, sorry! I was getting confused with only needing to draw LOS to one member of the target in 5th.

pdawg517 wrote:If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

In this way, I kinda miss 4ths shooting rules. You could only kill models you could see and that were in range.


I think they should put that back into the rules. It would make people more careful with their Sergeants and Special weapons.

Jackmojo wrote:

pdawg517 wrote:No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.

I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

My only issue with this solution is it asks for mandatory cheating one way or another which bothers my sense of gaming ethics, either you cheat because you accidentally have portable cover or he cheats by being able to see through it, pretending he has a line of sight when he does not. Personally I prefer playing line of sight honestly so long as players are not abusing scenic elements for cover.

It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

pdawg517 wrote:
It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

That's my point, if you pretend its not there, it is cheating (if well intentioned), the model's eye view is blocked therefore no LOS, hence cheating.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

pdawg517 wrote:
It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

That's my point, if you pretend its not there, it is cheating (if well intentioned), the model's eye view is blocked therefore no LOS, hence cheating.

Jack

No it is not cheating. Actually, the rules tell you to ignore "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models" for LoS purposes. (You can't take your cover with you). P.21

sirrah wrote:


As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

insaniak wrote:

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

This.

But instead we say that the forest gives cover up to its max height. Vehicles become obscured, giving the cover save the forest/area terrain gives you(4+ for forests)

DeathReaper wrote:
No it is not cheating. Actually, the rules tell you to ignore "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models" for LoS purposes. (You can't take your cover with you). P.21

Sure you ignore them, so I cannot draw a line of sight to the rock your miniature stands on or whatever, but if I go get a models eye view its still in the way, so no LOS can exist through them.

Ignoreing them doesn't make them transparent, and no where do the rules allow or provide for moving them to check line of sight (permissive ruleset).

Jack

DAaddict wrote:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:


As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through. The silly thing is that city scapes are now the terrain of choice. A wall is a wall is a wall. If it doesn't have a window, nothing can see through it. My point it small clumps of natural forests totally block LOS like a wall but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

But if forests are modelled to block LOS then what is the point of it granting a cover save? The 4+ save for shooting through forests is an abstraction, like bolters only shooting 120ft.