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.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mixzremixzd wrote:

If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? .

If it is the latter then your opponent can game their line of sight to target specific models and take them out. This is achieved by placing things like your own rhino to block line of sight for you and allow de-factor sniping.

Interesting. I knew that this might be a possibility but how much of this is actually achievable and or even worthwhile in today's meta? And I suppose the follow up question would be is this the "Lesser of 2 evils with the other being losing your entire unit because your sergeants loincloth was visible to a DDA?

/

Archievable enough it was actually real problem last time it was possible.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Over the past week I've been reading some conversations on the "pros & cons" of TLOS in 8th. The general feeling I get, from this forum at least, is that this creates an issue with regards to Antenna vs Antenna shooting, DKOK Heavy weapons team not being able to see above sandbags cause they're on the floor, Social consensus before the game and GW's inability to write rules etc. While I do agree with some of the sentiments and I do lament some of the GW modelling decisions with TLOS in effect, the crux of the issue to me always seemed to be that you can obliterate an entire 20+ unit of Ork Boyz behind LOS blocking terrain simply because my Tesla Immortals saw the 1 dudes topknot from a window.

Isn't that the bigger issue here?

If models/units could only shoot and kill what was IN their LOS (True or not) haven't you effectively curtailed a lot of lethality from 8th? Granted vehicles and monster are still in many aspects shafted but for infantry and particularly hordes, if all you could see was 2 or 3 Boyz with your Leman Russ Punisher then TLOS means nothing to me as all your Heavy 20 is gonna amount to is...3 dead Boyz...

I dunno, it just seems like the deeper issue is being forgotten amongst the debate of TLOS and functioning Terrain rules. (Or maybe it was already addressed before and I'm just late).

Yes, perfect.
I would play that game.

Also, anyone who says that an antenna,
or an outstretched pistol,
counts as seeing a model is FoS.

If the base is visible, maybe 50% if this sounds better, then the model should count as visible but in cover.
If any less, then it is hidden.

And, measuring from model to model is the best way to roll imho.
This is easier than it sounds, with long sticks or laser pointers,
really- it takes as much time as looking for one's self.


And as for creating cover with purposefully (wrecked) vehicles, why not?
This should also block movement though infantry should be able to climb over
with a penalty, I would say half movement.

Speaking of which, I want a movement stat to come back,
charge to go back to 2x movement modulated by intervening terrain,
and for initiative to be a thing again...
with templates, beyatchiz!

Simply put a set height to base sizes to determent LOS, Like in warmachine/hordes. If you can not draw a strait line to from Base to Base or to the set height of a model, you cant shoot.That way you could do whatever you want when modeling your figures, you could have a whole squad of dudes squatting but you still know their true Base/Height/LOS. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about being punished for modeling your units in a game using models.

Forget measuring heights for 20 model units shooting at 20 model units... not something that scales efficiently to 40K.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Forget measuring heights for 20 model units shooting at 20 model units... not something that scales efficiently to 40K.

that's silly, you already measure to move 20 models in a unit... and measure weapon ranges for 20 models in a unit... measuring if the wall blocks LOS or not on a set height you would already know is easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also it's a set Height based on base, you would be measuring terrain not models.

Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators

 jeff white wrote:
Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators

then link it to base size and unit type. If your infantry you are size 0 or 1, but if your infantry and have a dreadnought base you are size to. Vehicles are size 2, unless your on a knight sized base. For some older models that comes without bases, they could have an additional trait like huge or something, this way a Land Raider would be size 3 etc.

Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.

how many infantry models have huge dreadnought sized bases? the vast majority of infantry would be the same size, wouldn't matter if something was an eldar or a termintor.

TLOS is horrible, because it makes a ton of terrain as good as if it wasn't there. Forests, if I can see through them, is as good as a plain. building with doors or window is the same.
And then the tables really start to look like cut outs or labirynths, because the looks or shape of terrain don't matter, only if it fully blocks LoS and is tall enough to hide knights or not.

you can of course fix it with house rules, but then good luck with no abstractions when you explain to a new player why the windows on the first floor of this building are not see through, but on that other one are, because it is elevated on a ruined based, and while this thick forests requires people to remove the trees and just leave the base shape of the forests while units enter it.

They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.

Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.

This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.

A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.

A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)

Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.

Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.


Job done.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.

This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.

TLOS is easy to pick up and understand for new players.

Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).

This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.

Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.

Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
TLOS is easy to pick up and understand for new players.

Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).

This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.

Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.

Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.

Slipspace wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.

This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.

Are we still clinging to that thing that hasn’t broken 8th three years on? Really?

it is just the point that you need new terrain each time GW get into the scale creep and your terrain from the beginning of the edition is not suitable any more for TLOS games with the new sculpts

so most people house rule those things to abandon TLOS and use something different
even ITC went away from TLOS, so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else

Banville wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
TLOS is easy to pick up and understand for new players.

Remembering a chart of "sizes" or "scales" or whatever else is not (as easy).

This is why TLOS will (and should) stay, at least to help grow the hobby with new players. Surely we all want to see more players in the game and we can all agree that simpler rules tend to allow this.

Perhaps GW could release "advanced" rules that players could elect to use that change the LOS and cover mechanic if the TLOS rules aren't considered robust enough for competitive games or something? Give people options.

Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

You're not giving people enough credit, here. Anybody into wargaming is already very capable of reading and assimilating quite advanced background fluff and abstract rules and interactions. Remembering what size things are is chimpanzee level stuff.

I'm not saying it's difficult. But it is both more complex and less intuitive for a new player IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else

Because it generates more new players?

 kodos wrote:
it is just the point that you need new terrain each time GW get into the scale creep and your terrain from the beginning of the edition is not suitable any more for TLOS games with the new sculpts

so most people house rule those things to abandon TLOS and use something different
even ITC went away from TLOS, so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else

Tha second paragraph simply isn’t true though. You can’t just state something based on your experience and say it applies everywhere. I’ve never played a game where we’ve houseruled LOS in 8th. ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.

This idea that players all use homebrew LOS rules just isn’t true.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.

So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"

This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something

You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.

 jeff white wrote:
Using base size for height is not going to work... snotlings would be taller thsn terminators

Except it works perfectly in WMH with a simple special rule added to the unit's statcard (or datasheet for 40k.). On all of the weapon team models, and others such as the Covenant of Menoth have a rule called "man sized" where they are treated as a small based model for LOS and other rule purposes such as trample attacks despite being on a larger base.

I think people are misunderstanding the height thing from WMH that was proposed. It's not the literal height on the model, it is based entirely on base size and all are a defined height given on a widget built into the spray template. If GW got super strict with base sizes (personally I hope not as I have things on slightly larger bases than they should be, as that is only what the conversion could fit on...) then they could easily implement it and sell a new, overpriced widget to everyone playing 40k.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the question is what is the point of "easy to get into" when everyone is using something else

Because it generates more new players?

Have never seen new players skip a game because the LOS rules were too complicated

Banville wrote:
They use key words, so link model height to key word. INFANTRY is size 2. TITANIC is size 5. Anything with the FLYER battlefield role can never claim to be in or behind cover.

Allow models to shoot into but not through cover and terrain.

This allows the 9 guys behind the building to be safe as they're ineligible to be shot whereas their buddy left out in the open gets riddled.

A differential of 2 in size means you don't get cover.

A differential of 1 in size means you do get cover (either a - 1 to hit or added armour or a combination)

Same height means you're obscured and can't be targeted.

Models can shoot through their own unit without penalty. Other units at - 1.


Job done.

What about Flyers with activatable Hover abilities that allow them to operate as rather large skimmers? I'd argue they have more right to take cover than any Titanic piece.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.

So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"

This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something

You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.

ITC uses true Line of Sight, the rules for the ground floor of ruins is what has changed.
Ground floor of ruins are counted as being completely Line of Sight blocking, the True Line of Sight rule remains unchanged just like units that get around game mechanics like Drop Pods first turn deepstrikes, first turn deepstrike rule hasn't changed, the Drop Pod just has the ability to ignore it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.

The current rules does NOT allow that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing new and even older players have a hard time getting is that if I have 10 marines. 5 in cover and 5 out of los behind a wall. The opponent can only see the 5 guys in front who are in cover but until the 5 guys that are out of los and maybe even out of range are dead the 5 guys in cover cant get a cover save bonus.

This is actually hard for some to grasp since its so against common sense or what any other game they ever played(including older GW games) do in this situation. A simple line saying "models in cover OR out of line of sight gets +1 to save" could fix that one. Would also nerf artillery a bit and represent the inaccuracy of not having a clear target.

There are multiple such additions GW could make to fix many things without making the game harder to learn. Sure it would add another page or 2 to the rules. But since they dont contradict common sense they would make the game easier to learn despite more text. If some things feels like obvious and not clearly and directly contradicted in the rules players might play like there is a rule like that even if it doesnt exist because they feel like it should be and why shouldnt it? It so obvious to some that they dont even look for it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Sounds way less simple and intuitive than just using the size of the models and the size of the terrain. If you’re abstracting that much just okay flat counters on a board and cal it a board game. Infantry are also not all the same height, so you’d be adding rules bloat via another stat and how to handle using them, when there’s a perfectly good model right there that you can simply see the size of.

This, quite frankly, is rubbish. Plenty of other games already do this and 40k itself has done it in the past. It did not turn the game into a glorified board game and was extremely intuitive too. It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than aerials shooting the tips of banner poles.

Are we still clinging to that thing that hasn’t broken 8th three years on? Really?

I know this is the internet and nuance is hard but there's a huge gulf of possibilities between "perfectly fine" and "broken". I never said the TLoS rules break the game, I said they were not the best system to use and the game would be improved by moving away from it.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

ITC patching the Ruins rules so they don’t have to change their terrain they sell/use isn’t abandoning TLOS. It’s a terrain house rule that suits them. They still use LOS as written otherwise.

So they use TLOS except for: "add whatever house rules suits the used the terrain"

This is not True Line of Sight any more
same as house rules that ignore that crouching models cannot see something

You can call it True Line of Sight with exceptions, but this is was abstract Line of Sight rules are all about, that 100% True Line of Sight does not work everywhere and with everything and you need additional restrictions/rules.

ITC uses true Line of Sight, the rules for the ground floor of ruins is what has changed.
Ground floor of ruins are counted as being completely Line of Sight blocking, the True Line of Sight rule remains unchanged just like units that get around game mechanics like Drop Pods first turn deepstrikes, first turn deepstrike rule hasn't changed, the Drop Pod just has the ability to ignore it.

So whatever the True Line of Sight is, as soon as it passes thru s specific piece of terrain, it is treated as blocked.

Making it not True Line of Sight any more as it doesn't matter if the model can truly see something or not.
And the same can be done for a lot of other things in the game that have problems with Line of Sight. Ignoring True Line of Sight for some terrain pieces, but insisting that it is impossible to do that for other terrain pieces or models because it won't be True Line of Sight any more is ridiculous

Even if there would be a "Size" stat related to the keyword of the models, it would still be True Line of Sight, as additional rules to clear things up for models and terrain (like ground floor always blocks no matter if there is a true line or not) do not change the True Line of Sight rules but just change the model and terrain rules

Theres honestly enough things in the game that ignore cover that they could still keep things very simple. Keep TLoS in the game but change wound allocation.

If an infantry model is within 1" of a terrain feature and is not standing directly in between the terrain and the model firing at it, it receives the benefit of cover. If an infantry model is completely behind a ruin or forest, even if it isn't within 1" of said terrain, as viewed by the firing model, it receives the benefit of cover.

When allocating wounds to a unit in the shooting phase, the owner of the model may allocate those wounds however they wish, however once all models that the firing unit can see have been slain, no other models can be slain and the remaining attacks are lost.
When allocating wounds to a unit in the assault phase, the owner of the model may allocate those wounds to whichever model they wish. If all models that were within 6" of base to base contact of the attacking unit have been slain, all remaining wounds are lost. Wounds may be allocated outside of 6" if the player chooses to do so.

Klickor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.

The current rules does NOT allow that.

Yes I play the rules correctly thanks. I misspoke while writing my response to Karol. I suppose that's what happens when writing on a phone in a rush.

The point Karol made was completely irrelevant anyways, because if all of the models in opposing unit can fire Mr Halberd Terminator, next turn those Termies walk out of cover (or a position where they can all see be opposing units) and open fire. Its not like the Termies fire back on the opponents turn anyway is it? So the point was entirely moot.

The cover thing isn't difficult to understand. TLOS isn't difficult to understand. Positioning your models in a way that means they can do nothing despite knowing the rules and then complaining about it is difficult to understand.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Personally I've never had a problem with the TLOS mechanic and find it easy to use, though I can see why others find it irritating/unintuitive.

Are you sure you even use the rules correctly? Isnt it you that only use los from one model in a unit to allow the whole unit to shoot? In Karols example of a terminator with halberd in the other thread someone said if you can see the halberd sticking out and can kill the whole unit of terminators the whole unit of terminators could in turn shoot back.

The current rules does NOT allow that.

Yes I play the rules correctly thanks. I misspoke while writing my response to Karol. I suppose that's what happens when writing on a phone in a rush.

The point Karol made was completely irrelevant anyways, because if all of the models in opposing unit can fire Mr Halberd Terminator, next turn those Termies walk out of cover (or a position where they can all see be opposing units) and open fire. Its not like the Termies fire back on the opponents turn anyway is it? So the point was entirely moot.

The cover thing isn't difficult to understand. TLOS isn't difficult to understand. Positioning your models in a way that means they can do nothing despite knowing the rules and then complaining about it is difficult to understand.

I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.

+Shrug+ such is life I guess. Don't HWT have a certain, very popular weapon that ignores LOS anyway? Isn't it by far the most popular weapon for them?

Regardless - there are plenty of units that suffer a similar fate (Ork Boys immediately spring to mind, who cannot benefit from cover in 30 man units) and the game doesn't fall apart because of it.

There are also alternative terrain options that can be used to allow such units to function in cover or players can house rule. Really feels like people are choosing to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I think the point is that in order to position the models in a way that they can do something they must be outside of cover due to the models design, meaning they'll be shot off the table on their opponents turn. Thus using tlos for those particular models makes them suicide troops.

+Shrug+ such is life I guess. Don't HWT have a certain, very popular weapon that ignores LOS anyway? Isn't it by far the most popular weapon for them?

Regardless - there are plenty of units that suffer a similar fate (Ork Boys immediately spring to mind, who cannot benefit from cover in 30 man units) and the game doesn't fall apart because of it.

There are also alternative terrain options that can be used to allow such units to function in cover or players can house rule. Really feels like people are choosing to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

Agreed. Was just trying to clarify. Honestly if your opponent won't house rule that your hwt can fire while behind low cover like sandbags I'd just not play them. Sounds like That Guy.

Release appropriate solid base sizes for all models. Get rid of clear flying base. Make all measurements and LOS base to base.

The game needs proper hit box implemented.