Switch Theme:

Line of Sight is Still Poorly Implemented in 9th Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Snugiraffe wrote:
 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


A lot of people are excited about the changes, me included. The line is framed any part of the BASE TO BASE. If your base is completely behind obscuring terrain then you cannot be seen, full stop.

This means Maggi and Morti can both be easily hidden, despite thier ridiculous wings sticking out, and thier bodies being 2/3s visible above the terrain.


But that's not right. The base-to-base wording is only for the 'dense' terrain trait, i.e. for applying a -1 to hit mod. 'obscuring', which is the one for hiding models completely, still simply says 'one model is not visible to another if blabla between them'. Obscuring does not mention the word base anywhere.


Yeah just reread it. That is annoying as gak, it's going to be confusing as hell, espically with terrain with both obscuring and dense.

You also need to reread obscuring and it doesn't apply to The bash Bro's either due to their wound count being 18
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Same for Dense.

Light and heavy don't apply either, since the Daemon Primarchs aren't infantry, beasts or swarms, so can't 'receive the benefits of cover'

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Blastaar wrote:
Having "dense" and "obscuring" terrain is unnecessary. Troops occupying terrain that is dense are obscured Duh.

Once upon a time we had "area terrain" to represent woods, ruins, etc. Simply allowing LOS be drawn to/from a unit in area terrain, but not [/i]through[i] area terrain (to a unit on the other side) is clean and effective. Then GW can fix the "everybody has breaching gear and can walk through walls" nonsense.


To clarify, area terrain does exist again. It can be shot into or out of but not through, just like area terrain used to work. The difference is that now, rather than having one universal effect when you're shooting into it, it might be light, it might be heavy, it might be dense etc.

As for dense vs. obscuring, both are necessary, because both are different. Dense means you get a penalty when you shoot. Obscuring means you can't shoot. This is also why the standards for determining when something is obscured are higher than the standards for determining when something benefits from dense cover- because if it's obscuring, you don't get to take the shot at all, so you best be darn sure it's legit, where when something is in dense cover, it matters less because you're taking the shot one way or another, the assessment just determines whether or not there's a penalty.

As for cover helping vs hand to hand, many martial arts teach that awareness of one's environment; attacker or defender, if I can get to higher or more stable ground, I will have a tactical advantage. If I can dodge a strike in such a way that your follow through causes you to hit an obstacle, it buys me an extra second to react.

Any part of the attacker to any part of the shooter? Okay, you've got me there; I don't particularly like that either. The infinite tallness? Got me again- that's another thing I don't particularly like. But I liked everything else I've seen so far better than the rules in 8th, so I'll take it. I can't wait to read ALL of the terrain rules, in order, without stupid watermarks getting in the way.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Really 40k should exist on a 2D plane with terrain defined by area (its base). Verticality should not exist in a game where we are measuring horizontal distances for movement, shooting, etc. Of course, allow flying units or other special rules to move over impassible walls, but otherwise simplifying down to the 2D battlefield would clean up the rules greatly.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Phenatix wrote:
Really 40k should exist on a 2D plane with terrain defined by area (its base). Verticality should not exist in a game where we are measuring horizontal distances for movement, shooting, etc. Of course, allow flying units or other special rules to move over impassible walls, but otherwise simplifying down to the 2D battlefield would clean up the rules greatly.


No thanks leave that crap to dead-machine.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




PenitentJake wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Having "dense" and "obscuring" terrain is unnecessary. Troops occupying terrain that is dense are obscured Duh.

Once upon a time we had "area terrain" to represent woods, ruins, etc. Simply allowing LOS be drawn to/from a unit in area terrain, but not [/i]through[i] area terrain (to a unit on the other side) is clean and effective. Then GW can fix the "everybody has breaching gear and can walk through walls" nonsense.


To clarify, area terrain does exist again. It can be shot into or out of but not through, just like area terrain used to work. The difference is that now, rather than having one universal effect when you're shooting into it, it might be light, it might be heavy, it might be dense etc.

Overcomplicated, IMO. Are these qualities (light, heavy, etc.) actually useful for gameplay?

As for dense vs. obscuring, both are necessary, because both are different. Dense means you get a penalty when you shoot. Obscuring means you can't shoot. This is also why the standards for determining when something is obscured are higher than the standards for determining when something benefits from dense cover- because if it's obscuring, you don't get to take the shot at all, so you best be darn sure it's legit, where when something is in dense cover, it matters less because you're taking the shot one way or another, the assessment just determines whether or not there's a penalty.


Agreed, to a point. Making obscuring a keyword is the wrong way to go about it. Rules for when a unit is obscured, based on a %of the unit being out of LOS- yes.

As for cover helping vs hand to hand, many martial arts teach that awareness of one's environment; attacker or defender, if I can get to higher or more stable ground, I will have a tactical advantage. If I can dodge a strike in such a way that your follow through causes you to hit an obstacle, it buys me an extra second to react.

True. I haven't found a great implementation for this in any game, I think. Defensive fire, sure. But the old "charge through terrain and fight last?" Nah.

Any part of the attacker to any part of the shooter? Okay, you've got me there; I don't particularly like that either. The infinite tallness? Got me again- that's another thing I don't particularly like. But I liked everything else I've seen so far better than the rules in 8th, so I'll take it. I can't wait to read ALL of the terrain rules, in order, without stupid watermarks getting in the way.

Good that you like them. I find the terrain rules so far, to be awkward and overcomplicated while not facilitating the best gameplay experience we could have.


   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 Galas wrote:
Phenatix wrote:
Really 40k should exist on a 2D plane with terrain defined by area (its base). Verticality should not exist in a game where we are measuring horizontal distances for movement, shooting, etc. Of course, allow flying units or other special rules to move over impassible walls, but otherwise simplifying down to the 2D battlefield would clean up the rules greatly.


No thanks leave that crap to dead-machine.

What? I don't see any glaring issues with my proposed solution. This allows for both cool models and terrain, without the stupidity that is "true line of sight" in what is unquestionably a very high level abstraction of a futuristic battle. I supposed that I forgot to add, measurements should be base to base, through the centerline.
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh




I found this and... it has some solid points. https://www.wargaminghobby.com/article/what-is-the-scale-of-wargames-60.html

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





This really needs to be FAQd to use line of sight from base to base. It excessively punishes models that are posed in obtuse ways RAW and really is imo a glaring oversight in the improvement to terrain rules in 9th edition.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Didn't read the thread, but the problem is that GW needs to just pull its finger out and transition to all LOS drawing based on the model's base, with standard heights based on either base size or model type. This also cures all the various problems that crop up re: modeling for advantage that serve to stymie peoples' creativity.

"True LOS" is a terrible system, and it's even worse to have a hybrid system that is partially TLOS and partially not TLOS, it just confuses people even more.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







yukishiro1 wrote:
..."True LOS" is a terrible system, and it's even worse to have a hybrid system that is partially TLOS and partially not TLOS, it just confuses people even more.


True LOS is a great way to make the rules you're writing shorter while making the game harder to use, which is a core pillar of GW's design philosophy. They watched people complain about how long the rules were in WHFB/7e 40k and figured "shorter rulebook = better game!," and the rest is history.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

I dunno if TLOS rules are actually shorter than saying "line of sight is drawn with a 1mm line from any part of the shooter's base to any part of the target's base." When I play at my local shop, we basically already use base-to-base anyway. State your intention when you move the model, and then check the angle with an extended tape-measure.

I don't think we should get rid of verticality, but we should definitely move to cylindrical base LoS. Vehicles and baseless models are trickier, but you can just do a harsh TLOS there and let the modeller-beware. You're always going to have edge cases since a lot of GW's catalogue is baseless.

Still, minimizing punishment for modeling (and minimizing modeling for advantage) should be priority 1 for LoS rules.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm not sure how cylinders would work with stuff like Eldar grav tanks. If the cylinder goes to the top (ignoring antennas) there's a huge void of emptiness for the "hit box" near the front meaning you could not see the model at all and still shoot it. Or am I too obtuse to understand this concept?


The 'cylinder' method is normally only used with infantry. You can assume that the dude with his sword outstretched and one leg perched upon a convenient rock has the sense to huddle down behind cover, but a tank hull is a tank hull.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka






GW has to decide. Either they are a skirmish system played with 20-40 models, and then True Line of Sight can be done. Or it is not a skirmish system, but a battle system, and then a healthy does of abstraction is good. Specially if they want w40k to be an actual game, with a clear focus and clear rules structure.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA



This article is basically a roundabout way of pointing out that the ground scale of 40K is wacky.

If you treat the models as 1:1 representations, you get anti-tank guns with a range of a few hundred feet, turns representing no more than two or three seconds (with a whole battle being ~10 seconds of action), attack jets that fly at 40mph, and grizzled veterans that panic and flee the battlefield when they're no longer in arm's reach of their comrades. There's a level of abstraction to the gameplay scale that doesn't mesh well with TLOS.

Historicals tend to be more explicit about this. They'll tell you what the actual ground scale is, and then how many men a single 28mm model is supposed to represent. You can have a medieval wargame where the ground scale implies it's a 4mm scale, but each 28mm model represents 10-20 men, so you get the 'correct' battlefield footprint with a unit of 20 nicely detailed 28mm models instead of 400 tiny indistinct little nubs. And that works perfectly fine... until you try to TLOS it.

Games that are designed to be 1:1 in scale tend to have very different core gameplay concepts. In TFL's Chain of Command, for example, weapons have unlimited range, because it recognizes that your to-scale board is smaller than the effective range of a WW2-era rifle.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Chain of Command is an excellent game, by the way. With good terrain rules to boot.

I won't derail by going into a ton of detail, but essentially the way the game is played from the ground up is designed alongside the terrain.

The game doesn't care about "That unit" - it cares about enemy models. There's no "I'm engaging this squad, but not that squad" (outside of certain rare situations e.g. snipers) because the specific administrative division of the enemy force doesn't actually matter to your guys or the direction of their shooting.

This means that all the LOS that is required to shoot is "LoS to someone" and it's not TLOS, but it's still pretty good, with consideration for 3d terrain (elevation rules, etc).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, GW's games are a truly strange combination of abstraction and literality. They don't make any sort of sense when you actually think about what the rules seem to be implying re: how physics works in the 42nd millenium.

That's another reason that the insistence on true LOS is so odd.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Please do not raise threads almost a year old, feel free to start new ones, thanks!

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: