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.

Ok first up, not sure if this should fit into, General, Tactics or YMDC, so I went with the more general of the three.

So I would consider my self relatively new to the Wargaming hobby, I got into 40k properly late 5th edition, so TLOS is all I've known, and for me it works and makes sense, can you see the opponents model, yes you can shoot it, no you can't (obviously this is a dumbed down version of it, but for this discussion it is sufficient). But I hear loads of people moaning about the flaws of TLOS and why it is silly etc.

So my real question here is what are the alternatives? And what, if anything, in your opinion makes them superior?

The flaws with TLOS:

1) How you build the model suddenly matters. For example, modeling an assault unit lying prone so it's easier to hide them out of LOS until they charge. If you approximate with standard base sizes/etc you remove modeling for advantage.

2) No more silly situations like getting to shoot at a tank with nothing more than a 4+ cover save because you can see a single square milimeter of hull through a tiny bullet hole in a fortress wall. An approximation says the wall is solid and blocks LOS, even if it is only 99.99999999% perfect.

Of course approximations have their problems too. Disputes over how to approximate something (if terrain is assumed to be 6" tall, there's no magic 6" box showing you where that edge is and you can't just look at the models), units being "invisible" because of abstract terrain even though they're in plain sight on the table, etc.

of course, you could use string. or a laser.

True LOS is about the only system that accurately mirrors what he have on the table. In previous editions, we had abstracted LOS. By which, models blocked LOS over the entirety of their base, a forest always blocked LOS even if it was only four trees loosely grouped together. You could always see through a ruined building, even if there was a solid wall between you and your target and no way to see through it. I like TLOS better than the previously used versions.

With a game as interactive or dare I say it 'Cinematic' as 40K, TLOS seems to fit how that works, obviously it can be quite open to abuse, and I think it requires a certain amount of common sense. Like in my group if we had a situation with a tank like the one given above, we'd just give you +1 to your cover save. And then you have the people who try to enforce that if your infantry aren't facing the enemy they can't shoot at them. But that's just silly.

Can you explain how approx LOS works exactly, never heard of it before?

Eldercaveman wrote:
Like in my group if we had a situation with a tank like the one given above, we'd just give you +1 to your cover save

Well, it all gets kinda interesting because wargames are, by necessity, abstracted. So you could argue that trooper Jones with a Lascannon can tell there is a tank rumbling past on the other side of that rickety ruined wall, and that said wall is not going to offer any resistance to the concentrated blast blast of energy released by a Lascannon, so is any benefit beyond the 4+ cover save really warranted?

Eldercaveman wrote:
Can you explain how approx LOS works exactly, never heard of it before?

Just like the name suggests. For example, you might make a rule that buildings always block LOS. Then, even if there's a window in the building and you can see a unit on the far side, it counts as being out of LOS. Or you might argue that forests are always 8" tall, so a Valkyrie behind a forest would count as being in 5+ cover even if the actual tree models are shorter than 8".

Like in my group if we had a situation with a tank like the one given above, we'd just give you +1 to your cover save.

That's very generous of you. I wouldn't.

 Kaldor wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
Like in my group if we had a situation with a tank like the one given above, we'd just give you +1 to your cover save

Well, it all gets kinda interesting because wargames are, by necessity, abstracted. So you could argue that trooper Jones with a Lascannon can tell there is a tank rumbling past on the other side of that rickety ruined wall, and that said wall is not going to offer any resistance to the concentrated blast blast of energy released by a Lascannon, so is any benefit beyond the 4+ cover save really warranted?

Its a very good point, which is why it won't work for every gaming group and it all depends on your groups mentality, but to be fair, if it really was as dramatic a situation as the one given, with half a square inch of a tank showing, I'd just say yeah I don't really have LOS on that,

I use both versions of LOS in my home games, even though that makes it a house rule. I abstract the things that are obviously supposed to be different than my modelling skill can provide. Ther has to be some abstraction, as I simply can't make terrain as it would be in the real world.

-Forests block LOS through them, even if there are 6 trees on the base, because that forest is abstracted. If I could somehow make a dense enough forest base to be believable, it would be a hindrance to gaming.

Buildings get to be special case on our table, especially in the case of ruins. Most of mine are "L" shaped ruins, or "U" shapes, and have very clear bases they are stuck down onto. Their rules are as follows:

-A unit within the area delineated by the ruin's base benefits from the cover provided by the ruin, when ranged shots are taken across the solid wall(s). If a shot is taken at them across the open sides of an "L", they don't get the cover save.

-Ranged shots cannot be taken from one side of the base to the other, even if you can "see through two opposing windows". Only into, or out of, the ruined area, like an abstracted forest base. There is assumed to be too much "stuff" in the way to get a clear line of sight that I just can't model.

-If two "L"s are set together to make a square ruin (usually with a space between them), everything encompassed by the area inside of the walls gets a cover save. In our games Ranged attacks can be made "through the crack" to a target on the other side of the ruined area, but the target gets a cover save as if it was inside the ruins, as shots may be lost against the debris assumed to be hanging down.

True LOS is a bigger pain than abstracted, by far. It seems like it provokes even more arguments.

Have to say I generally like TLOS, but with a slight abstract edge to it, much like what AegisGrimm has described, although we do allow shots through and out the other side of terrain, if its clear.

We have also house ruled doors modelled into buildings with an abstract LOS; you can shoot through them if you want, but you sacrifice the cover save (cause the door is now open).

It does seem that 6th has improved the system; IIRC they introduced different cover saves depending on which side of a wall you are on, plus they've brought in Focused Fire, which I think really helps gameplay with TLOS.

Personally, I like TLOS. It can be a little limiting with modelling opportunities and the like, in that it discourages some wild and fun conversions, but overall I do like it.

As for alternatives, I've been thinking about this a lot. I think a combination of TLOS and two-dimensional abstraction would work very well. My thought would be to include a Height and Density value for each Unit/Terrain Type, with modifiers from special rules and so on. Check TLOS as normal, and if the target is obscured at all then compare the Height values of the obscuring object and the target; if the target's value is equal or lower, then it gets a cover save. The cover save that the target is entitled to is determined by the obscuring object's Density value.

It'd obviously need quite a bit of tweaking to work, but it seems like a reasonable blend of an abstract LOS system and TLOS.

I like TLOS, although admittedly I have never played a game system that didn't use TLOS