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.

The current TLOS rules are workable and usable and I will use them, but man they are just stupid.

I liked that 4th tried to abstract the models into their respective size categories and represented movement and covor because they could duck and so on. With the current TLOS rules somehow the firer is like a statue for seeing his target and the target is a statue for determining if they can be hit (and the rest of the unit with them) yet the rest of the unit can be hit and they can get cover because they can move. It's just a freaking mess.

But at least it is clearly worded and can be used consistently unlike 4th edition. I do like the new rulebook itself. I still think beautiful models can be used without making them game statues and still get 3d game play.

You know, I have been gaming for a long time, and I reacted the way Phryxis did when whole area terrain bits and magic cylinder rules were introduced to the game. Almost all of the older miniature games used true line of sight, and when 40k moved to this thing where ruins basically were just woods had been, and no matter how you modeled them people could just shoot you if you were within 6" bugged the heck out of me. It had no realism to it whatsoever. I couldn't cower in a small building out of sight of the enemy, as long as it's area was 6" or less I was usually dead. I had to hide directly behind the building to gain any kind of cover. I like the fact now that my ork kommandoes can skulk in a ruin behind walls and not be shot at. I like that two units standing on either side of a solid wall in a ruin can't blaze away at each other. If I wanted to play a board game where terrain on the table was entirely abstract, I would go back to playing Advanced Squad Leader.

It's one of the great things about the game, it's very 3 dimensional, and taking that away cut away a bit at the fun of it for me. We had tons of arguments about area terrain, and some people even some how concluded that hills were area terrain. I really think true line of sight is much easier than all that abstraction. It entirely is what it is. If you have a problem with the kneeling models, don't use them, put normal guys in. It really is all about how you adapt to the rules, and how much you are willing to work with them, not against them. You chose to believe all of the abstractions about area terrain before, why is true line of sight any different?

I understand SOME of the issues with TLOS. I think that it will mostly take time and terrain building to get everyone on the same page.

I do not understand people who don't like the "shoot the unit not the models" part of 5th ed. This is such a good change in gameplay, I just can't see why you would be against it. Think about getting new people into the game. 5th ed, with its ethos of all models being possible casualties is just clearly better. If you don't like it, you need to ask yourself, "might i be wrong here?"

Phryxis wrote: And IRL, virtually all shooting is done from cover, and many weapons depend on a good wall for support if they're to fire effectively (a GPMG for example).

And this is the curx of a lot ot people's problems with the 40k rules.

They try and impose REAL life expectations onto an ABSTRACT system.

Despite the whole TLOS stuff and the 3D representation of the battle field, 40k is an ABSTRACTION. The game is a representation of the battle field not a simulation. That means that some things are not going to make sense if you try and impose a "real" context. Hell, a lot of simulations don't make sense if you try to impose a "real" context.

The rules are written so that the abstract representation works as well as possible, in a fair and ballanced way.

If you don't like the idea of one dude in a squad missing out on a shoot, don't use a kneeling guy or make the whole squad kneel.


**Edit - typos

However, I think ultimately the rules spell out that it is models that are shooting at units. For me, it works.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, so much as it's an indicator of a poorly executed system.

I base this on my experiences designing software. If you architect something, you start working on it, and you find yourself getting in all these situations where you have to code in special cases or handle similar things in totally different ways, even if you're able to code around it, you should start to question some higher level assumptions you made, and start thinking aboot a rearchitecture.

So I'm not saying that the inconsistency breaks the game, or can't be understood and played through. It's just a sign that the system wasn't through through, and instead of laying a foundation so the walls lined up, they just patched crap and moved on.

If you don't like it, you need to ask yourself, "might i be wrong here?"

I don't think so. It's a level of tolerance. What we get with 5e is a pretty straightforward, pretty objective system for determining LoS. For some people, that's enough. I think everyone acknowledges that a model not being able to shoot because it's crouching is a bit silly, but they accept it as it comes with enough functionality for them to play confidently.

My argument is simply that I don't like the tradeoff, and would like the rules to be as robust and objective, but withoot annoying side effects in believability and modelling freedom. I think it goes without saying that I am correct that this would be better.

Is it attainable? Maybe not.

They try and impose REAL life expectations onto an ABSTRACT system.

FWIW, I don't base my objections on realism. I base them on what I view as a rules tradeoff that I don't think we should have to live with.

I mention the IRL stuff only because it's interesting to me (I do a lot of real world shooting), and because people were talking aboot it.