I am a big, big fan of how line of sight is handled in 5th edition, so I would like to take a moment to counter some of the ideas that were thrown out by the
OP and by others in this thread. As always, these are just my personal opinions.
Why not just use size classifications for terrain and models?
Because miniature games are unique in that we play with 3D models on a 3D board.
TLOS definitely takes longer to calculate then a system dealing with size classifications but it actually means that the 3D models and terrain we've taken the time to construct have
meaning beyond just being a physical representation of a number.
In 4th edition, half the time I'd show up to a tournament people just decided to go with several sets of 'size 3' area terrain (usually forests). So basically you just had one flavor of terrain in the game, and it really didn't matter how the terrain looked on the table, it all played the same. Usually players would just pull all the trees off the table and be fighting over 'size 3 bases' with nothing on them.
This most assuredly was easier to play with than
TLOS, but
IT DID NOT highlight the unique nature of the game. We could have just as easily been playing with labled tokens for models and labeled felt pieces for terrain.
Also, as soon as you put size classifications into the game you create some wonky situations with terrain features that just don't fit into the categories. Everything in 3rd or 4th edition was area terrain which made certain kinds of terrain features essentially unplayable (big ruins, really tall buildings, etc) because they just blocked way too much
LOS or a super tall tower still didn't allow a model on it to shoot over a tiny forest, etc.
So the other thing that
TLOS does is it allows any and every piece of terrain to be utilized as is in the game without adding any additional rules. Have a giant tower? It works. Want to play a game set entirely in one giant ruin? It works. Again, it may take a while to calculate that
LOS in some situations, but the rules do function with any wacky kind of terrain piece you want to create.
In short,
TLOS is important and needed because it highlights the uniqueness of the game and it handles any and all kinds of terrain pieces without additional rules.
Does it slow the game down a bit? Yes, but I do think the trade-off is worth it. Personally, if I want to play a game where I don't have to worry about stooping over the table to check
LOS, I'll play a regular-old board game instead.
It's stupid that models out of range/LOS can be killed and it doesn't make sense with TLOS!
Players (including myself) seem to like
40K games that are a fairly large size. It is one thing that the game features that other mini-games at 28mm don't tend to have. Although individual models are still used, it is primarily now a SQUAD based game and you have to keep reminding yourself of that fact.
Yes, individual models still have some relevance but most of the rules are written firmly to help the game move along quickly as a squad based game.
Previous editions of the game were still stuck more in the hybrid of the squad vs. model based gameplay systems and they featured some of the elements some people in this thread seem to have an affinity for: having individual model be 'sniped' to death because of range and/or line of sight.
The problem is, these concepts haven't worked with the squad based approach for some time now, and here's why:
Since 3rd edition, the game has used a casualty removal system that allows players to pull off any valid model as a casualty because it represents that other models in the unit move forward to pick up a weapon or take the position of a fallen comrade. So it doesn't represent that you're killing a particular model, but that you kill a different model in the unit and the other guy theoretically moves over to that same position.
This idea, however, didn't jive with the 3rd or 4th edition casualty removal rules which prevented players from pulling casualties from out of
LOS or range. Some players (like myself) always wondered: Why can't I pull a model off from the back of my unit even though he's out of range if this is supposed to represent that a model in the front of the unit is killed and the back of the unit guy is just running up to take his place?
And from a gameplay perspective it meant that players were rewarded or penalized for exactly how they placed their models within their unit, and this did indeed slow the game down as players had to worry about whether they should keep their Sergeant at the front of the unit in case the enemy rapid-fires at 12" to snipe him to death in the next turn.
Range and
LOS sniping when intentionally performed by a player also seem (to me) very 'gamey' in that I could never imagine a unit in real life or in a movie backing up a few feet just to make sure their weapons were at the maximum possible range JUST to kill that one guy in the front of the enemy unit.
By removing the range and casualty restrictions it finally makes the game SQUAD based and players just need to think about where their SQUADS are on the table as opposed to where the MODELS in the unit are. This speeds up gameplay quite a bit in my experience which leaves the extra time you need for resolving
TLOS.
But hold on second! I hear you saying.
If 40K is now a SQUAD based game and the position of the individual models in the unit doesn't matter anymore, then why DOES this matter ONLY when my models in the unit are firing (and not vice-versa)? You're contradicting yourself!
And this is true. The placement of the models in the FIRING unit matters with
TLOS. However I do personally feel this was done for some very important gameplay balance reasons. I'm sure
GW toyed with the idea of allowing you to draw
LOS from any one model in the firing unit and if that one model had
LOS then the entire unit would have
LOS.
But this doesn't work. You NEED to make the firing unit have their individual models draw
TLOS or the game's cover system breaks down.
If all you need to do was move a single model from your firing unit into
LOS of the enemy, it would allow you keep your unit much more easily concealed behind terrain while still firing away with everyone in the unit. In other words, it would reward DEFENSIVE and STATIC play.
Even worse, you could put only a single model in the unit within
LOS of the enemy and then on the enemy's turn when they fire back you just pull the one model in
LOS as the first casualty and now any other enemy units can't even shoot. Then on your turn you move one more model back into
LOS and keep firing. Does that sound like fun to anyone?
As it stands now, terrain is a very useful tool for a firing unit, but it also has a penalty in that it can be difficult to have all your models in terrain and with a good clear
LOS. In other words, it is a trade-off, or a choice that a player has to work with. Your opponent can see how your models in terrain are set up and can then move in their turn to deny
LOS from some or all of those models in the terrain. Then when your turn rolls around you are forced to make the choice to either redeploy your models out of the terrain a bit or stay put and keep the solid defensive position in the terrain.
Of course some people say that it's "not fair" that the firing models have to each draw
LOS but that you can kill every model in the firing unit if you can see one of them.
But again, that's part of the balance of the whole system. Yes, a firing unit can kill all the models in a target enemy unit if they can see a single model but the TRADE-OFF is that EACH model in the firing unit has to be able to draw
LOS to the target enemy unit. And of course since the player being shot at gets to choose from ANY model in the unit as long as the whole squad
isn't wiped out he does tend to have better control over what models in the unit will be left.
And the final thing to remember about the firing models in a unit individually needing
LOS is that players get to move AND shoot with their models in the same turn. That means you generally get the OPTION to move your models into the proper position to take the shots you want in that very turn. And unlike in 3rd or 4th edition where you constantly had to think about how multiple enemy units might be able to range or
LOS snipe you in the next turn with 5th edition the only thing you have to focus on is how when you move the models in the unit do they have
LOS to the enemy you want to target.
I can say that for me, this takes much less time. I move my models, check out
LOS a bit, maybe tweak 'em a tiny bit and I'm done, ready for the shooting phase knowing pretty much what I can see. In 3rd and 4th edition I'd tend to put waaay more time and effort into worrying about being range and/or
LOS sniped by a variety of different enemy units.
So ultimately, although individual
LOS from firing models does break the SQUAD BASED concept the rest of the rules are built on, I do think it is a necessary step to ensure that games don't turn into turtle-fests and it helps to offset the fact that target units can be wiped out if only a single model in it can be seen.
And that's about it. I know many disagree with me, but I really do think that the changes made to
LOS and casualty removal were a giant step forward for the game in general and I enjoy playing with these rules as I do think it highlights the uniqueness of the 'miniature game' more than it ever has before.
Oh, and I wanted to comment on a couple of things by the
OP as well:
sherbet wrote:
And while I'm here, why is it that I'm only ever allowed to make one saving throw? If I've taken the trouble to wear armour, and hide in cover, why don't both those things count? Surely I should be able to roll both saves, if I've taken the time to avail myself of them. It just makes good tactical sense. Or do GW know something we don't?
If units are allowed to take multiple saves then shooting becomes next to worthless as it stands now. It is basically just an abstraction that allows the game to function.
sherbet wrote:And finally (sorry!), has anyone else noticed (I only just realised) that the 'Roll to Hit/Wound/Save' is messed up? Surely, given that a shot (be it bullet, bolter round, las shot or grenade shrapnel) will encounter Armour BEFORE it encounters flesh, shouldn't the second roll be the weapon versus the Armour, as opposed to the Toughness? T is surely a measure of the resilience and strength of the models body. It makes no sense to find out if a Wound was caused first, and then roll for an Armour Save. If the shot doesn't make it past the Armour then a Toughness test is surely irrelevant. Isn't it? Or am I being some kind of heretic, soon to be hunted down by the crack GW RulesHeretic Hunters? We shall see...!
There are two main reasons for this
IMHO:
1) The game flows much faster by allowing one player make all his rolls together. If the 'to hit' rolls where then broken up by the other player rolling 'saves' and then back to the original player then rolling for 'wounds' I definitely think the game would take a bit longer.
2) I think it tends to be more 'fun' to have the player try to 'save' their models from final death by rolling dice. Although it doesn't make sense from a real-world perspective it makes for a better game because you know your models are going to die unless you make that roll and any saves you do make you get to taunt your opponent with. As soon as you switch the 'wound' and 'save' rolls around now all the dramatic tension is gone because any hits you don't 'save' now go back over to your opponent to see if they wound or not.
)
.
