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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.

Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.

And the model is incapable of ever standing up and drawing LOS forever useless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.

And here come rules for kneeling like the going prone in Infinity.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

But what happens under height bands?

Some complex height priorities rules to evaluate if the model can see and can be seen, height bands in warzone and 40k 4th suffered greatly when they were vertically combined, but none of the two systems was a stellar workmanship of rules writing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.

Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.

Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.

But what happens under height bands?

This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.

That's why I think a TLOS system but with some abstraction might be good. But maybe it'd get too confusing, it comes down to whether you can tabulate the results in to a single table easily enough so as to not confuse people.

So I'd say TLOS, they can't see each other. But then I'd abstract it by having a counter that you place next to the model in the tower saying whether the model has taken up a firing position or taken cover behind the tower walls.

Consider a game with 3 counters; "normal", "covered firing position" "taking full cover".

Then further consider that a model can be "obscured", "partially obscured" and "not obscured", and that could either be from a height band thing, TLOS or a magic cylinder.

If you're "taking full cover" while obscured or partially obscured, the enemy can't draw LOS because your model has hidden behind that object. If you're "taking full cover" in the open it might represent going prone, you're still visible but harder to hit, so get a cover bonus.

If you're "covered firing position", you can see past obscuring terrain within close proximity of your own model, but likewise the enemy can see you but you get a cover bonus.

If you're "normal" then TLOS/magic cylinder/height band takes effect.

So lets say you have a model on a tower and that tower has waist high parapets and an enemy at the base of the tower and another enemy a long way away from the tower. You might not place any counter next to the model, so TLOS would take effect, the enemy far from the tower would be able to draw LOS, the enemy at the base would not. Alternatively, you place a "taking cover" marker next to the model, so then TLOS is overridden, neither the enemy far away nor the enemy at the base of the tower can draw LOS to fire on you. Otherwise, you place a "taking up firing position" counter next to it, again TLOS is overridden and you assume the model has taking up a firing position on the edge of the tower, it can draw LOS to the model at the model far away AND the model at the base and in turn can be fired upon, but might get a cover bonus when being fired upon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.

Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.

Which has always been a flaw in the TLOS system. At the very least, the model at the top should be able to lean over the side of the tower to shoot the guy directly at the base of it, but because his head is further back than the edge of his base, he can't.

Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.

No more odd than the kneeling guy being locked in that position for the entire battle, really...

But what happens under height bands?

Under height bands there would be no obstruction between the models that is taller than either model, and so they would have LOS.

It's interesting to see who thinks the models should or should NOT see each other, and why.

The notion of making a balanced matrix of "realistic" stances vs cover actions vs LOS makes my hair stand on end compared with accepting a certain amount of abstraction for playability's sake.

And for the record, I'd deal with a "want LOS to shoot" by moving the upper model so the base goes out past the edge of the tower, rather than merely butting up against it. Naturally, this means mutual LOS exists, so return fire comes into play.

To give Mantic design a well-deserved thumbs up, Deadzone 1.0 had TLOS that addressed a lot of the silliness, IMO. If you could see the entire model you got a bonus to shooting it. If even a foot or a finger were behind the slightest obstacle/intervening anything BUT you could still see any part of the model you could shoot it. The defending player got advantage of cover unless he moved out clearly in the open and the attacker got a hefty bonus if the target was clearly in the middle of a street, football field, etc.

That Deadzone 1.0 mechanic is very sensible; I approve.

Of course, it's mere coincidence that KOG Light uses the same basic TLOS mechanics, where either:
a) you can see ALL of the target model; or
b) ANY part of the target is obscured, giving cover to the target.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.

Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.

Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.

But what happens under height bands?

This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.

Presumably, the rules would deal with situations where models are situated on terrain. So maybe they would say that if the sightline crosses such terrain, the target gains cover but could still be shot so long as the model wasn't completely behind the terrain. Maybe the rules would say that LOS is blocked one way or the other.

Wouldn't it pretty much be identical to a situation where the target was at the side of a long wall that the shooter was up against?

I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

Also, if the model on top of the tower is hit, does he fall off? :-)

 SolarCross wrote:
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

I tried something like this for a mixed arms mecha game. There really wasn't any LOS, cover was minimal and no ranges and the game kind of sucked. Why? There was almost no tactics to it.

 SolarCross wrote:
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

If I am firing a weapon, the beam / projectile has to get from me to the target. They're not all super-homing IF rounds. If I'm armed with a laser / rifle / bazooka, and you're behind a hill, then it makes no difference whether my drones / sats / whatever can see you - my direct fire weapons won't do jack gak until you clear that hill. LOS will always matter.

Unless the weapon is powerful enough to fire straight through what is in between you and the target.

For example, a .50 Cal can shoot through concrete walls. Therefore, if a drone spotter/satellite image could tell me where the target was behind the wall, it would give me LOS, I could theoretically hit the targets on the other side of the wall with the .50 Cal.

So, there is an argument that in sci-fi games LOS wouldn't matter is the assumptions is you always know where the enemy is, and your weapons are sufficiently powerful to ignore cover. However, I played a mecha game with those ideas and it was kind of boring as there was little to do tactically excpet blast away at each other. .

Beyond the "destroy everything in path" and guided/ "magic bullet" weapons shooting something needs a physical path and the two above categories will usually be expensive enouph to not be used lightly on the battlefield.

The enchanted information situation modern warfare will enter in some decades and what is theoretical normal in sci fi will enhance reactions and battlefield awareness, as well as giving real time info and intelligence, but not much more.

The soldier will usually know how many enemies he is facing and their relative position, maybe even how much ammo they have (assuming the spy satellite/ drone can count shots fired ectr) but not much more.

Easy E wrote:

Spoiler:

 SolarCross wrote:
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

I tried something like this for a mixed arms mecha game. There really wasn't any LOS, cover was minimal and no ranges and the game kind of sucked. Why? There was almost no tactics to it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Spoiler:

 SolarCross wrote:
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

If I am firing a weapon, the beam / projectile has to get from me to the target. They're not all super-homing IF rounds. If I'm armed with a laser / rifle / bazooka, and you're behind a hill, then it makes no difference whether my drones / sats / whatever can see you - my direct fire weapons won't do jack gak until you clear that hill. LOS will always matter.

Easy E wrote:

Spoiler:

Unless the weapon is powerful enough to fire straight through what is in between you and the target.

For example, a .50 Cal can shoot through concrete walls. Therefore, if a drone spotter/satellite image could tell me where the target was behind the wall, it would give me LOS, I could theoretically hit the targets on the other side of the wall with the .50 Cal.

So, there is an argument that in sci-fi games LOS wouldn't matter is the assumptions is you always know where the enemy is, and your weapons are sufficiently powerful to ignore cover. However, I played a mecha game with those ideas and it was kind of boring as there was little to do tactically excpet blast away at each other. .

I think you guys missed a key line in Solar's post....

 SolarCross wrote:
I think for a sci-fi genre game LOS could be ignored entirely, it is reasonable assumption that with advanced sensors, satelite imaging and networked communications that nothing is hidden from any combatant and so any combatant can target anything in range but the target can claim cumulative cover bonuses to the point where some attacks are not worth taking. The model on the tower can target the model at the base and and model at the base can target the model the tower but the one on the tower can claim better cover, which is as should be.

So what Solar was saying, I believe, was separating LoS from cover. So if there's a building between your model and the target model, it can be "seen" but you may not actually be able to hit it with a direct fire weapon due to cover bonuses due to the solid intervening terrain.

Cover would still be important, but would require it's own system for determination separate to LoS.

No. I am saying that you don't even get to take the shot if the intervening stuff is solid granite. Assigning "cover bonuses" to 100s of feet of impenetrable solid rock is just stupid. If it's more than a foot of rock, it's just not happening.

Well I don't know what Solar specifically had in mind, but I was thinking something along the lines of a look up table for cover that has for solid intervening terrain either a "can not hit" or "-6' which on a D6 would effectively be the same thing. A softer intervening terrain, maybe like a house, might be penetrable depending on the weapon.

But whatever, I can't read Solar's mind as to what he meant, but I read it as meaning direct fire weapons wouldn't be magically be able to shoot through solid terrain... rather just a system that separates "LOS" from "cover" such that units always have "LOS" but might have too much "cover" to actually hit.

Back to fundamentals of LOS. Why would you use a cylinder instead of center to center? Since it is already an abstraction of a moment in time anyway, why not work with what is already on the table? I guess you could still use heights for elevation.

Mainly because it brings the question of the volume of the model and the volume of the base.

The cylinder creates a quantum state where the model is and is not occupying the volume associated with its type allowing the abstraction, call them Schrodinger's cylinders if you must.

essentially allows the model at the same time to be at the best position for it to get cover but also out there to be shot.

Yes, put a bit more simply, center-to-center still assumes the target stands stock still in the pose of the model representing it.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, put a bit more simply, center-to-center still assumes the target stands stock still in the pose of the model representing it.

As well, holding a tape measure up over the model and trying to get it just right in the centre can be more annoying that putting it as low as possible and measuring base to base.

I like the conception of a soldier being in a probabilistic location within the volume though I think I am arriving at a modified volume system that excludes anything that doesn't make sense. So if a soldier is hugging a low wall and didn't shoot and chose some sort of "gone to ground" action, they're probably not occupying any part of their volume that sticks above the wall so no LOS across the cover. But if they shoot, then they're occupying the volume up to just above the cover. So apply cover rules. Battletech has a rule where the defender gets to choose if there is line of sight between hexes where one hex blocks but whatever choice applies to them as well. And if the mech previously shot down the line any terrain modifiers that applied to them would apply to return fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.

Like that but assuming the optimum choice based on what the soldier in question does. If a MG team is behind cover that completely obscures it because it is prone but then shoots, then you know the "volume" you should use.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The cylinder creates a quantum state where the model is and is not occupying the volume associated with its type allowing the abstraction, call them Schrodinger's cylinders if you must.

essentially allows the model at the same time to be at the best position for it to get cover but also out there to be shot.

This asymmetry is bad design. A fundamental rule has to be reciprocity, such that I can see you if you can see me.

Um... that's part of what the cylinder accomplishes. There is no asymmetry in what PsychoticStorm is describing.

Huh? He's saying it's behind cover (and non-targetable), but it's also able to shoot. That's not right.

I see "be shot" which probably means that being in cover in this case doesn't mean out of LOS.

OK, then I misunderstood.

The ability for a model to shoot from a covered position is not unique to MC. TLOS does that, too.

I think he was describing the probabilistic nature of the representation rather than making an exclusive claim about it.

At the core of it a a miniature on the table is a representation of a soldier (or vehicle or monster or whatever). As it is an abstraction, however it is handled is going to not map perfectly at some time or another. For MC, that's when models are attacked or attack out of a point the soldier represented either would not or could not be. For TLOS, the issue is reversed and there will be instances where a model has it's LOS blocked only because of the sculptor or model builder choosing a particular pose. And thus cannot attack from a place the soldier would or could be. Or a soldier on top of a building unable to fire at someone at the base because there is no way for the pose to become one of someone pointing their gun down (the frozen in time issue).

Different people will find these products of abstraction intolerable to differing degrees. What one person hand waives away, another will want addressed.

And they can be addressed. And in doing so you end up with an approach that is not pure TLOS nor pure cylinder. There are loads of ways of compensating for the shortfalls in question and pretty much the only people who are stuck with the shortfalls are purists who insist on 100% adherence to a single approach.

Slightly different angle on LOS- target priority.

What do you think? Shoot at anything in LOS? Closest LOS? Some kind of test?

Does requiring shoot at closest encourage gamey play (IE intentionally blocking LOS to pick off better targets? What about firing "through" friendlies?

That is a great question and honestly deserves its own thread.

 jmurph wrote:
target priority.
What do you think? Shoot at anything in LOS?

Does requiring shoot at closest encourage gamey play (IE intentionally blocking LOS to pick off better targets?

What about firing "through" friendlies?

How intelligent are your shooters? If you assume a battlenet, then they might coordinate on larger threats vs minor opportunities. It's OK to let the shooters be as smart as the player.

"Closest first" is *extremely* gamey, and mechanically heavy to constantly measure closest unit to target. I would not play a game like this.

If you're TLOS, the firing through friendlies is emergent based on LOS positioning and Cover rules.

To what degree is target selection something the designer wants the player making decisions about? Is there another design goal that takes precedent over that? Is "getting it right" (in terms of fictional or historical source material or inspiration) more important for a particular design? JohnHwangDD, avoiding the mechanical heaviness of measuring distances all the time would be another example of a consideration that might preempt a more direct assessment of what the player experience will be.

It's actually a very interesting assortment of factors that goes into this. You don't have the turning of models to artifically remove potential targets from LOS without a firing arc rule, for example. Similarly there might be a "obviously closer" approach that reduces the mechanical heaviness by 90%+. Like how people who are experienced X-Wing players only have to measure their range bands when attacking when it's not obvious.