Switch Theme:

Line of Sight - to True, or not to True?  [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 au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

So, I'm sort-of-working on a ruleset for a 28mm game for playing larger engagements (40K sort of level model count). I say 'sort-of' as according to the dates on the earlier pages in my notebook, I started it in 2007...


Anyway... One of the big sticking points for me right now is how to work Line of Sight. There are two main 'systems' that I'm familiar with for this sort of game, and neither of them really does the job as well as I would like.


- True LOS (The 40K approach)

Taking the 'model's eye view' to resolve line of sight is the most 'cinematic' method, and I've always been a fan of it in principle as it really adds something to the player involvement to be getting down and seeing what the models see. The downside is that it is so very open to abuse through 'creative' modeling, and is problematic when dealing with a ruleset that is designed around more than a single range of miniatures to represent each troop type due to differences in size and/or posing.

You can get around the abuse issues by using a LOS template, but I would prefer to avoid requiring any sort of gaming aid other than dice and a tape if at all possible...


- LOS from the base (The Warmahordes approach)

LOS is traced from the model's base, and is blocked if it crosses other models' bases or LOS-blocking terrain. Simple and straightforward in essence, but requires models and terrain to be categorised so that short models don't block LOS to tall ones, and so that models can see over terrain features where appropriate and the like. This can get clunky if there are a large range of size bands for the models, and is just painful to categorise terrain unless you go the 4th edition 40k route of just listing all terrain the same size and calling the job a good'un.


So... is there a better system out there? Is there a way of tweaking either of the above systems to make them more functional?

Any thoughts are welcome.



 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Depends on how flat and featureless you want your system to be.

40k 4th edition had an easy system of terrain height and models height problem is it needs problem was that rules needed a lot of text and the existence of terrain was meaningless, you could use paper cut in shapes with the height written on it and play the game (actually that was better since complex terrain created issues).

TLOS will always have the advantage of been intuitive, Infinity substitutes the model with a volume to avoid the model for advantage and this is for me the best solution, an evolution from the PP base solution.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

4th edition 40K was a bit of a dog's breakfast, due to having Size based LOS when area terrain or close combats were involved, and True LOS the rest of the time... and an awful lot of players didn't understand the rules.

The size categories weren't a bad idea, but they didn't have enough of them... an Ork Buggy, a Chimera, a Land Raider and a Forest were all the same Size.

The problem with extrapolating that system is down to granularity... To avoid the size bands leading to silly comparisons, you need a lot of them (small models, human sized models, large models, Dreadnoughtish-sized models, small tanks, large tanks, giant models... and then carry the same bands across to terrain) which is a lot for players to remember.


Adding the size in as a stat is an option, I suppose (my rules only have 4 characteristic stats, so adding Size in as a 5th wouldn't be a massive issue) but I'm still concerned about this being a pain to implement for terrain, short of labeling each terrain piece with the relevant size...




Edit - The 'volume'-based TLOS idea is one I've never been a fan of, as it leads to situations where you're drawing LOS to empty air. It's right up there with the 'swap out your converted model for a standard one' thing so far as lack of precision and general ickyness is concerned.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/20 10:00:09


 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

The main issue with using models as is is how blunt and unimaginative the models used must be for it to work out, TLOS breaks down the moment you have dynamic and variable models, while the volume substitution works on the principle that the model exists somewhere in that volume.
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut




Dublin

Does the Malifaux LOS system fall under the volume based TLOS? Where LOS is drawn from the base, but cover etc is dependant on if you can see both base edges?

I think it works for a game of that scale but idk about something on a larger scale/scope.

40k Armies :

Fantasy Armies:

DA:90SG+M-B--I+Pw40k99#--D++++A++/wWD232R++T(M)DM+

"We of the bloody thumb, salute you" - RiTides, Grandmaster of the Restic Knights 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I like the "magic cylinder" of volume LOS. Alternatively, base-to-base LOS can work if everything uses the same base measures. The third way is center of mass to center of mass LOS.

Those are my preferred methods. I do not like TLOS.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

TLOS is way too fiddly for anything but a very casual game. There is just too much model and terrain variation to make it very workable. Measuring from base center to center or to any point on target base is my favorite, as the minis are representative markers. I like the whole cross any terrain = cover. For height, I would use categories. for 28/30mm or 1:48 scale, just use 1 or 2 inch increments (depending on if you want to go closer to 1/48 groundscale or 1/100). Models block LOS for smaller categories and provide cover for equals size targets. So, with a 1:100 groundscale, small models are anything less than say 0.5 inch and would be height category 0, normal infantry are height 1 (1 inch or less, appx 8 ft. to scale), big guys (ogres, giants, etc) 2 (up to appx 16 ft in scale), really big guys 3, etc. Or use a doubling method if you get into really big stuff. IE 1 = 1 ", 2 = 2", 3 = 4", 4 = 8", etc. Or just use a few height bands like a simplified range band.

-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

TLOS is the best from a theoretical standpoint.

Magic Cylinder is the fastest to play, even if it's got rules complexity of explaining how it works.

Regardless, you have the question of cover, and height, along with modeling for advantage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/27 08:04:11


   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




As most games use different horizontal and vertical scales. TLOS is not very good at representing what is happening in in 'true scale' most war games.
(If 40k had the same horisontal and vertical scale a bolt gun would have an effective range of about 400" )

However , horisontal TLOS eg base to base works fine.Eg a straight edge placed on the table to see if a models base has a clear line to another models base.
If there is a system to deal with the vertical scale.

Eg 'height bands' or simple pre game classification agreed by the players.''Those walls and hedges give cover to infantry but not tanks etc.''
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Personally, I like TLOS as a system. Like you say, cinematic and immersive.

Modelling for Advantage is easy to spot and a quick way to identify the TFGs, and thus avoid wasting my time gaming against them.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

FWIW, I use TLOS with as all-or-nothing cover, because it is the simplest thing for me to explain and use.

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

I like crouching down and looking through terrain at the level of my miniatures. It is fun to do, has some interaction as players watch each other move and plan shots.

I also like dynamic miniatures or things posed in interesting or active movement instead of just standing there at attention. Sniper miniature look much cooler kneeled down to shoot.

The line of sight I tend to like more is probably considered cylinder. It is probably a mix of Infinity style. You don't have to have to swap miniatures but there is a silhouette, for the most part the cylinder lets you abstract it fairly well without the need to swap out. Only a couple times have I had to actually use a silhouette.
   
Made in au
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Adelaide, South Australia

TLOS is vastly inferior in anything outside casual play. Especially as models become more and more dynamic.

It's worth noting that if you use a magic cylinder you're also committing some something akin to fixed base sizes, lest you throw scale off.

Ancient Blood Angels
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
Warmachine/Hordes 2008 Australian National Champion
Arcanacon Steamroller and Hardcore Champion 2009
Gencon Nationals 2nd Place and Hardcore Champion 2009 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Magic Cylinder requires standardized base sizes *and* model heights, which may, or may not conform to actual model heights...

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

How many games are there that don't have standardised base sizes?

Having been raised on hex map style board wargames, I've never had a problem with magic cylinder LOS rules, and really they don't seem particularly difficult to formulate and to grasp.

TLOS is easier to explain and use for complete beginners who already are having to cope with scads of new rule concepts in everything else.


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Some games allow variable bases. GW, for example. There's the issue of plinth and scenic bases.

Magic cylinder is a useful abstraction, but it presumes all models are of the same height. I think Heavy Gear has a silhouette to standardize targeting where the model itself is in question.

I agree that TLOS is for newbies, for whom LOS itself is a new rules concept. That's why I use it for KL - it allows me to avoid defining base size and height for every model as in 40k 4E or Heavy Gear or Relic Knights, further reducing the stat count.

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

It's the other way around, surely. If your captain figure is on top of a heroic rock plinth, it's a problem for TLOS, because he's much higher up than all the rest of the men in his platoon. Whereas for "magic cylinder" all "class 1 humanoid" figures are the same height whatever height of base they are on.

In fact now I come to think of it their bases could be counted as a standard width whatever their actual width. Admittedly it does create another stat, but 40K is excessive in number of stats and it's easy to create rules with fewer stats.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Nope, not in the least.

That Captain simply isn't (can't be) as big as he is supposed to be. He's an inch taller, so he's clearly outside the cylinder. The inverse is having LOS to the enclosing volume that doesn't have any part of the model in it. Under magic cylinder, there's no obvious way to know the proper height of the cylinder for determining LOS. If you're swapping reference cylinders for LOS determination, then you're possibly changing the position as you swap models back in or out. Which raises the question of why you aren't playing with cylinders in the first place.

OTOH, TLoS can simply ignore the base, and the Captain is still just as big as the model actually is, in whatever pose he happens to be in. That is the simplification that TLoS brings. Either you can draw LOS model to model, or you can't. Granted that you want a laser pointer or somesuch if your back isn't up to all of the bending and stooping. But it's not the worst alternative.

   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Mostly because we like to play with models and not chits, but under true TLOS the models must be in a boring blunt attention.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
under true TLOS the models must be in a boring blunt attention.


Why? Under TLoS, it makes no difference. Some models will be easy to hit, others hard to spot. We don't pretend that shooting has to be "equal".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/30 23:27:42


   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Why? Under TLoS, it makes no difference. Some models will be easy to hit, others hard to spot. We don't pretend that shooting has to be "equal".

Because it results in models that are theoretically identical functioning differently due to the player's assembly choices. A trooper always counting as being half as tall as another identical trooper just because the player chose to put kneeling legs on one and upright legs on another is a little silly.

Convenient for determining LOS... but silly. And allows for shenanigans if players assemble models specifically for a given LOS profile.


Magic Cylinder does at least remove modeling choices from the equation.



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

So?

TLoS is for casual play, so go ahead and make a kneeling guy. Or jumping. Or wall-running.

Your objections completely fail the "so what?" test, because you're not using the rule correctly.

KK and I both place TLoS in a casual, newbie context. So does GW. And we all agree on Magic Cylinder for competitive play.

Trying to bring competitive concerns to TLoS is utter nonsense.
____

And getting back to Magic Cylinder, at that point, you should stop playing with models, because no model matches the MC profile..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/31 06:06:10


   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

For me there is no "casual play" when writing rules, you write a rules system and it must be tight and balanced, ideally without limiting your models range while doing so.

"casual play" is an excuse GW has set to justify poor rule sets, I would wish this mentality erased from the minds of other game designers.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So?

TLoS is for casual play, so go ahead and make a kneeling guy. Or jumping. Or wall-running.

See, on that note I would completely disagree. TLOS is only suited to casual play if you're playing familiar opponents. For pick-up games, it's too open to abuse.

Magic Cylinder, on the other hand, is simply unacceptable for competitive play, as it leaves you in some cases drawing LOS to empty air. It's not precise enough for competitive play.


For my money, base edge to base edge with defined heights is the best system for purely competitive play, with TLOS with rules governing 'appropriate' modeling running a close second. Magic Cylinder is a horrible system and should never be used by anyone, anywhere.


The problem for me is that either of the systems that I prefer for competitive play require too much specific definition to work properly for casual play... so I was hoping that someone would have some clever alternative.



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

There absolutely is a difference in writing rules for people who've never played before, vs people who can be expected to have played a wide variety of wargames in the past. There also a difference between writing rules for people who will be playing on a lark, vs playing for money.

The case of TLoS vs Magic Cylinder makes that abundantly clear. Magic Cylinder is incompatible with playing with models, as is standard height bands a la 4E.

If you intend to play with actual models, then you play TLoS. If you don't want to mandate particular poses, then you accept a certain amount of modeling for advantage as a potential side effect.

If you don't give a flying feth about competitive pick-up games, then it's not a problem. When I play, IDGAF over who "wins" or loses. And I feel sorry for players whose game reduces to something so petty.

In my case, I'm targeting friendly casual play, so TLoS works perfectly for me. The argument for needing some kind of "balance" between a kneeling, prone, or standing model falls on deaf ears. As the designer, I declare it NOT to be a problem in my game. Particularly as I am supplying all of the models.

Also, the idea that "casual" rules can't be "good" suggests that the critic doesn't understand that there are different audiences out there. KOG light is casual game for gentlemen. If you cannot play KOG light in a gentlemanly fashion (per Rule One), then you probably should not be playing KOG light at all. I believe that this would also be GW's perspective, as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/01 03:34:01


   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 insaniak wrote:

Magic Cylinder, on the other hand, is simply unacceptable for competitive play, as it leaves you in some cases drawing LOS to empty air. It's not precise enough for competitive play.


You do understand that the base and height rules have exactly the same flaw, but instead of assigning a volume to just the model assign a volume to the models and all the terrain features.

@JohnHwangDD
I cannot disagree more on that sentiment, I never said game rules for "casual" games rules are bad, but I did say that "casual" had been used as an excuse for bad rule systems way too many times, there is some difference wen writing rule systems for different audiences and in some audiences some things can pass by or even wanted and in other are forbidden, but this is not a reason to deliver a poor or plain bad rules system.

GWs mentality is a relic of the past were players are expected to moderate their games and self balance, we are not in the 70s any more and my design standards are more strict than that, when a customer purchases a rule system the system must be clear precise with as few things needed to FAQ as humanly (and physically) possible and balanced, they do not pay with their time and money to do what the game designer and developer should have already done.

Now as far as the models go, models are a representation of a trooper, yes it can me done with a cylinder or a chit, but the idea that the 3D aspect of the model is required by the rules is for me a flawed one, the combatant will try to squeeze on the smallest of cover and will not be stuck in a perpetual "arms in the air" pose because he was sculpted that way or be unable to shoot through a window because it was sculpted crouching sound ridiculous, the abstraction introduced by volumetric representation of models serves a better purpose than pure TLOS.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Thank you for confirming that your entire criticism of "casual" gaming is completely irrelevant to KOG light, that we are at cross purposes:
- KOG light is indeed written for players who can moderate themselves.
- KOG light is a FREE ruleset, not something that would be purchased.

And, yes, 40k has issues much larger than TLOS vs Magic Cylinder vs some other LOS mechanic. 40k isn't a bad game because of TLoS or the casual intent. And having TLoS and/or casual intent like 40k doesn't make a game bad, either.

   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

I really like predefined height for terrain and models. You can make it simple or complex, though simpler is usually better. A simple height stat, as mentioned, should work fine.

You can gain a cover save / modifier if an intervening item is within 2 points of your height. If something is equal to or higher, it blocks LOS.

Models have Odd values, cover has even values. Using 40k as an example, Infantry could be height 5. Light vehicles like Buggies or Rhinos are height 7. Medium vehicles like... a Russ... are Height 9. Large vehicles like a Land Raider are height 11. An IK is height 13. Just throwing numbers out there.

A single story ruin is height 6, or maybe 8. Playtest to find the proper values. A two story ruin would be height 12.

Getting complex, you could have unusual models, like a Knight, fire it's cannons at height 9, but shoulder weapons at full height. I probably wouldn't go that route, but you could do that pretty easily.

A low wall would be height 4. High enough for cover for an infantryman, but not high enough to provide cover to a Russ. It's not terribly hard, you just need a chart with sizes to refer to.

Area terrain give you cover if you're within it. If you're within 3" of the edge, you can shoot out and be shot at.


I prefer that system for unit vs unit combat, as you don't have to worry about fiddly 1/8 of an inch positioning to make sure everyone can shoot out the window. It speeds movement as you can be less model-by-model sensitive in your positioning, compared to TLOS. TLOS is ok for skirmish games, but once the model count rises to unit vs unit, I find it breaks down and becomes tedious.

Casual always benefits from clearly defined rules. You can choose to make things sloppy if you and your casual buddy want to, but a pickup game is always best if you don't have to negotiate for 20 minutes before you start a game. Players can agree to make things more loose if they want to, but competitive players can't necessarily tighten up a game if it's loose.
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





It really depends on the game, in some WW2 games I think TLOS doesn't work very well because you'll often have things like machine gunners or snipers in crouched or even prone position. When realistically they might want to set up on a wall, taking partial cover but still being able to fire. Because the model is prone they can't do anything useful while their squad mates who are modelled standing get gunned down because they are visible to the enemy over the wall.

Cover systems I think can work better by assigning soft, medium and heavy cover and then using counters to represent whether a unit is actively making use of the cover or not.

I haven't tried it, but I think Battlefront uses a system where you have to roll to determine if one unit can see another unit. Maybe something like that could work, have a table with modifiers based on what obstructions are in the way and roll to know if the enemy unit is spotted. Maybe that'd get too complex, depends how easy it is to construct and then read the table.

I think if your table doesn't have topography it's easy to come up with a simple system for LOS because you can just assign what is and isn't LOS blocking terrain, as soon as you start including some hills or varying levels it gets tricky though.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/01 11:33:28


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Grot Snipa






New England

I think Heroscape has one of the most balanced, clean, and simple rules. Heroscape is like FFG X-Wing for models of creatures and humans. LOS was all true-LOS but they also had on the card of each model a description of what could/couldn't be seen. However there was also no such thing as cover and you got cover/more-dice by being higher than your opponent instead. Models were assigned "sizes" to determine how high they could climb/fall and all that too. It also came with the requirement of playing on a hex-board, but that was fine because of how self-contained and problem free it was.

   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: