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.

I want to just come out and say that I absolutely hate the way AoS deals with line of sight. It makes no sense to me that a unit of archers can shoot an infantry sized model standing behind, say, a treelord just because his foot is exposed. Similarly, it seems ridiculous to me that a unit inside a forest receives a cover bonus, but archers could simply shoot straight through the forest and hit a unit on the other side without penalty.

It seems to me that a true line of sight system like this just encourages people to model for advantage, but at the same time I also get the sense that the community as a whole looks down on this practice.

Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is going to far in terms of modeling?

One really obvious example to me would be bulking up the loincloth on a model like the Bloodthirster or Treelord. Assuming the conversion is done nicely, one could argue that this is simply an aesthetic modification. However, it would have an advantageous benefit of closing the gap between the legs and allowing you to actually hide a model behind it.

A more egregious version would be a bloodthirster with sheets of gore running off it, blocking off a much larger section of the base.

Then of course there are scenic bases, which could be significantly taller and bulkier. On the one hand, they look awesome. On the other they do have some impact on gameplay.

In a friendly game this stuff is likely not going to be a problem as you can easily hash it out beforehand.

Tournament games are not so simple though, especially if the tournament also has a painting score that might reward you for complex basing and conversions.

What do you think?

Would definitely prefer an abstracted los rule like WMH with their base/volume rules.

I agree. LOS rules are mainly my only concern with AOS for exactly what you said, you can hide a guy behind a forest, behind another unit and he can still get shot at because reasons.

I get they didn't want to add something very complex, but they went on the other extreme I think and there's virtually no way to prevent shooting. And as you point out it allows for modeling for advantage which I think should be a huge no-no in the game.

I think in reality it's just a bit of a non-issue. I have never seen a model converted for advantage at a tournament or a friendly game. So while it could be worrisome in theory, in reality it isn't something you need to worry about so much.

In 40k back in "the day" tournaments were rife with this. There was the ever popular low crawling wraith lords that were modeled crawling for that very reason. Many-a-GT had armies with guys converted to be low-crawling. My favorite ever was a guy that modeled a blood thirster to be crawling. I say favorite because he really went out of his way to prevent you from being able to see his model. Mind you this was the metal one and the particular event was in 2002, but back when warseer was portent there was a "shaming" thread that had pictures of this stuff and it was fairly popular and had a lot of posts with pictures of people taking shots of opponents that had modeled for advantage in pretty ornery ways. There was even a handful of threads that explained how you could take metal models and convert them to be kneeling or crawling.

Is it a non-issue? It will depend on your community and how bad someone wants to win. Having gone through it before, it was not common... but it was not super uncommon either.

AOS hasn't really picked up as a super popular tournament game yet. If it does, there your answer will be. At this point, I don't think you will really find a consensus.

 auticus wrote:
In 40k back in "the day" tournaments were rife with this. There was the ever popular low crawling wraith lords that were modeled crawling for that very reason. Many-a-GT had armies with guys converted to be low-crawling. My favorite ever was a guy that modeled a blood thirster to be crawling. I say favorite because he really went out of his way to prevent you from being able to see his model. Mind you this was the metal one and the particular event was in 2002, but back when warseer was portent there was a "shaming" thread that had pictures of this stuff and it was fairly popular and had a lot of posts with pictures of people taking shots of opponents that had modeled for advantage in pretty ornery ways. There was even a handful of threads that explained how you could take metal models and convert them to be kneeling or crawling.

Is it a non-issue? It will depend on your community and how bad someone wants to win. Having gone through it before, it was not common... but it was not super uncommon either.

AOS hasn't really picked up as a super popular tournament game yet. If it does, there your answer will be. At this point, I don't think you will really find a consensus.

Man I wish that thread still existed. I would love to peruse it for the giggles. Crawling wraithlords/bloodthirsters are pretty egregious.

And yeah, I'm totally unsatisfied with the "it's not a problem" answer for exactly the reason you mention. It might not be -- yet. There are plenty of combos that could really abuse modeling for advantage.

I think until AOS becomes a serious tournament game that it won't be that big an issue, because its a lot of work to model those guys kneeling or crawling and if all you get out of it is winning local casual games, its not worth the energy.

HOWEVER if it becomes a serious tournament game like fantasy used to be, then yeah I totally seeing it become more common place, especially as national ranked GTs start rising and people are trying to claim street-cred from their tournament positions again. At that point, its totally worth the time to bend them over or make them crawl because your ranking and big tournaments are now on the line and others will be doing it too so you'll be at a disadvantage if you don't (which of course bleeds into casual games like a bad case of the clap).

And then we may see a thread wherein we see pictures of people modeling for advantage more lol.

A good way to combat this is to add in "soft scores" in a tournament, like a Best Sports vote. People aren't going to be receiving sports scores if the opponent thinks they have modeled for advantage.

Obviously that becomes a shame for people who want to attended events solely marked on generalship and if people really wanted to go there it can be possible to "rig" soft scores (for example gaming club members agreeing to vote for each other).

Currently it isn't a problem in the UK scene, maybe it's because the stakes aren't high enough to warrant it as Auticus says. Another reason could be because the tournament circuit here is a fairly tight knit group and if you start pulling things like this at one event you will quickly make a reputation for yourself.

 Bottle wrote:
A good way to combat this is to add in "soft scores" in a tournament, like a Best Sports vote. People aren't going to be receiving sports scores if the opponent thinks they have modeled for advantage.

Obviously that becomes a shame for people who want to attended events solely marked on generalship and if people really wanted to go there it can be possible to "rig" soft scores (for example gaming club members agreeing to vote for each other).

Currently it isn't a problem in the UK scene, maybe it's because the stakes aren't high enough to warrant it as Auticus says. Another reason could be because the tournament circuit here is a fairly tight knit group and if you start pulling things like this at one event you will quickly make a reputation for yourself.

Yeah but then we are right back to sportsmanship scores like the old days where people will purposely give their opponent a zero just to increase their own chances or bring a group of friends who will all do the same thing and give themselves high scores.

The nature of the Beast seems to be that any time you're going to try and do something competitive people are going to try and squeeze out every little bit a bonus they can and not care about if it's enjoyable or makes them a jerk. The only real solution, which also won't work, is to not play games with vague rules left up to interpretation in a competitive way. But people will still try

 Bottle wrote:
A good way to combat this is to add in "soft scores" in a tournament, like a Best Sports vote. People aren't going to be receiving sports scores if the opponent thinks they have modeled for advantage.

Obviously that becomes a shame for people who want to attended events solely marked on generalship and if people really wanted to go there it can be possible to "rig" soft scores (for example gaming club members agreeing to vote for each other).

Currently it isn't a problem in the UK scene, maybe it's because the stakes aren't high enough to warrant it as Auticus says. Another reason could be because the tournament circuit here is a fairly tight knit group and if you start pulling things like this at one event you will quickly make a reputation for yourself.

When I was heavily into tournaments and the things I described were a big thing... there were soft scores. I don't think people have changed that much in the past ten years. Soft scores didn't stop the low crawling wraith lords because... well... many people were doing it. I think soft scores would affect things if only a couple people were doing it, but I think over time it becomes as acceptable as looking to table your opponent in one turn, when thats not what one would do in a casual game. Its just something you come to expect in tournament play.

Now I do agree with soft scores but they have a lot of serious flaws too... like chipmunking (where you ding people unfairly to get ahead in the standings or help your buddy). But that is a different topic

I don't know about AoS specifically but when I used to play 40k it was "0". If you'd altered it in any way other than to make it cooler and gained an advantage I would call a judge.

I played some jackass once in a big tourney that had piles of bits for his tank because he hadn't had time to assemble them. Worst part was it was the second day of the event and he could have done it the night before.

This really feels like something that shouldn't even be an issue - GW should just take the WarmaHordes route: the model occupies the space from the bottom of its base to a pretermined height based on the model size. If the opponent can see the "cylinder" that your model occupies, he can shoot at it.

Problem solved.

 Mangod wrote:
This really feels like something that shouldn't even be an issue - GW should just take the WarmaHordes route: the model occupies the space from the bottom of its base to a pretermined height based on the model size. If the opponent can see the "cylinder" that your model occupies, he can shoot at it.

Problem solved.

Never played Warmahordes, but that sounds like a video game hit box. That would actually make a hell of a lot of sense.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Mangod wrote:
This really feels like something that shouldn't even be an issue - GW should just take the WarmaHordes route: the model occupies the space from the bottom of its base to a pretermined height based on the model size. If the opponent can see the "cylinder" that your model occupies, he can shoot at it.

Problem solved.

Never played Warmahordes, but that sounds like a video game hit box. That would actually make a hell of a lot of sense.

Basically. It works really well, the only downside is that it's if any sliver of your base has LOS to the opponent's base, you can see them. So you can do weird things (thanks to math, an infinitesimal line can still grant LOS, and it means you can't (again due to math) hide the same size bases behind each other because trigonometry or something like that. It makes positioning matter a lot more (in warmahordes you can easily think you're safe and then boom get killed), although Warmahordes doesn't have the within 3" restriction of enemy models.

But GW won't ever do something like that.

5th and 6th edition WHFB had area terrain that blocked line of sight and things of that nature.

I think the Warmahordes version is good but only would work in AOS if they implemented fixed base size requirements.

I actually prefer the 9th Age's version of this where units are basically classified into size categories (eg: small, medium, large) and line of sight depends on the relative size of units. It doesn't 100% make sense but in most cases it's reasonable and it's certainly the kind of abstraction that is workable in a game that already has a lot of abstraction in it.

The way I would probably port the 9th age rules to AOS would be to split units up into three categories:

1. Normal - if it isn't listed elsewhere, it counts as this.
2. Large - Cavalry, monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry, chariots, artillery pieces etc.
3. Huge - Behemoths

Each warscroll would clearly state what the size is. Terrain would use a similar system, with normal indicating flat ground, large indicating a modest amount of elevation and huge indicating a high elevation.

When drawing line of sight, draw a straight line from the attacker to the target. If there is a model or terrain feature in between that is larger than both the attacker and the target, line of sight is blocked. If there is a model or terrain feature in between that is equal to or smaller than both the attacker and the target, then the target is considered to be in cover.

Huge models or terrain features always block line of sight, but never benefit from cover.

This is of course not identical to the 9th age system, but it's pretty close.

At the risk of going further off topic, KoW have a similar system to the above. Every unit has a height of between 1 and 4 based on its unit type (so infantry 1, cavalry 2 etc) and any exceptions or heights for unique units are specified in that units entry. Similarly, all terrain features such as walls have a specific height and if there's anything that doesn't fit into any of the categories you agree on a height with your opponent beforehand. Once again, if a unit is behind a terrain feature of equal height or greater, it counts as being in cover.

To get back on topic, I'd like to bring up the "rule of cool" which I think is especially important in a more casual system like AoS. If your model looks cool, I doubt many people will mind about any advantage you gain from it (to a certain extent at least). Obviously, crawling bloodthirsters don't fit into this category, but a character on a rock with an outstretched weapon (for extra range, if people are still silly and don't measure from the base) is probably going to be fine.

True Line of Sight please. If someone has a heavily converted model it should follow the size of the original model. Maybe a scenic base which adds to the good tournament experience. Maybe an alternative model which is larger, and which again adds to the game.

If seasoned tournament players can't manage that, then just maybe... In Denmark it's oftenmost WAAC newcomers which pulls off stuff like that.

I fully believe that any and all conversions should be either the same dimensions (with exception to things that don't count for LoS of course) or larger. My roomate for example is trying to convert a malanthrope from a weirdboy holding up a squig on a long stick. I keep trying to explain that while..yes that is a neat idea in theory, the malanthrope's head is much larger than a squig.

It's not intentionally modelling for advantage, but an advantage is clearly gained by a creature that can now hide behind pillars or walls that otherwise it shouldn't be able to. Now if he were to take a mangler squig and have it flying above a weirdboy? Not a problem at all. It's roughly the same size or larger and doesn't offer anything in advantage but a really cool model.

I don't see what the big deal is. Use a stick. Simple as that. Do all the conversions you want because in most cases it's for "rule of cool" but if for instance I will use a Trygon from Tyrnaids in 40K since I don't know what the equivalent is in Age of Sigmar yet, I am planning to use only the top half an dhave it coming out of the ground exploding.

Thing is, I will have a stick that would "have been the proper height and width" to show what it would be if I didn't model for rule of cool.

Then again, if a model is crouching then it can't shoot either. Correct? Or if it's for assault only, I would say since it's crouching it can't attack because how can a crouching mini attack or at least use all it's attacks and can only attack once.

It's really a non issue. If you are in a tournament and the person doesn't have a stick, then he can replace the mini with another mini that would have been suitable for use. If he then still refuses call a judge.

If not at a tournament, the politely say "you win" and just pack up and never play him again.

How would you go about dealing with a hellcannon if you modeled the crew onto the hellcannon base?

My friend did that one (hellcannon crew on the same base), and we just used markers to note where the crew would have been when the cannon ran away from them. Obviously it was just a casual game, but it seems like a good time to use Davor's "size stick" if it were a more official setting

It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

swarmofseals wrote:
It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

This is why I don't allow non-scenery models (except vehicles in 40k) to block LoS.

swarmofseals wrote:
It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

Yeah, this is silly. I mean, you could take a laser pointer, put it between your model and that models target... on the other side of the field... behind a line of trees, and a unit of dryads, and an abandoned barn... and still have line of sight, even though it's a shot the Green Arrow couldn't make.

Now, I don't have the rules in front of me, but I believe that in WM/H, your opponent could only shoot your Dryads or Durthu at that point, but not your Branchwych. Durthu blocks line of sight to the Branchwych (presumably the Wych is obscured behind his swinging loincloth and trunk-like legs, not to mention not stading perfectly still, like what the measure to model rules strangely imply). Likewise, the Dryads would obscure line of sight on their own, assuming the Branchwych is close enough to them. And neither would obscure Durthu, who is frankly, too large to not be seen.

 Mangod wrote:

swarmofseals wrote:
It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

Yeah, this is silly. I mean, you could take a laser pointer, put it between your model and that models target... on the other side of the field... behind a line of trees, and a unit of dryads, and an abandoned barn... and still have line of sight, even though it's a shot the Green Arrow couldn't make.

Now, I don't have the rules in front of me, but I believe that in WMH, your opponent could only shoot your Dryads or Durthu at that point, but not your Branchwych. Durthu blocks line of sight to the Branchwych (presumably the Wych is obscured behind his swinging loincloth and trunk-like legs, not to mention not stading perfectly still, like what the measure to model rules strangely imply). Likewise, the Dryads would obscure line of sight on their own, assuming the Branchwych is close enough to them. And neither would obscure Durthu, who is frankly, too large to not be seen.

Is that true? I was under the impression that you could shoot something if the attacking model could see even the tip of the target's pinkie finger no matter what else was in the way. If you are correct about models obscured by other models being invalid for LOS then I will be really happy!

swarmofseals wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

swarmofseals wrote:
It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

Yeah, this is silly. I mean, you could take a laser pointer, put it between your model and that models target... on the other side of the field... behind a line of trees, and a unit of dryads, and an abandoned barn... and still have line of sight, even though it's a shot the Green Arrow couldn't make.

Now, I don't have the rules in front of me, but I believe that in WMH, your opponent could only shoot your Dryads or Durthu at that point, but not your Branchwych. Durthu blocks line of sight to the Branchwych (presumably the Wych is obscured behind his swinging loincloth and trunk-like legs, not to mention not stading perfectly still, like what the measure to model rules strangely imply). Likewise, the Dryads would obscure line of sight on their own, assuming the Branchwych is close enough to them. And neither would obscure Durthu, who is frankly, too large to not be seen.

Is that true? I was under the impression that you could shoot something if the attacking model could see even the tip of the target's pinkie finger no matter what else was in the way. If you are correct about models obscured by other models being invalid for LOS then I will be really happy!

Right. Sorry to disappoint, but I meant that in Warmachine/Hordes, that's the way the LoS rules work, and that AoS should adopt a similar system.

As an example of what I think AoS should use, check this out - Page 37, "LoS & Targeting". http://files.privateerpress.com/allnewwar/Prime-Digest-Rules-2016-v2.pdf

Ahh OK, missed that. Dreamcrushed.

Haven't experienced that LoS situation in Warhammer. Silly rules situations yes, but a silly LoS situation no.

swarmofseals wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

swarmofseals wrote:
It's strange to me that so much of this discussion is revolving around height and width when really that's not the problem that I'm struggling with at all. To me, it's more about gaps in the models themselves. Lets say I have a branchwych standing behind a spirit of durthu standing behind a unit of dryads. It seems crazy to me that a handgunner could shoot the branchwych without penalty because he can see little patches of the branchwych through the mass of dryad branches and the little gaps in the spirit of durthu's loincloth vines thing.

And yet I could model the durthu with a scenic base that fits the "rule of cool", doesn't change the dimensions of the model at all, and fills the gap between his legs allowing me to hide my caster. I could even make it super awesome and have the spirit pulling his sword out of a giant tree stump King Arthur style, replete with forest spirit energy surging from the stump as the blade is removed. Who could argue with the rule of cool on that? And yet it would give me a pretty significant in game advantage.

Yeah, this is silly. I mean, you could take a laser pointer, put it between your model and that models target... on the other side of the field... behind a line of trees, and a unit of dryads, and an abandoned barn... and still have line of sight, even though it's a shot the Green Arrow couldn't make.

Now, I don't have the rules in front of me, but I believe that in WMH, your opponent could only shoot your Dryads or Durthu at that point, but not your Branchwych. Durthu blocks line of sight to the Branchwych (presumably the Wych is obscured behind his swinging loincloth and trunk-like legs, not to mention not stading perfectly still, like what the measure to model rules strangely imply). Likewise, the Dryads would obscure line of sight on their own, assuming the Branchwych is close enough to them. And neither would obscure Durthu, who is frankly, too large to not be seen.

Is that true? I was under the impression that you could shoot something if the attacking model could see even the tip of the target's pinkie finger no matter what else was in the way. If you are correct about models obscured by other models being invalid for LOS then I will be really happy!

Yeah in Warhammer that's exactly how it works and in my opinion it is absolutely stupid