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.

As a general rule, the job of the designer is to give the player the opportunity to make mistakes, the bigger the better. Ergo, target selection is better left to the player than to a rule. This is the fundamental difference between an automated (wind-up) simulation and a game to be played. That isn't to say there can't be a higher goal, but it had best be a darned good one when we're talking about severely restricting targeting choices this way. As above, while it is possible, I don't find it desirable.

As a general rule, it's usually mechanically better to shoot at closer targets, given that they are usually easier to hit, and/or more of an imminent threat. The default decision to shoot and engage a closer target is emergent from the mechanics, rather than an artificial constraint.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As a general rule, it's usually mechanically better to shoot at closer targets, given that they are usually easier to hit, and/or more of an imminent threat. The default decision to shoot and engage a closer target is emergent from the mechanics, rather than an artificial constraint.

This is probably my default approach as well.

my friends and I use a system of the terrain doing it for us.

if you're on the base of the terrain you get its benefit aka cover or LOS blocking. models partially on do not get te benefit.

A multi lvl ruin can have different benefits when it comes LOS blocking. say the ground flour has full wal it blocks LOS, top 2 floors have windows?= cover save 4+ etc.

Might take a bit of skill out of positioning but it does avoid arguments and slog.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
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.

The above is true, but there is a difficulty in using heroescapes system on a table that doesn't use heroescape terrain.

Heroescape terrain is tightly defined. Heights are actual levels of terrain high, and widths of hexes remain consistent as well. Forming a 3D grid work for an actual game rather than a simulation. But nearly every war game table lacks such tight consistency, since you use whatever terrain you want rather than heroescape terrain.

But if there ever was a barometer to compare to for how to use los, heroescape should be considered the acme to compare against.