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 am attempting to create my own gaming system, however I have hit a snag in the Line of Sight department. Rather than use TLoS like 40k (mainly because I intend for people to use whatever models, designed however they want, in this system, so a 15mm model wouldn't be nerfed vision-wise compared to a 28mm model), I'm planning on using a more abstract system, but I'm not entirely sure how to design it.

Any thoughts?

Have you considered giving each terrain piece a 'level', with units being unable to see over higher ground?
Trees could have a maximum distance into which you can see-orchards-long, lightwoods-15mm, average woods-10mm and heavy woods-5mm?

 McNinja wrote:
I am attempting to create my own gaming system, however I have hit a snag in the Line of Sight department. Rather than use TLoS like 40k (mainly because I intend for people to use whatever models, designed however they want, in this system, so a 15mm model wouldn't be nerfed vision-wise compared to a 28mm model), I'm planning on using a more abstract system, but I'm not entirely sure how to design it.

Any thoughts?

There are a few ways to do this.

1) Base to base - If you can draw a line of sight from any part of a model's base, to their target's base then they can draw line of sight. This would require things like area terrain to have specific rules, as True Line of Sight would get bogged down in trying to see what that line goes through.
2) Volume of a model - A model of x size takes up this much space. If you can draw line of sight to anywhere in that 'cylinder' of a model (whether the model is physically seen or not) then you can target it. Warmachine uses this (I believe) so things that are laying down on their base can still see and be seen by other things because they take up a certain volume of space.

Neither of these are perfect, and I don't know why someone would want to mix 15mm and 28mm models. Unless you're going to take like 15mm walkers and put them with 28mm infantry, but again I don't think you should mix between scales like that.

I quite like the cylinder method. I take it that by using 15mm and 28mm, you mean that the game itself is scalable? Same rules ( more or less), but you can either play @ 15mm for large scale games, or play at 28mm for squad level games?

You can have a cylinder as part of your kit. In a 28mm game have a dia25mm x L30mm cylinder handy. If there's confusion or disagreement, replace the target model in question briefly with the cylinder. If you can see the cylinder, you can see the model.

Also, allows freedom of modelling without worrying about causing problems for yourself or your opponent.

 alanmckenzie wrote:
I quite like the cylinder method. I take it that by using 15mm and 28mm, you mean that the game itself is scalable? Same rules ( more or less), but you can either play @ 15mm for large scale games, or play at 28mm for squad level games?

You can have a cylinder as part of your kit. In a 28mm game have a dia25mm x L30mm cylinder handy. If there's confusion or disagreement, replace the target model in question briefly with the cylinder. If you can see the cylinder, you can see the model.

Also, allows freedom of modelling without worrying about causing problems for yourself or your opponent.

I should add, I did a little checking and yes Warmachine does use the volume aspect for part of their line of sight. The Spray Template has a little marker on the sides to check the various volumes based on base size. and I believe it's like 1.5 inches tall, 30mm wide, etc...

Base to base, with each model having a designated height as part of its stat line. Terrain has a uniform height as agreed upon by the players. That way there's no MFA. If you want to base your guy on a big rock, or whatever, its not harder to get cover. No one's arguing whether a feather or pinky allows a shot. You can use a laser leveler to easily see if cover intersects the LOS as drawn from the base. Clear and simple.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Base to base, with each model having a designated height as part of its stat line. Terrain has a uniform height as agreed upon by the players. That way there's no MFA. If you want to base your guy on a big rock, or whatever, its not harder to get cover. No one's arguing whether a feather or pinky allows a shot. You can use a laser leveler to easily see if cover intersects the LOS as drawn from the base. Clear and simple.

I forgot about that, Malifaux does it this way. every model has a height, usually designated by it's base size and sometimes by the height of the model. Idk how it is currently, but human sized things were height 2, medium base were like height 3, large base were height 4, gremlins and small things on a 30mm base were height 1...

 Alfndrate wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Base to base, with each model having a designated height as part of its stat line. Terrain has a uniform height as agreed upon by the players. That way there's no MFA. If you want to base your guy on a big rock, or whatever, its not harder to get cover. No one's arguing whether a feather or pinky allows a shot. You can use a laser leveler to easily see if cover intersects the LOS as drawn from the base. Clear and simple.

I forgot about that, Malifaux does it this way. every model has a height, usually designated by it's base size and sometimes by the height of the model. Idk how it is currently, but human sized things were height 2, medium base were like height 3, large base were height 4, gremlins and small things on a 30mm base were height 1...

Largely true still. Some things on a 50mm base might have a smaller height than 3, particularly if its on all fours. Something like a tiger isn't going to be as tall as an ogre, despite the same base size. Height also controls how much damage you take from falling, what kind of barriers you can jump over, if you can be swallowed whole etc. It allows granularity in the rules and lets you resolve issues at a glance of the stat card.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
Base to base, with each model having a designated height as part of its stat line. Terrain has a uniform height as agreed upon by the players. That way there's no MFA. If you want to base your guy on a big rock, or whatever, its not harder to get cover. No one's arguing whether a feather or pinky allows a shot. You can use a laser leveler to easily see if cover intersects the LOS as drawn from the base. Clear and simple.

I forgot about that, Malifaux does it this way. every model has a height, usually designated by it's base size and sometimes by the height of the model. Idk how it is currently, but human sized things were height 2, medium base were like height 3, large base were height 4, gremlins and small things on a 30mm base were height 1...

Largely true still. Some things on a 50mm base might have a smaller height than 3, particularly if its on all fours. Something like a tiger isn't going to be as tall as an ogre, despite the same base size. Height also controls how much damage you take from falling, what kind of barriers you can jump over, if you can be swallowed whole etc. It allows granularity in the rules and lets you resolve issues at a glance of the stat card.

by far best LoS rules I've experienced, the glancing at a stat card is what makes it so simple.

You could also designate terrain types and just say it either blocks or limits LOS or it doesn't.

I.e. Walls block LOS, Tall grass limits LoS, glass does not block LoS etc. It doesn't matter the models height as the other model will use the cover to its utmost.

 Easy E wrote:
You could also designate terrain types and just say it either blocks or limits LOS or it doesn't.

I.e. Walls block LOS, Tall grass limits LoS, glass does not block LoS etc. It doesn't matter the models height as the other model will use the cover to its utmost.

At the end of the day, that's the simplest way to do it. It really depends on how much you care about terrain having an impact on the game and how complicated you want the rules to be.

With the above system you can just presume that models are an abstraction of what it represents and the real dude would be crouching, turning sideways, what have you to take maximum advantage of the terrain.

Draw an imaginary line from base to base, if any line from base to base would intersect with terrain, the terrain partially blocks LOS ( insert whatever rules). If no line can be drawn without intersecting terrain, the terrain completely blocks LOS (insert whatever rules).

That's extremely simple, but you can throw in a few modifiers. For example, some models could have an "unusually large" trait that prevents terrain from completely blocking LOS unless the terrain also has the "unusually large" trait. But then that's just a simple version of abstract model height and abstract terrain height, though it would presume that such traits are, in fact, unusual in the sense of being out of the ordinary and therefore seldom seen.

Personally, I find having to effectively label every terrain piece with an arbitrary height and labeling every model with an arbitrary size to be annoying. If you have to keep referring back to the stat card, that's a problem in my opinion, which is why I've never been jazzed about the Malifaux rules.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
You could also designate terrain types and just say it either blocks or limits LOS or it doesn't.

I.e. Walls block LOS, Tall grass limits LoS, glass does not block LoS etc. It doesn't matter the models height as the other model will use the cover to its utmost.

At the end of the day, that's the simplest way to do it. It really depends on how much you care about terrain having an impact on the game and how complicated you want the rules to be.

With the above system you can just presume that models are an abstraction of what it represents and the real dude would be crouching, turning sideways, what have you to take maximum advantage of the terrain.

Draw an imaginary line from base to base, if any line from base to base would intersect with terrain, the terrain partially blocks LOS ( insert whatever rules). If no line can be drawn without intersecting terrain, the terrain completely blocks LOS (insert whatever rules).

That's extremely simple, but you can throw in a few modifiers. For example, some models could have an "unusually large" trait that prevents terrain from completely blocking LOS unless the terrain also has the "unusually large" trait. But then that's just a simple version of abstract model height and abstract terrain height, though it would presume that such traits are, in fact, unusual in the sense of being out of the ordinary and therefore seldom seen.

Personally, I find having to effectively label every terrain piece with an arbitrary height and labeling every model with an arbitrary size to be annoying. If you have to keep referring back to the stat card, that's a problem in my opinion, which is why I've never been jazzed about the Malifaux rules.

Would you rather refer to a stat card or have to flip through a book to find the unit and the relevant rules?

A good starting point would be to decide if it matters.

There are ways around it, such as a spotting mechanism, command and control, factoring relating to movement and combat. You might even try experimenting with hidden movement mechanics, in why the figures only appear on the table when they can be seen, fire, move etc.

 McNinja wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
You could also designate terrain types and just say it either blocks or limits LOS or it doesn't.

I.e. Walls block LOS, Tall grass limits LoS, glass does not block LoS etc. It doesn't matter the models height as the other model will use the cover to its utmost.

At the end of the day, that's the simplest way to do it. It really depends on how much you care about terrain having an impact on the game and how complicated you want the rules to be.

With the above system you can just presume that models are an abstraction of what it represents and the real dude would be crouching, turning sideways, what have you to take maximum advantage of the terrain.

Draw an imaginary line from base to base, if any line from base to base would intersect with terrain, the terrain partially blocks LOS ( insert whatever rules). If no line can be drawn without intersecting terrain, the terrain completely blocks LOS (insert whatever rules).

That's extremely simple, but you can throw in a few modifiers. For example, some models could have an "unusually large" trait that prevents terrain from completely blocking LOS unless the terrain also has the "unusually large" trait. But then that's just a simple version of abstract model height and abstract terrain height, though it would presume that such traits are, in fact, unusual in the sense of being out of the ordinary and therefore seldom seen.

Personally, I find having to effectively label every terrain piece with an arbitrary height and labeling every model with an arbitrary size to be annoying. If you have to keep referring back to the stat card, that's a problem in my opinion, which is why I've never been jazzed about the Malifaux rules.

Would you rather refer to a stat card or have to flip through a book to find the unit and the relevant rules?

The third option is to have tactically uninteresting units. Hooray!

I'd strongly suggest something similar to the WM rules, with some tweaks. Base size = predefined volume is fast and clean. While it does have some issues there's nothing preventing rules like 'Man Sized' (despite being on a large base, this is considered a small based model- from Warmachine) or similar for those 'tigers not as tall as ogres' models.

It's not perfect, but no system will ever be. Accept that any rules system can have an occasional exceptionally unrealistic scenario play out if the stars align right. So long as your system is smooth, intuitive and works 99% of the time that 1% can be a glaring break in immersion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and in relation to the LoS thing, ABSOLUTELY give models predefined base sizes (or other similar stats).

 McNinja wrote:
Would you rather refer to a stat card or have to flip through a book to find the unit and the relevant rules?

I think the terrain rules should be a few pages in the main book and then the players have to declare the terrain type in set-up/mission generation/scenario. If it is helpful, you cna then place small markers on the table, but I prefer a "clean" gaming space.

Some of this will also be dictated by the type of game you want and the scale of the combat you are trying to recreate. For example, in a hard-sci-fi setting you may not need to see a target to fire at it, but only detect its general area. In a game of micro-armor you may not care what an infantry guy can see and more abstract rules may be relevant/preferred.

However, it sounds like you want 15-54mm scale games.

I'd rather the rules be simple and intuitive enough that you don't have to reference any rules during a game. There are plenty of Wargames that hit such a mark.

People often conflate complexity with variety or creativity. Brevity has a special beauty.

weeble1000 wrote:
I'd rather the rules be simple and intuitive enough that you don't have to reference any rules during a game. There are plenty of Wargames that hit such a mark.

People often conflate complexity with variety or creativity. Brevity has a special beauty.

Even with GW's "just chunk a bunch of d6's" gameplay, you still have stat lines/abilities you're referencing. Cards are just simpler to sort through. May as well get some more tactical depth and action options in the process.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
I'd rather the rules be simple and intuitive enough that you don't have to reference any rules during a game. There are plenty of Wargames that hit such a mark.

People often conflate complexity with variety or creativity. Brevity has a special beauty.

Even with GW's "just chunk a bunch of d6's" gameplay, you still have stat lines/abilities you're referencing. Cards are just simpler to sort through. May as well get some more tactical depth and action options in the process.

Well, we don't need to debate the nature of writing simple, clean rules that nevertheless offer broad variety and lots of tactical depth here, but for the record none of GWs games come close to qualifying.

I don't know, "simple and intuitive" rules tends to either mean "the rules I'm already familiar with" or "you can't do anything interesting". For example, you throw a grenade towards a model in a building. Does the grenade scatter over the building or into the building if it misses?

 solkan wrote:
I don't know, "simple and intuitive" rules tends to either mean "the rules I'm already familiar with" or "you can't do anything interesting".

Simple and intuitive means 'I don't have to constantly reference it' and 'I don't end up in disputes about it'.

For example, you throw a grenade towards a model in a building. Does the grenade scatter over the building or into the building if it misses?

Depends- are you even allowing enclosed buildings? If not, you don't have an issue. If you are then you'll need special rules to cover the scenario. I'd go with if it hits, all models in the 'room' are hit (because explosives in confined spaces hurt). If it misses, use a BB like 'out of play' scatter. Have a simple rule for fortifications that models inside are immune to blast damage from outside. All of that could be encapsulated in a paragraph about fortifications and it's very simple. You might want to put some conditions like 'all models are hit if the weapon has an AoE or other things, but that's what playtesting is for. Honestly the problem with your proposition there seems to be 'which way can it scatter' which his easily resolved with a 25 year old mechanic.

 solkan wrote:
I don't know, "simple and intuitive" rules tends to either mean "the rules I'm already familiar with" or "you can't do anything interesting". For example, you throw a grenade towards a model in a building. Does the grenade scatter over the building or into the building if it misses?

That might be your experience, but it isn't mine.

I've played 40K for years, and I was always looking stuff up, encountering rules questions, getting drawn into debates with opponents, etc.

Heavy Gear Blitz is also an example of a bloated, convoluted, terribly written set of rules. It is chock full of modifiers, the turn sequences is complicated, every weapon has a different range, three range bands, and terrible acronyms.

Now, take a game like Freebooter's Fate, for example. I just started playing that last year. Everyone in my group picked it up easily, we had the rules down pat after just a couple of games, and on the few occasions that we had to look up a rule we found that it either worked the way we had already been playing it (intuitive) or that it was actually less complex that we had thought (simple).

Now, FBF is not the creme de la creme of simple, intuitive rules, and it isn't without its persnickety bits and little flaws. But the point is that it is neither a game I was familiar with until several months ago, and it isn't a game where you 'can't do anything'. FBF has plenty of variety. All of the factions have a distinct flavor and play differently. The factions have lots of viable builds and the game is equipped to handle the rampant vicissitudes of narrative swashbuckling fantasy adventures where models are swimming, rowing boats, scaling rigging, swinging on ropes, hobbling on peg legs, and fighting with weapons that range from a mouthful of hot sauce to exploding powder kegs.

Take Dreadball as another example. I literally learned to play the game last Saturday night without reading the rulebook. I discussed the rules with someone who had skimmed the book, we played 1 game in the space of an hour, had almost zero rules questions, and I feel pretty confident that I already have a very strong handle on the rules. And this is a game where most models have very similar stats. And yet the game has lots of different factions that so far as I understand all play very differently.

Now, you could say that I had a big leg up being a BloodBowl fan. But take X-Wing the Miniatures Game as yet another example. I had never played an aerial combat miniatures game before. Before my first game I watched a few video battle reports, and I played my first games without having to reference the rulebook just from that.

The point is, simple does not equal you can't do anything fun and complex does not equal more interesting/more fun/better options. If you want a super detailed, realistic fantasy RPG, you can play Rolemaster and throw in all of the damn charts, but that doesn't mean it will be better or more fun just because you can track the blood loss from an arrow wound. If that's what you want, more power to you, but some people are fine with the abstraction of hit points.

Actually, the game I am working on will have rules for rpgs, but I will work on on those last due to the classes and such.

 Easy E wrote:
You could also designate terrain types and just say it either blocks or limits LOS or it doesn't.

I.e. Walls block LOS, Tall grass limits LoS, glass does not block LoS etc. It doesn't matter the models height as the other model will use the cover to its utmost.

I would say this, with the addition of "seen or not" mechanic for models in cover. This makes it still possible to hide the mini, but if a short and tall model are looking through the same window one won't be penalized just for being a bit taller.
Example:
If model is in a building and any part of him can be seen, he can be seen and see out, but get's the same cover save regardless of whether you can see only his head or his entire body.

Area terrain is the other mechanic that I like, that clarifies the above.
Example:
"If you're in this stand of trees (as defined by a base or the edge of the treeline) you can see and be seen and get a ____ modifier when folks shoot at you"

Dust Tactics has an extremely simple LOS/Cover mechanic. It's helped a lot by playing on a grid, but essentially you just trace a line between the center of grid squares. If the line goes through a LOS blocking square, no LOS. If the line touches the corner of a LOS blocking square, you get cover. Units/LOS blockers have a height level which determines what they can see over/what blocks LOS. Simples.

Extrapolating that to a unit-based system, you could trace LOS from unit leader to unit leader.

I can't recall how Dust Warfare handles LOS/cover exactly, but IIRC it's similar to 40k's yet more simple when determining multiple models in a unit. I'll look it up tonight.

WMH, as said above, has fairly simple rules where model height is determined from the base size; and terrain heights/permeability are well defined in the rules.

I don’t know if this will help or maybe I’m wasting your time but I had the idea to use a “profile system.”

Start something simple with a profile 1 to 3 with 1 being small and 3 being large. Have that designated on models similar how Warmachine does with base sizes except maybe on a broader sense such as infantry being profile of 1, beasts or small vehicles being profile of 2 and monsters or large vehicles being a profile of 3. Whatever will work for you.

A model with less than half or 25% of itself obscured behind terrain it is in sight but has maybe minor defensive bonuses (whichever works for your game) versus a model halfway or 50% obscured behind terrain it is in sight but has full defensive bonuses. A model with most or 75% of itself obscured behind terrain can still be considered in sight with a major defensive bonus or concealed and out of sight depending how detailed your game is. To me that puts the bed the argument if you have a sliver of a model poking out from behind a barricade it is up to your design if you want it in sight with a very high defensive bonus or cut and dry out of sight. Maybe you feel you want more variance in profiles so you have profiles 1 to 5 instead of 1 to 3. I say experiment with different types of LOS mechanics until you feel comfortable or get that gut feeling that tells you so.

That being said a profile of 1 is going to have an easier time being out of sight versus a profile of 3.

And if you must add some variety into terrain then have a broad perspective what can simply conceal a model from sight versus what obstructs sight to a model.

I know this isn’t elegant in any form but it is my two cents.

The single best LoS rule I've ever seen is "low visibility zones" in Infinity, used for forests and stuff.

You can see into them but not through them. Even 1mm into it you can see through it and others can see you. Abstract but very effective and strategic.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The single best LoS rule I've ever seen is "low visibility zones" in Infinity, used for forests and stuff.

You can see into them but not through them. Even 1mm into it you can see through it and others can see you. Abstract but very effective and strategic.

That's my preferred way to handle LOS blocking area terrain. Into/out of but not through. Simple, quick, no measuring. It's abstract, but in my opinion it works well.