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.

Why do so many rules writers seem to think that this is a good concept to use? It sounds simple until you actually try to determine it during gameplay, when it then devolves into arguments about whether you can see the edge of a figure's helmet around that tree or something equally absurd.

Well, it's kind of an obvious thing to do when writing rules (hunch over and look to see what the models on the table actually see).

But yeah, I agree - it's better to either give models defined base sizes and then essentially quantum cylinders where they can expected to be in at any time during the game, or just measure from base to base and consider any intervening terrain.

For the sake of eliminating ambiguity, I'm way in favor of measuring base-to-base and then having rules for which base sizes or terrain pieces block the line.

I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..

I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative. I love sitting behind my swarm or my guardsmen for very different reasons!

If I want my wargames to be precise or competitive I'll play boardgames with cut and dry rules, precision square based movement, perfectly balanced or mirror matched sides etc.

If I want to play something with more relaxed I'll play games with TLOS. These fun games, I play with fun people, if a decision goes one persons way once we'll let it go the other way the next time, if the decisions are odd in number throughout a game then balance is ruined and I tend to tableflip.

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..

And you were doing so well with your first sentence!

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..

Except, of course, for any other system.

The one thing that TLoS is good for is visualization - for those folks that want the miniatures to literally represent the warriors on the field.

During WH40K 2 and 3 we used to use laser pointers to determine if a figure could see - fun, but kind of silly....

Removing TLoS makes it a bit more abstract, but also a lot less fiddly. (And allows dramatic poses and dioramic bases without affecting game play - a friend has a Dwarf Ranger unit for KoW that is climbing a mountain....)

The Auld Grump

So kind of like what INFINITY does now, in their 3rd edition rules?

Unless you are playing a game where your miniatures are literally stone statues that slide around the battlefield one at a time, TLOS makes no sense.

systems like SST, WMH, and T:G all share the same core concepts - volumetric sizing, which is superior and totally removes LOS arguments and ambiguities from the system. It's one of the basic tenets of system elegance.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:
I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative. I love sitting behind my swarm or my guardsmen for very different reasons!

If I want my wargames to be precise or competitive I'll play boardgames with cut and dry rules, precision square based movement, perfectly balanced or mirror matched sides etc.

If I want to play something with more relaxed I'll play games with TLOS. These fun games, I play with fun people, if a decision goes one persons way once we'll let it go the other way the next time, if the decisions are odd in number throughout a game then balance is ruined and I tend to tableflip.

I have to agree. True LOS makes the game feel much more immersive (which is pretty much why I play tabletop games). When we play, we simply give the shooter always the benefit of the doubt. So if there's any doubt at all, the shooter gets LOS. Likewise, with partial cover -- if it's close, the target gets cover.

I rather like TLoS. You can see or you cant. The W40K rules expand on TLoS a little in that you're required to see, wholly, a models arm, leg, torso or head. For me it's pretty clear cut and dry. If I can draw LoS to a hand... Well a hand is not the 'whole arm' as the rules state and therefore I cannot 'see' to target the unit.

Tournament players take the idea of TLoS way to far IMO.

One has to wonder... Why do these nit picking rules disagreements always tend to surround tournament players?

 oni wrote:
Tournament players take the idea of TLoS way to far IMO.

One has to wonder... Why do these nit picking rules disagreements always tend to surround tournament players?

It's more that TLOS is ambiguous and can lead to different interpretations for not only tournaments, but pick up and play games.

Volumetric sizing is superior for all types of players, and not just the "rules should be ambiguous because games are meant to be fun and those tournament gamers can suck it!" crowd.

 judgedoug wrote:


It's more that TLOS is ambiguous and can lead to different interpretations for not only tournaments, but pick up and play games.

Volumetric sizing is superior for all types of players, and not just the "rules should be ambiguous because games are meant to be fun and those tournament gamers can suck it!" crowd.

But it isn't superior for all types of games. Deadzone/Mars Attacks are better for using TLoS, for example (because of the style of gameplay and the implementation within the rules being pretty unambiguous). Volumetric sizing introduces its own problems if there is a lot of varied scenic terrain scattered about since you either have to classify it all by height at the start and remember it throughout the game (which is tedious) or you have to check LoS to an imaginary space the figure isn't completely occupying (which is worse that TLoS). Games which need to be scenery heavy like Bolt Action would not be improved by using volumetric sizing. On the flipside, I'm glad it is the method now used in KoW2 as it works well there.

If you're trying to determine whether one abstract representation of a soldier can see another abstract representation of a soldier on an abstract representation of a battlefield then no solution is going to be a great one.

My biggest problem with TLOS is that it is dependent upon the terrain models available. Two trees does not make a forest. Though some tourneys and clubs act like it is.

I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?

TLOS is only confusing if your trying to abuse it. From the models "eyes", can he see the target, it's either a yes or no question. Yeah, it's not the best system, but more immersive than "well, can his 1" tall .5" wide cylinder see the other 1" tall .5" wide cylinder" Ignoring that that sounds remarkably similar to LOS. Yeah, I know it's not the best, but it's fairly simple, immersive, and an easy concept to explain to new players.

 zgort wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?

Rather than TLOS each model is esentaly given 2 extra stats, Base size / footprint and Height. As a result the game could be played using cylinders or blocks but we still use figures because they look better.

While attractive I find volumetric methods almost as bad as TLoS,

players who are prone to argue at length about whether their mini can see/be seen in TLoS games tend to do so in volumetric games as well (or argue that no that bit of scenery was meant to be size 3 not size 4)

(if you can put together full tables of scenery for a given game that all fits their size steps this does disappear but it's not very realistic)

 ChaoticMind wrote:

 zgort wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and be TFG - sincere apologies - what is volumetric sizing?

Rather than TLOS each model is esentaly given 2 extra stats, Base size / footprint and Height. As a result the game could be played using cylinders or blocks but we still use figures because they look better.

Thank you. In all honesty it sounds like it would have similar problems to true line of sight. Terrain sounds like it could benefit from these types of rules, though.

I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.

TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.

 Riquende wrote:
I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.

TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.

Hey, Age of Sigmarines is all about the fact that guy is always waving his sword around like that....

The Auld Grump

we always use TLOS and never have an argument. Laser pointer is your friend

 Riquende wrote:
I don't see anything remotely 'immersive' about treating the miniatures as models on the gaming table than can't move and declaring that the arm that's stuck up in the air waving a sword is always stuck up in the air waving a sword because the mini is posed that way.

TLoS is used whenever a rules writer/team is incapable of writing a solid mechanic for LoS. That's all.

I agree, it's no more immersive at all and it's a pain in the arse a lot of the time. I was playing Infinity with some mates and we were basically using TLoS (because we hadn't read the silhouette rules) and all 4 of us saw something different when we tried to draw line of sight, some said they were in cover and some didn't, etc. I imagine a laser pointer would help but then that's not 'immersive' either and better LoS and cover rules would work just as well.

At least with 40k I vastly prefer not using TLOS. When the rules shifted to TLOS it seemed it was almost impossible to get out of sight on most boards as most terrain had some little hole that you could see through. This meant firing lanes didn't really matter and manouver became less important. Games are much more interesting when you can't shoot the whole board from anywhere, but instead have to make decisions about optimum placement and covering multiple approach lanes with limited options. This can be done with TLOS but is much easier with abstracted rules.

 Talys wrote:
I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative.

The narrative of a crouching Guardsman with a plasma gun, who apparently shuffles around the field on his knees at all times. And how his squad was tragically wiped out because when they took cover behind a wall, he was unable to stand up, and so could not see the onrushing Tyranid critter. Truly an epic of our times.

 Elemental wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I'm a huge advocate of using TLOS and have my tables at 40 inches high where possible.
It's immersive I've spent hours painting and modelling both the army and scenery as has my opponent it's nice to take a look at them every now and then, it gives you the models eye view and helps generate narrative.

The narrative of a crouching Guardsman with a plasma gun, who apparently shuffles around the field on his knees at all times. And how his squad was tragically wiped out because when they took cover behind a wall, he was unable to stand up, and so could not see the onrushing Tyranid critter. Truly an epic of our times.

By the way, that was Alex Kolodotschko, not me (misquote, hehe). It's quite alright, though, because I agree with him.

Sadly, I don't have my tables at 40". I would love that, though.

Depends of the models, I'd say.

TLoS work best with big models and terrain that is actually representing the "reality" of a battlefield. It's even better if those said models have different sizes of bases -like GW like to do. In that, it is indeed more immersive and "simple". Of course, it doesn't prevent some weird situations like crouching soldiers or jumping/flying poses...but usually, those games aren't really picky on the rules and rely greatly on the good will of players.

"Volume" LoS is better with small scale models (where it is really stupid to ask to "see through the eyes of the models", when that said model is a 6mm infantry scale), usually played in regiments rather than individuals. On that size, abstraction is nearly necessary and helps to keep the flow in game.

It is also good with models with standardized bases (not from GW, thus, because GW doesn't care about that at all). Warmachine/Horde is a good example, because they really put a thought about this in particular.

However, I'd also say the main question is a question of player preferences. Some like to play "cinematic" games, other are more adept of more abstract ones. They can also have different views about the importance of rules (and I'm talking about how they are written, as well). This is mainly here the pertinence of having TLoS can really have an answer, IMHO - and obviously, there isn't one absolute in that case.

TLOS is utter nonsense and assumes a figure posed waving their arms in the air is doing so even when supposed to be taking cover behind a wall. In a largely abstract game, TLOS is absurdly literal.

TLoS would work if you had a fixed ground scale, and terrain to the same scale. Few games have either

You still need a concept for area terrain, which is not that hard to add though and many games do.

Models scale, eyesight and light doesn't, this is before you get into issues such as seeing part of a hand and converted models.

TLoS gets used because it's easy to write and sounds like a good idea, in a scale simulation it his may be true but in 28mm with undefined time periods and a variable ground scale your shooting rounds corners when you use that laser pointer.

Not saying it's a bad system, but you need to know what it implies for the rest of the game

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
I'd say that everyone could probably agree that LoS is a bad system.. It's just so much better than all the others..

Except, of course, for any other system.

The one thing that TLoS is good for is visualization - for those folks that want the miniatures to literally represent the warriors on the field.