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.

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
You don't have to waste time trying to figure out every possible angle to manipulate the figure when in reality the person seeking cover isnt in the pose of their model anyways.

I always adopt the pose of the model seeking cover, this for me is full immersion. It is also the rules for Age of Sigmar.

 Alex Kolodotschko wrote:

Bossk_Hogg wrote:
You don't have to waste time trying to figure out every possible angle to manipulate the figure when in reality the person seeking cover isnt in the pose of their model anyways.

I always adopt the pose of the model seeking cover, this for me is full immersion. It is also the rules for Age of Sigmar.

That still doesnt fix the issue that the *model* is not hunched over, or is mounted on a base which changes their LOS, or has a feather sticking out, or some other stupid crap. It still wastes time as you do the equivalent of pixel bitching to get the figure just right.

When playing Infinity I find that it isn't exactly "obvious" on LOS. Our view from our own eyes is different from what a model may or may not be able to actually SEE, let alone hit. A simple point to point system makes it clear and removes all question.

Someone above mentioned that it is always tournament players that care about such things and I would agree. Tournament players need a fair, balanced game with as few ambiguities as possible... in a tournament, the game is about the rules. If you don't care about the rules (GW!) then it doesn't really matter. If you have to roll dice, constantly interpret, or completely guess at what the rules mean, then they are poorly written rules. More clear is always better in gaming when you are pushing toys across a table for strategic competition.

If you are pushing toys across the table and don't care, then these discussions really are meaningless to you

TLOS is also really much more of a problem on dense, varied boards.

We played some Necromunda for old times sake, and the sheer difficulty of checking TLOS some of the time is astounding. Without a laser pointer, you often have situations where you simply cannot put your eye, your model, and your opponent's model in a line without scenery blocking your head (or stabbing into the side of your face). We had more models knocked over by 'checking LOS' than by our fumble-fingered attempts at moving them!

As GW has produced larger and larger models (admittedly, awesome models) they have also been largely moving towards displaying 'games' that are staged on relatively empty boards. The terrain on these boards is not particularly dense, nor is the terrain packed closely together, nor is it particularly 'varied' terrain, where models might be displayed on many different levels with many varied lines of movement and sight. It's often big blobs of buildings.

When they do feature very dense, varied terrain, it's generally as a single shot for an image, and isn't something that is played on.

I love their Imperial Buildings, but I can tell you from experience that an incautious LOS check can risk eye damage (thanks, glasses!).

LoS aka most-of-the-stuff-you-will-do-as-a-judge. Simple height systems are vastly superior.

How about we set our games in universes where bullets hit a massive invisible wall about a foot in front of whoever is being shot at? It certainly takes a lot of the guesswork of whether you can hit out.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
How about we set our games in universes where bullets hit a massive invisible wall about a foot in front of whoever is being shot at? It certainly takes a lot of the guesswork of whether you can hit out.

Useless post is useless.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course then you have figures like this, by Statuesque -


Sorry, but your TLOS is only to the cover that I carry around with me....

(I really like that figure.)

The Auld Grump

My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.

TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.

TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.

Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.

TLOS is the simplest and easiest way to write rules about one of the most complex situations which is LOS, it relies on the intuitive ability of the human to draw an parallel line with his or her eyes between two points and determine if object B can be sen from point A.

Simple easy elegant.

The way Infinity abstracts object B in an augmentation of TLOS rules again is simple and does not break with odd rules the simplicity or elegance of TLOS (PP does that too and from earlier, but they do not use silhouettes), rectifying the problem some people have by reading too literal the TLOS rules.

The abstract LOF rules have many issues, true they can and will end up in a black/ white scenario resolution, but, first of all need more rules and more work on the rules to iron out abuse, secondly, the terrain is unimportant, throw an irregular piece of paper say lvl 2 forest, call it done.

Essentially the abstract LOF rules make unnecessary the need for terrain or models and are frankly better served in a contained environment were the irregularities of wargaming both in terrain and in pieces placement does not impair them or create a need for extra long rules, hence why they are used with great effect and are the norm in boardgames.

I have never played Infinity. How does it work in that game? Please explain this "silhouette" thing.

I'm not for a total abstracting of the rules. Neither am I for a 100% TLOS game. Both have their downfalls. I could deal with a mostly TLOS game, if area terrain was dealt with better. Perhaps somewhat more like how it was in 3rd, or 4th edition. As it is right now woods either provide no protection, or are so dense you can't move through them physically. That needs to change.

essentially all models have a silhouette value which defines both the base and the space they occupy, imagine it as models been cylinders for LoF purposes, and parts of the model out of that cylinder do not count likewise, any part of the cylinder visible is a valid target either it has model part in it or not.

By the way Infinity rules are free on the website so you can look yourself the design decisions the limits and virtues of the system.

The biggest difference between PP and this is that the silhouette is a physical product and not a defined height which can and cannot be measured correctly.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
essentially all models have a silhouette value which defines both the base and the space they occupy, imagine it as models been cylinders for LoF purposes, and parts of the model out of that cylinder do not count likewise, any part of the cylinder visible is a valid target either it has model part in it or not.

By the way Infinity rules are free on the website so you can look yourself the design decisions the limits and virtues of the system.

The biggest difference between PP and this is that the silhouette is a physical product and not a defined height which can and cannot be measured correctly.

That's the volumetric LoS people were talking about earlier

When the volumetric is entirely centered in the models then ye,s it can be useful, when the entire LOS system becomes "volumetric" it hardly is a good solution.

That is my argument.

I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion

Although I'm not a fan of the system as a whole, Deadzone has one of the better TLOS concepts I've seen.
If I can see any bit of your model, it can be targeted. Period.
If I can see the entire model with nothing obstructing my view then I get a bonus to targeting that model.

It looks like I like how Infinity handles true line of sight and the silhouette thing.

Game immersion is more broken when the question of is a model can see another model goes for a few minutes, sure you can justify the cylinders as either a targeting solution HUD the troopers have or not bother at all with justify and just use them to resolve a resolution in under a minute and go on.

From a game designer perspective the shorter the time players need to resolve one situation the better the system is, a volumetric representation of the models not only helps with this, but also makes the unit contained, this helps not only with the rules and balancing of models (and helps the model companies build models that are not all standing with the gun abreast).

I do not consider deadzone a good LOF system, essentially its pure TLOF and while it demonstrates the good parts of pure TLOF system it shows the problems, how do you balance the two close combat enforcer sculpts? the standard and the special character who is kneeling? the later has a clear advantage approaching its target.

It also makes the few dynamic models of deadzone a clear disadvantage to field.

This is why the TLOF while a really good rule needed to enter the modern era.

On the other hand the terrain level due to the vast variance of terrain and its impossibility of codifying the terrain from different manufacturers and hand made by the players is a bad rule system that will quickly bloat out of control and will still need an extensive effort from players to really work.

Its interesting to read about the problems that people have with this rule, In nearly thirty years I have never really had a problem with the TLOS, I always assumed that it was the easiest and most straight forward way to do it, in fact we always use TLOS for every game we play, we just ignored the volumetric stuff and some other LOS systems because it seemed like a solution for a problem that did not exist.

It is just the most simple way to write it like you say, I guess the time needed to devise a different system is taken into consideration too, They obviously think that TLOS is the best suited to the games at the end of the day, certain systems suit different methods I should imagine, I think if i were going to write rules I would have used TLOS as well.

Seems like all of the problems with the TLOS rule, stem from people disagreeing and It basically comes down to offering a system that does not require two people coming to an agreement, which is fine and very much needed in certain competitive situations.

It does also seem a little sad to me, I would not want to play with someone that I could not come to an agreement with, but then again, I don't do tourneys or anything like that.
Thats one thing I love about gaming, there is such variety, I think I might suggest we do it volumetric style next time we play WMH, if we ever get around to it !

I don't like True Line of Sight because there is no point adjustments for the way the minis are made.

I mean you can have 2 equally spec minis and equally costed in points, but one can have an advantage if it's smaller and can hide easier. So therefore those 2 minis are not equally point adjusted but GW doesn't take this into consideration. So TLoS is not fair

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
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.

This.
The only real difference/advantage of volumetric games is that they make modelling for advantage a non-issue, otherwise it's exactly the same thing.

I'm actually thinking about getting a mat with hex-tiles for a lot of my games (including infinity). Not that I ever have disagreements about LOS personally, but I really hate ballsing about with measuring tape, and people's rubber measuring, and accidentally nudging scenery. It seems so much easier just to have a grid that you can see, and I think it could also be helpful when LOS is unclear.

I think what I like even more than grids are the big ~3"x3" areas that get used in a lot of Fantasy Flight board games. They make movement so easy, as you are moving in larger increments, and they take all the pain out of figuring out LOS and blast weapons (if you are in this area, then you can be hit).

The only thing sadder than watching two grown men argue about toy soldiers, is watching your opponent spend >30 seconds carefully measuring how far a model can move, only to have it fall over and nudge some terrain... Then realising he's got to do this 60 more times before it's your turn.

The overprecise measuring is one of the things that really bugs me about wargaming. I'd be favour of any system that eliminates the need for that sort of thing.

 cuda1179 wrote:
My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.

TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.

TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.

Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.

Quoted for much truthiness. I like making fancy models that look great, and punishing models mechanically for nice poses or fancy bases seems really poor, besides, yes, your model isn't stuck with their arm held high or whatever when seeking cover.

Smacks wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
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.

This.
The only real difference/advantage of volumetric games is that they make modelling for advantage a non-issue, otherwise it's exactly the same thing.

I'm actually thinking about getting a mat with hex-tiles for a lot of my games (including infinity). Not that I ever have disagreements about LOS personally, but I really hate ballsing about with measuring tape, and people's rubber measuring, and accidentally nudging scenery. It seems so much easier just to have a grid that you can see, and I think it could also be helpful when LOS is unclear.

I think what I like even more than grids are the big ~3"x3" areas that get used in a lot of Fantasy Flight board games. They make movement so easy, as you are moving in larger increments, and they take all the pain out of figuring out LOS and blast weapons (if you are in this area, then you can be hit).

The only thing sadder than watching two grown men argue about toy soldiers, is watching your opponent spend >30 seconds carefully measuring how far a model can move, only to have it fall over and nudge some terrain... Then realising he's got to do this 60 more times before it's your turn.

The overprecise measuring is one of the things that really bugs me about wargaming. I'd be favour of any system that eliminates the need for that sort of thing.

You realize your solution moves the game from been a wargame into been a boardgame, making a hybrid that has the worse of both?

spiralingcadaver wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
My biggest grips about TLoS concern modeling and scenery.

TLoS punishes those that model unique, awesome models, and reward WAAC players that model for advantage. These things make for a poor gaming environment.

TLoS sucks when dealing with terrain that can only be represented as an abstract. Has anyone ever tried making an actual forest that blocks line of sight? It will either be used as impassable terrain, or be so thick no one will be able to put any models into it. In this regard, TLOS fails horribly. Some kind of abstract is needed.

Back in 4th edition they had size categories for models and terrain. This was more than a little silly, and too far down the "magic cylinder" path. That being said, there must be some kind of happy medium between that and the current rules.

Quoted for much truthiness. I like making fancy models that look great, and punishing models mechanically for nice poses or fancy bases seems really poor, besides, yes, your model isn't stuck with their arm held high or whatever when seeking cover.

That's why TLOS has evolved to have the volumetric rules, 4th had a huge amount of issues in LOS, evident on the length the LOS rules length, but also on assigning terrain for advantage by the players and the lengthy discussions on why the terrain placed was or was not the level the player placing it declared it to be. it also created issues with multi leveled terrain and complex terrain pieces, but the worse was the fact that models and terrain under these rules mattered not, the battlefield was flat.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You realize your solution moves the game from been a wargame into been a boardgame, making a hybrid that has the worse of both?

Firstly, what game does it "move"? This topic is about LOS, not a specific game. Lots of board games are also war games featuring LOS, and many do it with far less ambiguity than TLOS, so it's hardly the worst feature.

Secondly, it is not my "solution", it's just something I would like to have on my own table to make measuring more convenient. Just because the grid is there doesn't mean you are forced to obey it, or change any rules. It just provides a framework for moving without measuring, which is way easier for the vast majority of movements that don't require millimetre precision.

Any wargame really, wargames are messy and imprecise boardgames are contained and precise, by creating a board for a wargame you contain the wargame in a grid and create the precise and sterile conditions of a wargame, so movement, terrain, miniatures, weapon ranges and LOF must be melded to follow the grid.

Allow me some design bias in what I write, you are right in "wargames" been available in both wargame and boardgame form, in various scales scopes and forms, but for me the main difference between a boardgame wargame and a "true" wargame (quotes to show differentiation and not to show devaluation in either of the two) is the environment the rules are in, in boardgames the world is more or less flat, the LOF rules are simple and precise because the rules writer takes into account both the actual flatness of the world and the precision the board brings in, terrain is designed by the designer for the game and no outside variables need to be taken into account.

I hope you understand now what I am saying.

-

privateer4hire wrote:
I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion

You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.

It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Allow me some design bias in what I write, you are right in "wargames" been available in both wargame and boardgame form, in various scales scopes and forms, but for me the main difference between a boardgame wargame and a "true" wargame (quotes to show differentiation and not to show devaluation in either of the two) is the environment the rules are in, in boardgames the world is more or less flat, the LOF rules are simple and precise because the rules writer takes into account both the actual flatness of the world and the precision the board brings in, terrain is designed by the designer for the game and no outside variables need to be taken into account.

I hope you understand now what I am saying.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not sure I 100% agree. There are certainly some boardgames which are flat and contained, but I don't think playing on a board precludes a game from using a mechanic like TLOS, or a player from making his own scenery etc... Neither does playing on a scenic battlefield prevent a game from having a high level of two dimensional abstraction.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Any wargame really, wargames are messy and imprecise

Well, I suppose if you like that sort of thing. I'm not against the 'unconstrained' way that miniatures can move and shoot in tabletop games, but sometimes the ambiguity is more trouble than it is worth. A lot of people do get annoyed by TLOS, the arguments it can cause make games less fun. I think games are usually better, when you take away the bits that aren't fun.

It's taken them 10 years but I think they have got it dead on with 3rd edition Infinity. Takes away the abstraction, provides a consistent response to how to take each shot.

Definitely been a reduction in how many 'discussions' we have had about whether something is in cover or not, which I think really is the ultimate measure.

I do think for mass battle/non-skirmish games TLOS is perhaps not the way to go. In those cases there is a definite need for a level of abstraction.

Use a laser pointer.

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion

You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.

It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.

I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.

privateer4hire wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
I also enjoy making my opponents carry multiple-sized cylinders with them and forcing them to replace their minis with said cylinders during game play.
Really helps the immersion

You must play against some really irritating people if you're doing it enough to break immersion. It's no less impactful than placing rulers on the table to see ranges or rolling dice to simulate actions.

It's extremely rare in Infinity that you need to get out a silhouette marker, generally when someone really, really needs to stretch the bounds of what would be seen by the model to make a shot. In general, it's just as easy in any other game to draw LoS.

I was employing hyperbole. I wouldn't play a game that required what I consider 'cylinder nonsense' in the first place.
The closest thing I would want to use in a game for LOS is maybe a laser pointer and even that's borderline overboard.

I'd have agreed, up until about ten years ago, when I ran into TFG.

He wanted to use the original Eldar Avatar, because it was easier to hide.

He had his Edar Dreadnoughts modeled so they were crouching - but insisted that they could stand up to fire. Ditto for his Edar Guardians.

After that... cylinders it is!

(On the flip side - in my KoW group there is a dwarf player that has his rangers modeled so that they are planting a banner on top of a mountain. He has never once tried to insist that units could hide behind the convenient moving mountain....)

The Auld Grump