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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, not in the least.

That Captain simply isn't (can't be) as big as he is supposed to be. He's an inch taller, so he's clearly outside the cylinder. The inverse is having LOS to the enclosing volume that doesn't have any part of the model in it. Under magic cylinder, there's no obvious way to know the proper height of the cylinder for determining LOS. If you're swapping reference cylinders for LOS determination, then you're possibly changing the position as you swap models back in or out. Which raises the question of why you aren't playing with cylinders in the first place.

OTOH, TLoS can simply ignore the base, and the Captain is still just as big as the model actually is, in whatever pose he happens to be in. That is the simplification that TLoS brings. Either you can draw LOS model to model, or you can't. Granted that you want a laser pointer or somesuch if your back isn't up to all of the bending and stooping. But it's not the worst alternative.

I disagree. The point of Magic Cylinder is that you define classes of target profiles then assign figures into them. It doesn't matter if the captain figure is lying down or jumping up from a tall plinth, he is still target profile class 1, and so is an Elf kneeling, and a Dwarf standing, and whatever you have classified into this class.

The point is that Magic Cylinder is completely incompatible with using models. At all.

Also that height bands are worse, being incompatible with both models and terrain.

If you want "realistic" terrain and you want actual models, then a TLoS variant is the only reasonable solution.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thank you for confirming that your entire criticism of "casual" gaming is completely irrelevant to KOG light, that we are at cross purposes:

I think you really must dissociate KOG light with the general discussion we have here and in general not take criticism on game mechanics as an underground attack on your game.

Every game system is done with many design decisions dictated by many different choices, here we discuss elements in isolation in their purest form.

I my "criticism" on casual is non existent because I have not criticised casual games, I have criticised heavily on game developers using casual as an excuse for poor workmanship and while I do think the self moderating and balancing mentality is practically dead from a design standpoint, at least if you want some professional looking game system, I do not think that a well made and balanced rule set cannot be casual, if nothing else it is my firm belief that the tighter and more balanced the rule set is the more the casual players benefit.

You are criticizing the approach that I have chosen, and not applying it to reality. I am working from concrete realty.

I think that simpler rulesets are what would benefit casual players most.

Like it or not, 40k 7E is a very tight ruleset, written in legal form. The problem is that it's not balanced, and that's a direct function of the unchecked Codex bloat and sprawl that the game has seen. In many ways, 40k 7E is following SFB down the rabbit hole of an excess of rules, to the point that they become impenetrable to new, casual players.

You are mistaken, each project is unique and its a accumulation of design choices and manufacturing restrictions that make it a whole and design choices that may be "poor" in general work wonders in specific systems.

For example in "mech games" manufacturers model the mechs (mostly) in static poses and one does not expect the mechs to go prone in this situation pure TLOS works well, in a skirmish game with humanoid models that are modeled in dynamic poses the magic cylinder is a better solution to solve the quantum state the models are supposed to be, in a boardgame clearly defined terrain is far far better.

All that been said things can mix and match according to each systems specific demands.

A rule system benefits everybody if it is well written and balanced, simple or complex do not matter that much in my opinion as long as they are not complicated and a simple rule system can be well written and balanced, those two do not preclude a system been simple.

I must add that the "magic cylinder" is a TLOF variant.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you want "realistic" terrain and you want actual models, then a TLoS variant is the only reasonable solution.

No it's not, it's one of many possible compromises.

TLOF? What?

Sorry typo TLOS variant.

I don't understand how you say MC is TLOS, when MC draws LOS to thin air.

Magic Cylinder can draw LOS to thin air, that is true, but it is a variant of TLOS because you have to use LOS to determine if you cans see the cylinder or not.

The basic of TLOS is to look from the models perspective and determine if the target is visible, if you want a purist perspective is the target must be the actual model as it has been sculpted, Magic Cylinder is a variant where the target is abstracted with a volumetric representation of the area the model is, if you want the magic cylinder represents, as the base does too the are where the model is actually occupying, not where the model actually is (a bit quantum I know but...) there are other variants but most centre on deleting parts of the model to make the purist TLOS more workable like weapons and banners do not count, x% of model must be visible, models parts must also be inside the base area ectr.

OK, if that's how you're defining TLOS, sure...

In TLOS if the model is standing on tall stilts on top of a scenic base featuring a tall rock, his head is going to be several inches above the head of the figure next to him that is lying prone on a normal base, and since you measure from the eyes of the model to the target, the figure on stilts has an advantage and disadvantage because he can see and be seen over intervening walls and stuff. Furthermore, there may be complications of looking through narrow windows and between model tree trunks and the like.

In Magic Cylinder, both the figure on stilts and the normal figure and the intervening terrain have been assigned to classes that define the ability to have line of sight whatever the physical design of the models and terrain.

This is my understanding of the two basic approaches to this aspect of game design.

TLOS has a rather minor issue that some models are posed differently, but I think that, in practice, that the posing issue is not really an issue. From my understanding, the issue is really with non-standard Vehicles, like Ork Trukks modeled like billboards to manage LOS.

The fundamental problem with Magic Cylinder is that we are generally playing with models that are *not* cylinders of the appropriate size. There is a certain amount of inherent imprecision whether LOS exists to a cylinder that does not exist.

If we look at TLOS where we ignore weapon barrels and appendages, to the point that each model is reduced to head & torso (or central hull), I suspect that removes all of the posing problems.

Fundamentally, it comes down to a making tradeoffs for modeling reality. Whether we want to count the actual model, an arbitrary stand-in for the model, or just part of the model.

A sniper sculpted kneeling or prone should be able to see out of a window the model next to it sculpted standing can see without the need for a table to next to the window for it to climb on.

This is the fundamental problem of TLOS and why it kills dynamic poses if it is enforced in its purest form.

I had never noticed Magic Cylinder before.... I kinda like the system, I just do not like there being air-space above the model that can be seen as it feels awkward game-wise. Having to measure each model to see if I can see them wouldn't be very fun. Maybe if Magic Cylinder's cylinder made the top-most part of the model's body the top of the cylinder. This way a head, or in the case of a handstand the feet, would be used similar to TLOS but then anywhere up to that point and to the edge of the base is fair game for targeting? That way it is like 4th grade graphing, just connect the points.

I'd be allowed to model Commandoes that are doing handstands without screwing over my TLOS!


TLOS' main problems with dynamic poses, in my opinion/experience, comes from dynamic BASES instead. If you stick your commander on a heroic base that makes him twice as tall... you start bringing confusion of a whole new level. When it comes to prone/squatting/standing, the players I have seen with just naturally adjust their choices to the needs of each model. If they have a mixture of poses they position their models in terrain accordingly. It might be clunky in some cases but it suckles at the teets of common sense and seeing-is-believing.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
A sniper sculpted kneeling or prone should be able to see out of a window the model next to it sculpted standing can see without the need for a table to next to the window for it to climb on.

This is the fundamental problem of TLOS and why it kills dynamic poses if it is enforced in its purest form.

The fundamental rule of TLOS is that anything that can shoot, can be shot at. A kneeling model can see over a low wall or window sill. As can a standing model. Both would have cover from the wall. There is literally no difference in how either pose is addressed from a shooting / targeting standpoint under TLOS. A prone model would neither see, nor be seen. Again, basic TLOS preserves symmetry of shooters being shot at.

I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.

NB - I am assuming all-or-nothing cover, such that blockage of LOS to any portion of the model is "cover" to the entire model. I find that this sort of cover works well with TLOS.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.

Because it produces stupid situations where a machine gunner or sniper modelled in a prone position can't see over a low wall to fire at the enemy while the members of their squad who are modelled standing up can't take cover behind the wall and so get gunned down. Or the stupid situation where a lightly armed soldier in a standing pose is visible behind a chest high wall when he should be hunched slightly so he can't be shot at.

In real combat you make you body as small as it needs to be to fit behind the cover you have available. If all you have is a knee high mound of dirt, you go prone it, if all you have is narrow columns, you stand tall and make yourself narrow.

TLOS is a compromise because it is in itself an absurd abstraction in the same way models spending an entire battle in 1 pose is an absurd abstraction.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
I had never noticed Magic Cylinder before.... I kinda like the system, I just do not like there being air-space above the model that can be seen as it feels awkward game-wise. Having to measure each model to see if I can see them wouldn't be very fun. Maybe if Magic Cylinder's cylinder made the top-most part of the model's body the top of the cylinder. This way a head, or in the case of a handstand the feet, would be used similar to TLOS but then anywhere up to that point and to the edge of the base is fair game for targeting? That way it is like 4th grade graphing, just connect the points.

The Magic Cylinder works this way

It is a bit exaggerated in the image for illustration purposes, but the top of the green is were a standing models head would be as seen here more properly



Yes, you can target "empty space" but likewise that empty space can target back.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see any problem under TLOS for any of the stances above.

Because it produces stupid situations where a machine gunner or sniper modelled in a prone position can't see over a low wall to fire at the enemy while the members of their squad who are modelled standing up can't take cover behind the wall and so get gunned down. Or the stupid situation where a lightly armed soldier in a standing pose is visible behind a chest high wall when he should be hunched slightly so he can't be shot at.

In real combat you make you body as small as it needs to be to fit behind the cover you have available. If all you have is a knee high mound of dirt, you go prone it, if all you have is narrow columns, you stand tall and make yourself narrow.

TLOS is a compromise because it is in itself an absurd abstraction in the same way models spending an entire battle in 1 pose is an absurd abstraction.

First off, a standing model absolutely can take cover behind those walls, assuming that one uses all-or-nothing cover, as I assume. Further, there is no reason that a model should ever be immune to counterfire. The model will receive cover benefits, and that should be sufficient.

It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem. In none of your examples does Magic Cylinder or height band provide a more "realistic" result.

In fact, MC is worse, because a model posed 20mm tall behind a 1.0" high wall is still targetable if the 28mm cylinder is taller than the wall itself. The enemy may legitimately target the Magic Cylinder of a model that cannot be seen at all - something that is impossible with any flavor of TLOS to the model. Similarly, a Morley-posed model can actually hide completely behind a 3/4" wide column, whereas a 25mm diameter Magic Cylinder remains fully targetable. Given the obvious absurdity of targeting a Magic Cylinder where no portion of the actual model is visible, TLOS is clearly superior.

That TLOS cannot model the real world perfectly is not a knock against it when things like Magic Cylinder do an objectively worse job of modeling reality. TLOS is simply the least bad option in many cases. The fact is, the closer the game gets to having realistic terrain, the more obvious it is that TLOS is less flawed than MC or height band.

And the GW version of ignoring bases, limbs and weapons? That's arguably the best version, where it converts every model into a Magic Torso of essentially identical size for targeting purposes.

But arguing that the lesser imperfections of TLOS make it bad? That's laughable and nonsense.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The model will receive cover benefits, and that should be sufficient.

In some cases it is, in other cases it's not.... like the one I just stated where a machine gunner is modelled prone while the rest of his squad is modelled standing.

This is the case with many models between WW2 and modern times because rifleman are often modelled as standing or running forward while machine gunners, rocket launchers and snipers are often modelled kneeling or prone in firing positions.

It produces the stupid situation where if you use TLOS your support weapons can't see to support the basic troops who should be hiding if they're not being supported but are less able to do so because they're modelled standing up.

Do you not think it's a stupid situation to be in?? Using a TLOS system a squad parked behind a waist high wall or in a ditch.... the only people who are visible and uncovered are the riflemen while the machine gunner is tucked away out of sight? If you don't think that's a stupid situation then we just disagree on what a stupid situation is

You can largely fix the problem by just not modelling part of a squad as kneeling/prone and part of it as standing, but that's often not practical or easy to do.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem.

I didn't. You seem to be conflating different thoughts here. I don't particularly like the magic cylinder idea either, MC isn't practical in a lot of games.

But arguing that the lesser imperfections of TLOS make it bad? That's laughable and nonsense.

I think you're taking this way too personally for some strange reason. I don't think I ever said TLOS is bad, I was simply debating your point that TLOS didn't have any problems.

TLOS has flaws and it has benefits. You can either decide those flaws are acceptable given the benefits or you can find a different system. Just because YOU like TLOS doesn't make it the best system, just because someone else doesn't like TLOS doesn't make it a bad system.

I was simply pointing out some of its flaws, which, oddly enough, you mostly ignored and went on a tangential rant.

Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.

@ASS - Your reply implied that *only* TLOS had these issues, when these issues are common to every system of abstracting the real world to the tabletop.

My position is that TLOS produces the fewest obvious problems, and I use it for that reason.

The flaws that people keep calling out are common to all tabletop LOS systems, not just TLOS, so those criticisms are irrelevant because they don't distinguish TLOS from MC or height bands. They don't create a distinction that would naturally lead someone to choose a different LOS system.

Now, if you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

It is complete and utter nonsense to single out TLOS here, when Magic Cylinder and height bands have the exact same problem. In none of your examples does Magic Cylinder or height band provide a more "realistic" result. .

Yes, it does.

The example of the kneeling or prone model is it in a nutshell... When you have a unit that contains a standing model and a prone model behind a low wall, in the TLOS system only the standing model can see and be seen. Magic Cylinder allows you to assume that the prone guy doesn't actually spend the whole game crawling around on his belly.


But it does so by allowing you to draw LOS from- and target empty air above him, which is less than ideal.




Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@ASS - Your reply implied that *only* TLOS had these issues, when these issues are common to every system of abstracting the real world to the tabletop.

You need to learn the difference between infer and imply.

Though MC has less problems than TLOS in that area, it wasn't really what I was thinking when I wrote it. MC still has problems but not as many (you aren't going to get the problem that a machine gunner can't see an enemy that the rest of his squad can see and likewise the enemy can see the rest of the squad).

The flaws that people keep calling out are common to all tabletop LOS systems

Yes but there's abstracted systems that can better deal with situations like I mentioned.

Now, if you have a better solution, I'd love to hear it.

Sorry you probably missed the ninja edit I made while you were typing your response....

Personally I think the best system is a COMBINATION of TLOS and some abstraction to account for models taking up firing positions or taking cover. Something like using counters to represent that a unit isn't just standing around behind a knee high wall but rather has taken a covered firing position, or is hiding completely out of sight, or is walking past and not taking cover at all.

 insaniak wrote:
Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.

The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.

 insaniak wrote:

Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.

After thinking about it for a while, I think that might be a good system. You could use counters for "taking cover", "firing position" and "on the move", then write up a simple table that relates a 'to hit' modifier to the height band of the model and terrain to the cover status of the unit, with the extreme sides of the table being "no modifier, count as unobstructed" and the other extreme being "can't see well enough to shoot". Not being able to see well enough to shoot might still allow you to do something like provide suppressing fire though.

I guess you just have to balance of the level of abstraction and complexity to your desired goal.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.

Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Hmm... So now that I think about it, the base-to-base system with height bands, coupled with the ability to 'take cover' behind low obstacles to improve your protection from them is seeming like it ticks the most boxes.

The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.

You can use the height band as an actual height (eg, height = 2 means 2" tall) to account for those situations where models are on different levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.

Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.

Or that might work better.

____

OK, yeah, I missed the edit. Anyhow, the upshot is there isn't an ideal solution here, aside from what works for particular games.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The problem is that height bands only really works on a billiards table, where you're not drawing LOS up or down at a significant angle from horizontal.

Nah, in that situation you can just add them together... A 'Size 1' model standing on a 'Size 1' terrain piece would count as 'Size 2'.

Or that might work better.

It's how 4th ed 40k handled elevation with the Size bands... Except that nothing could be bigger than Size 3, and the vast majority of terrain that had a Size band was Size 3, so it was a largely pointless rule.

In a system with more size differentiation, it would work better.

Let's say I have a 1" tall model kneeling at the edge atop an 8" Tower, with a 1" model standing at the base.

Under TLOS, there is no LOS at all, because the Tower itself blocks LOS between the actual models.

Under Magic Cylinder, the air up to 28mm above each model's base can see and target the air above the other model's base. Which is absurdly odd.

But what happens under height bands?

This is an example of the non-horizontal LOS issue that I consider somewhat problematic with height bands. No, it's not completely artificial, -- urban terrain has this sort of situation with some regularity.