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.

Getting TLOS can sometimes be far from easy on a crowded table making it not so quick either.

I disagree with it being easier for new players than an easy to remember always the same abstracted system. There all you need to ever remember is the size categories then it doesn't matter how you bend over the table.

Having to teach many a new player I can say for sure TLOS causes more headaches than an abstracted system does.

Glad you don't care about how GW chooses to make the models, but that is neither here nor there as it does lead to the system not being quick or easy as you need to agonize more than is needed even on set up weighing ability for them to do anything or just die to the first shots incoming.

I agree with AAE 100%.

Well if someone agrees with someone else, that's it folks, this talks over, people agree with each other. Game over man, Game over.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well if someone agrees with someone else, that's it folks, this talks over, people agree with each other. Game over man, Game over.

This is a ridiculous post and you know it. Maybe step away from the keyboard for a bit. I typed what I typed to save repeating him or myself, not in some final arbiter capacity. Don’t be so antagonistic. Try arguing a point instead of posting something that daft.

Alright I don't know what to say.

I don't think TLOS is perfect either to be honest, but there's no doubt it's the easiest system to understand and play in my mind.

I find the complaints around crouching models really disingenuous. You shouldn't blame GW for your poor terrain and/or model placement knowing the rules.

E - I've just realised this is wildly off topic. I thought we were in a discussion around TLOS and LOS. This conversation should probably move elsewhere, for those who want to continue.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Alright I don't know what to say.

I don't think TLOS is perfect either to be honest, but there's no doubt it's the easiest system to understand and play in my mind.

I find the complaints around crouching models really disingenuous. You shouldn't blame GW for your poor terrain and/or model placement knowing the rules.

E - I've just realised this is wildly off topic. I thought we were in a discussion around TLOS and LOS. This conversation should probably move elsewhere, for those who want to continue.

The rules should use the minimum amount of abstraction required to create an intuitive and sensible game and be written in such a way as to provide as few counter-intuitive situations as possible. I would contend that TLoS succeeds in being conceptually simple but fails in its intuitiveness as shown in numerous ways ITT. I'd further argue that a system that simply asks you to draw a line between model's bases and check what terrain and models that line crosses is easier to implement than one that involves crouching over a crowded table to figure out of a model can see through the legs of that Wraithlord, the window of that ruin and the small copse of trees in order to spot the raised sword on a sergeant hiding behind a wall.

I don't get the complaints about having to remember something as simple as the height stat on a model (which would likely be tied to keywords anyway, rather than a separate stat). It worked perfectly in previous editions and it's used without problems in a host of other games. I understand 8th is all about simplicity but throwing out every possible improvement to the rules because it makes the game infinitesimally more complex seems like a pretty silly approach to me. The point about the crouching/prone models is the weirdest one to me. How can you seriously say it's fine that models are basically locked into whatever position they're modelled in even when that leads to bizarre situations like a kneeling model unable to see over a sandbag while all his mates can see fine because they're standing? To me that makes no sense whatsoever.

A height stat would be really simple. For marines it would perhaps be height 2 for every infantry unit except maybe aggressors and centurions which are height 3 and the bikes would probably be the same. Old dreads and rhinos 4. Anything larger but not a superheavy 5.

Since almost everything is either 2 or 5 you really only need to remember which are 3 or 4. Would be the same for most armies.

For guard you have infantry at 2, ogryns at 3, sentinels and Chimaera at 4 and the other tanks with tower/huge cannons 5.

And then you set height values for terrain. Like barricades and sandbags at 1. Each story in a normal building is 2, a forest 4+. Would go way faster to learn than just the warlord traits for a sub faction.

You just focus on the few exceptions since they are fewer and the rest will be obvious. And most of the time it probably wont even matter if a knight is 6 or 7 if you would put different knights at different heights. Same with fliers and if you need to check up its probably not slower to open BS than to love terrain out of the way so you can put your head on the table.

Line of Sight seems to be one of those issues that has exercised certain people for decades, and yet I can't think of a single game where I've had a significant issue.

I think an abstract system is intrinsically less simple, and more contentious, than "can I see the model y/n". Banners etc seem to exercise people, but again, if you can see them, its fine.

I'm less happy with "Los by intention" - because intrinsically how you have positioned your models impacts how I will have to then position mine. Generally though it doesn't come up.

Ruins that all have holes in require conversation (i.e. "we are playing this as solid okay y/n") or a tournament pack which says how to treat the terrain.

For me the hope would be more about changing the -1 to hit rules. Either saying it can't stack more than once regardless of source, and/or making it a lot rarer by removing all the chapter tactic style applications.

I'd possibly go even further and remove the Heavy rule itself. I feel "Heavy" is there as a legacy from older editions, but as GW seem to give people ways to avoid it with almost every new release, its clear they recognise the problem. The simplest solution would just be to scrap it entirely and rebalance as necessary. I certainly think it should be scrapped on vehicles and monsters.

I can see the argument of "it creates a tactical dilemma" but this doesn't apply universally, and to some extent its a bad game. In my view "I castle up from turn 1 and just roll dice until me or my opponent is dead" should always be the wrong choice.

TLoS is a non-issue. It's a game. End of discussion.

Area terrain rules solve most of these problems. "a unit can see and be seen up to 6" within the terrain feature" and also "... benefits from a 5+ cover save". was pretty simple and the game flowed nicely.



Also, regarding pre-game negotiations: theoretically the only negotiating that should be necessary is clarity of terrain features. Past that, it should take no effort to simply get the game rolling.


Christ, I played 3rd for far too long. I'm too used to common sense gaming...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
1. What exactly is confusing about TLOS to you? How have you had an argument about something so cut and dry?

How have you NOT had an argument? 'A vehicle gets cover if it is 50% obscured' is cut and dry as far as rules go, but the implementation and figuring out what constitutes 50% is completely up to you.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
2. How can you claim a system, where we have to remember arbitrary numbers and values for units, terrain features and other items, as well as how they compare to each other, is SIMPLER than a system where I literally look at what my model can see?

They're not arbitrary. I cut a hill to be 2" tall, we know hills are 2" tall, it's intuitive that a 2" tall hill will block LOS for infantry models under 2" tall, even if they have an arm sticking out. You forget how tall a hill is? Put a tape measure to it.

And you know what? I will agree that it's not simpler as a mechanic written in paper. I will contend that it's simpler in execution in an actual game. For all the random gak that this game forces you to memorize in order to play it, knowing 'buildings block LOS, sandbags don't, measure the hill if you forget how tall it is' is such an absolutely minimal additional cognitive load, and to get rid of all the guess-and-check of avoiding LOS, the gotchas when some tiny part of a model is unintentionally exposed, and the arguments over what's 50% obscured or not, is well worth it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You’re both suggesting more complex and less intuitive systems for something that works.

Minimally more complex in rules, in return for simpler play, creating a faster play experience.

And more intuitive, unless you actually find it intuitive to assume that your soldiers slide around the battlefield forever frozen in their modeled pose, stay perfectly static while your opponent takes his turn with no simultaneity or dynamism at all, and simultaneously can shoot their guns out of the tops of their heads once LOS is established. I don't.

For all the bloat in the game as it stands I am happy to add the most infinitesimal bit of rules complexity if it reduces the amount of time spent moving models one at a time, getting down to tabletop level to make sure that they can see what they're supposed to be shooting at.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Neither of you have answered why you don’t just place models where they can see what they want to shoot. You’re moaning that your crouching dudes can’t see the opponents models when you placed them in such a position. I’m struggling to empathise with such a complaint, to be honest. Why not just place the models elsewhere?

What's the fluff justification for a Death Korps heavy weapon team not setting up in a defensive position? All their elevation mechanisms are broken?

You're telling me that the system is more intuitive, and then turning around and saying I shouldn't be doing what a heavy weapon team intuitively should be doing for gameplay purposes, does all the time in the fluff, and logically would be doing in the real world.

The idea that I have to solve this problem by swapping out one of the crewmen with a standing figure during assembly- rather than having a ruleset that acknowledges that my men are not scooting around on their knees, like Bolt Action and every other sane implementation of TLOS- is incredibly unintuitive and downright stupid.

Want your Scout Sniper to fire from a window of the building they're occupying? Too bad, he's forever stuck on one knee, unable to stand and fire from the window, but still fully mobile around the tabletop. Enjoy your punishment for more interesting modeling. That's intuitive, right?

TLOS and the whole "model's eye view" thing can be a real pain, especially on a terrain dense board, or where there's stuff between you and the models you're trying to get the LOS for.

Let alone a not uncommon issue, being visually impaired. How many 40k players wear glasses and have impaired vision. I've only got one eye and the working one works very badly, I'm mostly blind. When I learned to play in 4th, I could actually manage the terrain, guessing distances and such (no premeasuring back then) was always fraught with peril for me, and Scatter Dice!? Pfft! I always had to rely on trusting my opponent.

If they brought back sizes for area terrain and terrain/models in general, that would make the game WAY easier to play.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well if someone agrees with someone else, that's it folks, this talks over, people agree with each other. Game over man, Game over.

This is a ridiculous post and you know it. Maybe step away from the keyboard for a bit. I typed what I typed to save repeating him or myself, not in some final arbiter capacity. Don’t be so antagonistic. Try arguing a point instead of posting something that daft.

Calm down and take a breath it was meant to be a comedic post. Why so serious ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
TLoS is a non-issue. It's a game. End of discussion.

What a well reasoned, deep and engaging post, 10 out of 10. Though I disagree, end of response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
TLOS and the whole "model's eye view" thing can be a real pain, especially on a terrain dense board, or where there's stuff between you and the models you're trying to get the LOS for.

Let alone a not uncommon issue, being visually impaired. How many 40k players wear glasses and have impaired vision. I've only got one eye and the working one works very badly, I'm mostly blind. When I learned to play in 4th, I could actually manage the terrain, guessing distances and such (no premeasuring back then) was always fraught with peril for me, and Scatter Dice!? Pfft! I always had to rely on trusting my opponent.

If they brought back sizes for area terrain and terrain/models in general, that would make the game WAY easier to play.

I'm sorry about the vision thing first off, but I agree with you second off. I played using the terrain height values and it worked a dream and terrain issues were never a factor in my games. If I recall area terrain worked out much better as well. That is kind of what I'm getting at. TLOS is fine if its all you've known, but I can't be the only player that finds kneeling around trying to look through all the bits and pieces of the terrain to be a pain in the buttocks and feel distinctly less easy than it was back when the terrain flowed better and I didn't once need to spider man around my own board trying to get TLOS.

Not angry in the slightest, btw. If it was meant to be funny make it unambiguously funny, not something resembling pure snark.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Not angry in the slightest, btw. If it was meant to be funny make it unambiguously funny, not something resembling pure snark.

I'll make it the kind of funny I want, thanks much for the feedback though.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
”The TLOS system is a quick, easy and intuitive mechanic for determining LOS and what units can shoot what”.

I don't know about that. There has been some YMDC topics on it because someone found some concepts not so easy to process it back in 7th.