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 can't remember for sure, but have a vague recollection that the ruling to ignore antennas and the like was added in an FAQ, and that you could initially target a model so long as you could see any part of it... Fairly sure the Turn Signals on A Land Raider web comic's 'Hit him right in the heraldry' bit came from that era

Page 16 5th ed BRB
"to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit ( for body we mean it's head, torso, legs and arms) sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner, or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including it's wings and tail, even though they are technically part of the body) in these cases the model is not visible. these rules are intended to ensure models do not get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.."

The TSOLR was a joke because you could not target those things in the game. hence you rolled "crew inconvenienced" when you shot them.

 aphyon wrote:

The TSOLR was a joke because you could not target those things in the game. hence you rolled "crew inconvenienced" when you shot them.

No, it was definitely a thing when the TSoaLR bit was written. That sketch is obviously just a bit older than I remembered.

The 2nd Ed rulebook doesn't exempt any parts of the model from LOS. I don't recall what 3rd had to say about it, and can't check as my 2nd Ed books are the only ones not currently packed in boxes in the storage shed...

I'm not always as good as having a pre-game discussion as I should be, but I think it should be pretty obvious that LOS can be drawn sword-banner in 8th-10th edition unless something else was brought up before the start of the game. 9th and 10th had far fewer house rules because TOs agreed with GW to stop house ruling so much so GW could try to make their game better (failed and I think it's time for TOs to tell GW that). 8th edition was an edition where a lot of things had to be discussed because whether the house rule was in effect or not was 50/50. Then there was the house rule that everybody played with that you fast-rolled saves and were allowed to use command re-rolls on the fast-rolled saves. Ideally, you can get abbreviations to explain exactly the kind of game you want. Like what kinds of take-backsies are allowed, where are dice rolled and do any dice rolls not count (if the dice are cocked or end up under a sofa).

I had a rather uncomfortable experience not too long ago where a game was ruined by a player saying they wanted to do A, they then did B and the opponent did not notice and warn them that they were making a huge and obvious mistake, dice were rolled and while the opponent did not allow the player to try to do A instead because the dice roll for B failed even though A did not require a dice roll to do or something like that.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
For reference and bringing material:

Bolt action line of sight:

Draw from the models eyes
Ignore friendlies (not vehicules)
Infantry is seen if torsos or head is visible.
Armour is visible if hull or turret is visible. Everything else counts, in both cases.

If only details outstrecthing or "peripherical part" are visible "we assume troopers cannot see amongst the din, smoke and dust of battle".

that's true line of sight, but pretty straight forward I think.

Are tall hats or decorative struts part of the head? How about backpacks? What if the backpack is part of the torso on a Necron? Are those wings, part of the torso or is it a piece of clothing? Just like with the silly corner to corner vehicle thing, it breaks down when aliens enter the discussion. The extra bloat needed to clarify edge cases is not worth it to me, too bad if GW makes a model that is kind of crazy, if your models aren't the right size bring it up before the game and we'll come to an agreement. Oh no, the Slaanesh Primarch is bad at hiding, okay so he is balanced at a lower pts cost, no big deal. His flamboyant wings become a weakness and his low cost makes him very cost-efficient in melee.

And then your competitive-minded opponent throws a fit because your twenty year old Daemon Prince doesn't have the big bullet magnet wings of the current model and is therefore mOdElInG fOr AdVaNtAgE.

Bolt Action is the same TLOS kludge as 40K. Try Infinity for a more robust LOS system.

TLOS isn’t such a problem when there is consistency, this why I said that changing it up all the time is the worst way to do a bad system.

Because it leads to every rehash players needing to work out and rule intent in some way.
There are several ways to handle it, number system with volume for bases.
Tank hull or width of profile system for the tanks not on bases.
The more complex eldar and nekron tanks could also be given bases that are a little smaller for sleekness.

Ultimately bringing a consistency even if slightly more complex is fitting with their current philosophy of design supposedly.

Or a consistent TLOS that they keep with each edition as well as discuss it. Just acknowledging and discussing their intent and ruling on it would be a huge step forward.

 catbarf wrote:


TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

Which further dilutes the hobby out of the game, the abstraction is to simplify when done right. And allow players to put themselves into the hobby itself and make the army their own.

It should be up for GW to step up their game, not force players to seperate further in the Hobby.

Apple fox wrote:
TLOS isn’t such a problem when there is consistency, this why I said that changing it up all the time is the worst way to do a bad system.

Because it leads to every rehash players needing to work out and rule intent in some way.
There are several ways to handle it, number system with volume for bases.
Tank hull or width of profile system for the tanks not on bases.
The more complex eldar and nekron tanks could also be given bases that are a little smaller for sleekness.

Ultimately bringing a consistency even if slightly more complex is fitting with their current philosophy of design supposedly.

Or a consistent TLOS that they keep with each edition as well as discuss it. Just acknowledging and discussing their intent and ruling on it would be a huge step forward.

Completely agree no one bothers learning on account of churn because there's no stable core to anything like back in 5-7 and learning all the rules seems pointless at the speed gw updates/changes/erratas/faqs them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

Which further dilutes the hobby out of the game, the abstraction is to simplify when done right. And allow players to put themselves into the hobby itself and make the army their own.

It should be up for GW to step up their game, not force players to seperate further in the Hobby.

I agree but there is no abstraction ruleswise for my primarch with 47 meter tall wings can't physically fit into the ruin, this requires a more pragmatic physical solution, like magnetizing the wings, to even allow for an abstraction in the rules where the abstraction is pretending you didn't just rip off the wings but they folded up or something. But the problem is you'd have people use something like wobbly model syndrome to justify completely ignoring a model's size/volume so that it could be placed pretty much anywhere.

It definitely should be up to gw to fix this short of thing, but as we know the design team basically just hands rules team a model and says go, that's a big problem we see manifest at the core of a lot of gw game issues.

 insaniak wrote:
The 2nd Ed rulebook doesn't exempt any parts of the model from LOS. I don't recall what 3rd had to say about it, and can't check as my 2nd Ed books are the only ones not currently packed in boxes in the storage shed...

The 2nd ed. rules are leavened with a lot of common sense and understanding that the models are representative not perfectly-posed. In discussing cover, for example, the rules state that the models are assumed to conform themselves to it, so while there is something of a TLOS (it mentions periscopes to get a "model's eye view") there's a clear sense that banners, antennas, etc. are for decoration, not a practical target.

Moreover, 2nd had rules for models to go into "hiding," that is hugging cover so that they present no target whatsoever. Hidden models can only be engaged if they are sensed in some way, and then only with area-effect weapons (blast templates). So there was very much a sense that the rules were trying to recreate a real situation.

This is reinforced in the vehicle rules, which (for those who don't know) actually target parts of a vehicle, so one rolls to see whether a shot hit the track or hull, turret, exposed crew, etc. The rules specify that if a location is protected by sufficient cover, it can't be hit even if the vehicle is visible (the example given in a Rhino whose tracks are protected by a low wall).

Vehicle facings mattered as well, and so having a tank go "hull down" was an actual thing. Not only was it in cover, but the only viable target was the hardest part.

There was also the understanding in that edition that before the game, there should be a discussion among the players as to what counted as hard cover, obstacles, etc. This was because GW made very little scenery, so everything as assumed to be homemade and need an explanation. This usually went quickly, and did much to eliminate disputes. If there was a dispute, the old GW solution was to flip a coin or roll a die, and it worked.

The constant churn destroyed this common understanding of the rules because they have been all over the place, and GW has since embraced hyper-detailed interpretations of the various rules systems. Put simply, there is no "common culture" to fall back on. A venerable player from Rogue Trader has a completely different understanding of rules from a new 10th ed. player, and depending on when one came into the hobby, people will be all over the place.

For the Grognard generation, the rules were more simulation than abstraction, which was the natural result of them sharing the same platform with the Fantasy game. Nowadays, I have no idea what the game is supposed to be.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

So no banners, no wings, no heroic poses or other fantasy elements in your space fantasy game.

While you're at it, no kneeling models, and certainly no prone models- those cause problems for seeing over terrain. And absolutely no scenic basing that might affect the elevation either.

Just wind the clock back to 1995 with all your troops in the same duplicate standing-with-gun-to-the-chest pose on flat green bases, because the designers can't be bothered to learn anything about how LOS systems in wargames have evolved in the last thirty years.

Infinity makes it work. This isn't an insurmountable problem that requires all your models look like chess pieces in order to have a functional LOS system.

 catbarf wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


TLOS isn't abstract. It's the opposite of abstract; a hyper-literal kludge to avoid needing to actually come up with LOS rules, but which in turn causes all sorts of stupid outcomes.

And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

So no banners, no wings, no heroic poses or other fantasy elements in your space fantasy game.

While you're at it, no kneeling models, and certainly no prone models- those cause problems for seeing over terrain. And absolutely no scenic basing that might affect the elevation either.

Just wind the clock back to 1995 with all your troops in the same duplicate standing-with-gun-to-the-chest pose on flat green bases, because the designers can't be bothered to learn anything about how LOS systems in wargames have evolved in the last thirty years.

Infinity makes it work. This isn't an insurmountable problem that requires all your models look like chess pieces in order to have a functional LOS system.

Here's a pragmatic thought on model posing, you can have scenic bases like most primarchs but still have the model itself on a removeable 40mm base for gaming purposes. Horus doesn't need a staircase everywhere he goes. This is an example of pragmatic design from the ground up, this is much better than writing a rule that says "just pretend the dude who should be on 40mm who is on a 100mm scenic isn't on one, or something". Banners and wings, press fit or magnetize if its an issue, for wing could have a and b options, folded and spread for display, that would be a good example of pragmatism and someone in design and rules coming together and realizing "we're out own worse enemies here but perhaps we can make gamers and modelers both happy". As for prone models, those aren't common outside of some old metal weapons teams or sniper models. Kneeling is less of an issue, if its like 1 in 10 models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


The constant churn destroyed this common understanding of the rules because they have been all over the place, and GW has since embraced hyper-detailed interpretations of the various rules systems. Put simply, there is no "common culture" to fall back on. A venerable player from Rogue Trader has a completely different understanding of rules from a new 10th ed. player, and depending on when one came into the hobby, people will be all over the place.

For the Grognard generation, the rules were more simulation than abstraction, which was the natural result of them sharing the same platform with the Fantasy game. Nowadays, I have no idea what the game is supposed to be.

Ya it's gone further away from sim/wargame to like some bastardized card game with models.

Dudeface wrote:
Because the abstract model height is tied to base size. So if you model on a larger than normal base for diorama reasons or whatever you're now able to see over stuff etc.

Note: it could be a keyword but that'd get messy quickly.

Sounds like a made up excuse to justify the current state of things. Other games do it just fine. Old 40k did it just fine.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Because the abstract model height is tied to base size. So if you model on a larger than normal base for diorama reasons or whatever you're now able to see over stuff etc.

Note: it could be a keyword but that'd get messy quickly.

Sounds like a made up excuse to justify the current state of things. Other games do it just fine. Old 40k did it just fine.

It was an explanation to the question. Neither abstract sizes nor tlos are an ideal solution in truth. There's always going to be a weird bs interaction that comes up, either aerials sticking out to shoot at/from or huge guys who are hidden behind a random cube they're bigger than, or a shortish fella visible over the top of a tall ruin or whatever.

It's not perfect, it never will be, it's just what poison do you prefer.

Crablezworth wrote:Here's a pragmatic thought on model posing, you can have scenic bases like most primarchs but still have the model itself on a removeable 40mm base for gaming purposes. Horus doesn't need a staircase everywhere he goes. This is an example of pragmatic design from the ground up, this is much better than writing a rule that says "just pretend the dude who should be on 40mm who is on a 100mm scenic isn't on one, or something". Banners, press fit or magnetize if its an issue. As for prone, those aren't common outside of some old metal weapons teams or sniper models. Kneeling is less of an issue, if its like 1 in 10 models.

Throwing up your hands and just accepting that an entire Heavy Weapons Squad, built as intended, is incapable of seeing over a waist-high wall isn't 'pragmatism'.

It's making excuses for a crappy system. Guess how many other games have required me to make removable bases or magnetized banners just to have functional LOS mechanics.

Dudeface wrote:It was an explanation to the question. Neither abstract sizes nor tlos are an ideal solution in truth. There's always going to be a weird bs interaction that comes up, either aerials sticking out to shoot at/from or huge guys who are hidden behind a random cube they're bigger than, or a shortish fella visible over the top of a tall ruin or whatever.

It's not perfect, it never will be, it's just what poison do you prefer.

Having a codified height system combined with the base size to determine volume does still have edge cases, but at least they're things like 'sorry, your monster is actually still visible behind that wall because his footprint is not defined by his modeled pose' rather than 'sorry, your sniper is modeled prone and incapable of standing up so it's impossible for him to see out the window'.

Not to mention the latter is actively antithetical to the hobby, preventing players from deviating from official sculpts and poses lest it be considered 'modeling for advantage'.

You guys are doing that thing 40K players do where problems of 40K that have already been solved in other systems are instead universal, unsolvable obstacles that a wargamer has no choice but to accept.

Dudeface wrote:
It was an explanation to the question. Neither abstract sizes nor tlos are an ideal solution in truth. There's always going to be a weird bs interaction that comes up, either aerials sticking out to shoot at/from or huge guys who are hidden behind a random cube they're bigger than, or a shortish fella visible over the top of a tall ruin or whatever.

It's not perfect, it never will be, it's just what poison do you prefer.

Lots of other systems do this well, and 2nd worked just fine. It had other problems, but the rules for LOS were pretty clear and easy to consistently apply.

The core rules specified that for human-sized models, cover 2 inches high would totally obscure them, while those between 1-2 inches provided cover. And of course players were encouraged to discuss terrain effects prior to game play.

I will add that these were in line with other contemporaneous systems. I remember a boxed Battle Tech set that came with a periscope, so you could actually get a models' eye view.

In all cases, common sense prevailed and because it used to hit modifiers (no idea what the current system uses), you had a scaled progression of concealment.

Hidden (may not target at all)
Detected (may be targeted with template weapons, models hit only on a 4+)
Hard cover (-2 to hit)
Light cover (-1 to hit)

The conceptual discussion of cover explicitly said that models in real life would conform to terrain, so there was no question about your greater demon raising his mighty sword and spreading his vast wings while trying to hide; the assumption instead was to look at the model's body and reason whether it could curl up behind that rock or not, and how much was exposed.

Again, just like lots of other games, including WHFB.

That framework is utterly gone, and each new edition creates a new one, often totally at odds with earlier conceptions. That in turn breeds rules lawyering and complaints, and so a new edition tries some other method, with the result that it's always a new game design without any of the feedback or development a game of its age should have.

 Crablezworth wrote:


And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

hard disagree, might as well play chess if every models are gonna be modeled the same

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


And those problems arise largely from silly model poses or models with oversized decorative features (giant wings/banners) the pragmatic solution to me would be don't have those, rather than turn oneself into a pretzel adding layers of abstraction.

hard disagree, might as well play chess if every models are gonna be modeled the same

No, you're right, 40k had to die so people could model riptides doing handstands without ramification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


Throwing up your hands and just accepting that an entire Heavy Weapons Squad, built as intended, is incapable of seeing over a waist-high wall isn't 'pragmatism'.

That's not a reason to keep designing models laying in a prone position, though.

The rules, and the game, got worse so people could do silly dynamic poses on giant scenic bases while somehow expecting to benefit from a chest high wall for cover at the same time. I'm saying you can't have it both ways, design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

 Crablezworth wrote:
design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

Agree or disagree, this is a Mic-drop quote.

Well done.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Throwing up your hands and just accepting that an entire Heavy Weapons Squad, built as intended, is incapable of seeing over a waist-high wall isn't 'pragmatism'.

That's not a reason to keep designing models laying in a prone position, though.

The rules, and the game, got worse so people could do silly dynamic poses on giant scenic bases while somehow expecting to benefit from a chest high wall for cover at the same time. I'm saying you can't have it both ways, design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

Interesting opinion coming from a HH player, where the "antenna, wings weapons, etc" don't count for LOS rule exists and functions just fine.

The game was worse when you had to evaluate whether 25% of a model's body (with exception of some body parts) were covered by terrain. The rules are better now that a Captain can grab cover behind a barrier if he's infantry. It's not about whether tactical rocks make or break a unit, it's about not having to stoop down and do percentage assessment on visual obscuration which isn't something most people have trained to do or are inherently able to do and are therefore terrible at.

Are you able to see it, yes or no, is much simpler than are you able to see 70%, or 80% of the target (not counting wings, antenna, etc). Do you close one eye to prevent seeing the target in 3D, is it the flat surface area of the image painted unto your retina that you are estimating? The 5-7th edition cover rules were a mess.

How many models in the game have a prone model? Fixing that handful of models with abilities would be way easier than assigning height values to every piece of terrain and every datasheet.

Height value would either be defined by type of unit or included in the datasheet it wouldn't be so much harder to have 1 more stat.

 vict0988 wrote:
The game was worse when you had to evaluate whether 25% of a model's body (with exception of some body parts) were covered by terrain. The rules are better now that a Captain can grab cover behind a barrier if he's infantry. It's not about whether tactical rocks make or break a unit, it's about not having to stoop down and do percentage assessment on visual obscuration which isn't something most people have trained to do or are inherently able to do and are therefore terrible at.

Are you able to see it, yes or no, is much simpler than are you able to see 70%, or 80% of the target (not counting wings, antenna, etc). Do you close one eye to prevent seeing the target in 3D, is it the flat surface area of the image painted unto your retina that you are estimating? The 5-7th edition cover rules were a mess.

5th edition didn't require you to assess a percentage of the model. 4th and 5th edition just required any part of the model to be obscured. 6th edition added the percentage requirement back in.

I'll agree that the percentage version was a terrible idea, but much prefer the 5th edition approach to LOS than having models defined as a cylinder of specific height by the rules. If you're not using the model for LOS, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to be a very expensive token, as you can play just as effectively with just the base with 'Marine' written on it in sharpie, and that seems a shame. Using a model's eye view has its problems but is more immersive... and, ultimately, most of those problems go away when you're playing with like minded opponents. I started playing 40K in 1994, playing in many different groups and a couple of different countries, and in that time I could count the number of LOS disputes that weren't quickly and easily resolved on one hand with most of the fingers missing.

On paper the cylinder approach is certainly cleaner, and causes fewer problems for tournament play... but it's just not as much fun.

Your mileage may vary, obviously.

 vict0988 wrote:
The game was worse when you had to evaluate whether 25% of a model's body (with exception of some body parts) were covered by terrain. The rules are better now that a Captain can grab cover behind a barrier if he's infantry. It's not about whether tactical rocks make or break a unit, it's about not having to stoop down and do percentage assessment on visual obscuration which isn't something most people have trained to do or are inherently able to do and are therefore terrible at.

Are you able to see it, yes or no, is much simpler than are you able to see 70%, or 80% of the target (not counting wings, antenna, etc). Do you close one eye to prevent seeing the target in 3D, is it the flat surface area of the image painted unto your retina that you are estimating? The 5-7th edition cover rules were a mess.

How many models in the game have a prone model? Fixing that handful of models with abilities would be way easier than assigning height values to every piece of terrain and every datasheet.

The "percentage" requirement was generally just for things like Vehicles. Not infantry. Just sayin.

6th and 7th required a model to be at least 25% obscured to get a cover save. It wasn't just vehicles.

As I mentioned above, 4th and 5th didn't have that requirement. The model just had to be obscured by any amount.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The game was worse when you had to evaluate whether 25% of a model's body (with exception of some body parts) were covered by terrain. The rules are better now that a Captain can grab cover behind a barrier if he's infantry. It's not about whether tactical rocks make or break a unit, it's about not having to stoop down and do percentage assessment on visual obscuration which isn't something most people have trained to do or are inherently able to do and are therefore terrible at.

Are you able to see it, yes or no, is much simpler than are you able to see 70%, or 80% of the target (not counting wings, antenna, etc). Do you close one eye to prevent seeing the target in 3D, is it the flat surface area of the image painted unto your retina that you are estimating? The 5-7th edition cover rules were a mess.

How many models in the game have a prone model? Fixing that handful of models with abilities would be way easier than assigning height values to every piece of terrain and every datasheet.

The "percentage" requirement was generally just for things like Vehicles. Not infantry. Just sayin.

To be exact, in 6th, the percentage is not involve when checking LoS, it is involved when determining whether a unit benefits from cover. Just looked it up to be sure.

Edit: sorry I skipped that insaniak had precised it already

The worst part of this rule, as I still play with them, is that it's not specified what is accessories and what is body/the mini. Hence the comparison I draw to BA that uses quite a similar system but makes it works because what is taken into account is stated with literaly and, on the other hand, because it has to hit modifiers that effectively mean a hidden unit will be harder to hit. Having the best system is maybe not at GW reach for now, but at least they could define in in a precise manner. It'd be already better if you at least can easily determine what counts and what doesn't even if the overall system is not that good.

This seems to have descended into an in depth discussion about one specific game mechanic.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
design models for display or wargaming, but don't destroy a wargame so a person who treats it as a passing fad who will quit in 2 years can glue his leader character on a 160mm bases atop the corpses of better editions.

Agree or disagree, this is a Mic-drop quote.

I'd argue it's a 'mic should be forcibly removed before he embarrasses himself further' quote, but each to their own.

 dreadblade wrote:
This seems to have descended into an in depth discussion about one specific game mechanic.

But its one of 40k's interminable theocratic debates.

We should probably give the various schools of thought names - rather than talking about X edition from decades ago. I mean I'm probably in some evil heresy - but I've never really found it a problem that people can shoot banners, wings, antennae etc. The idea that the model isn't really the model, but instead is a imaginary cylinder of such and such dimensions has also always struck me as too abstract. I think such a system works better in a strictly infantry (preferably human sized) game (because almost every model occupies the same sort of space) than 40k with its every growing menagerie of weird and wonderful minis. Infinity being a good example as mentioned. (Yes there are larger models etc, but not all the time, unless things have moved on a lot in the last few years.)

But then while I have various issues with 10th, I find terrain/who can shoot what is reasonable. Except maybe towering (which, yes, competitive tournaments are increasingly working around, but this feels silly and should just be FAQed.)

Why can't things be just have numbers? Rubble hight 1. infantry hight 1. building hight 3, knight hight 4 or what ever. if the number is smaller then your hight you are visible, if it is equal, then you have cover, if it bigger then you don't see the model behind the terrain. It really doesn't require high geometry and creating 3d images to check if a model is 49% or 50% visible.

And under such a system it doesn't matter if your cannones is kneeling in prayer, standing on huge stairs or run of the mill standing on a regular base. Because all versions will have the size X and checking if something is visible or not takes seconds.

 insaniak wrote:

I'll agree that the percentage version was a terrible idea, but much prefer the 5th edition approach to LOS than having models defined as a cylinder of specific height by the rules. If you're not using the model for LOS, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to be a very expensive token, as you can play just as effectively with just the base with 'Marine' written on it in sharpie, and that seems a shame.

That's an interesting point, though I'd argue it creates issues of its own because it implies that models are locked forever in their current poses.

A model that's crouching or prone can never stand up to shoot over a wall, and a leaping model just floats around in the air, never able to crouch or take cover.


Also, on a more practical level, am I the only one who finds the whole 'model's eye view' to be a pain in the arse? I've lost count of how many times a model has had terrain, models, or other such behind it - meaning the only way to get down to the right level is to move a chunk of the board out of the way. Hardly what I'd consider an elegant system.