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.

Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.

But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.

Karol wrote:
Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.

But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

Dudeface wrote:

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.

No, because the store owner wouldn't let you play with cylinders, neither would people who bought armies. I don't see where the similarity lies here. TLoS for a game with a medicore terrain system and a large number of models is a detriment to quality of the game expiriance.
It is like, as if you tried to claim that in a game, the most important part of it, is not if the goals are the right and same size, but rather that everyone has to wear the proper shorts, socks and T-shirts. Because if they don't it breaks the immersion of watching a football game. IMO sacrificing the game quality for esthetics is just wrong.
Or if GW wants the game to be run with TLoS, then make it so it is played with 15-20 models, max 1 big thing and 1-2 medium things with infinity type density of terrain.

But GW is not going to do that, as they do want everyone to have to spend their minimum on building a 2000pts army.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.

It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?

As in literally the game aids are this:



Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?

The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.

But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

Nope. I play miniatures games. I won't even waste my time on it as a thought exercise.

Dudeface wrote:So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?

It's all an abstraction. Some abstractions are better than others. 'Core' space represents more than a bird on a 20 foot stick.

Dudeface wrote:

Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.

Disagree. Its a pragmatic solution. You can keep awesome models but minimise in-game friction. Worked a treat when I played wmh. Infinity too.

Dudeface wrote:

Karol wrote:
Not using TLoS make the game run smoother. There are fewer problems with terrain, game is faster, there are no GW modeled my dude standing on a tactical rock and now my opponent blows up my character. Especialy if he was smart and sniped the thing off and his off and his model is 1,5" shorter and safe behind same kind of terrain. There is nothing wierd in a game and abstraction, there is already a ton of them in the game starting from how fast models and "bullets" move and ending with how less devastating a direct hit from a hand held RPG is from a kick of a human sized model.

But even if having model sized didn't do that, the sole fact that it removes people being punished for modeling choices, often done by GW and not them, is a huge win.

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

Nope.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.

It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?

As in literally the game aids are this:

Spoiler:

Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?

The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.

Uh huh, and what silhouette represents what, exactly? Pragmatically speaking, as it were? And not as some silly 'internet grammar gotcha!'? When you've got a hundred of term on the board all representing different things? Dont be that guy defending 'these empty bases are primaris and these empty bases are orks

Truth is, Considering the whole damn point of this Hobby is painting and putting together the miniatures in the first place if you were to drop thse bases with shapes on them and try anc be serious, id laugh, refuse to take you seriously
pick up, laugh again and walk away.

Dudeface wrote:
So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?

Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.

It just seems daft. Again, if we assume models aren't static, things move, if it's not rational to think that dove sticking out represented the hospitalers backpack appearing overwhelming top, or her helmet, as she climbs over the wounded person on the base, the I don't se how firing at empty space because "she might be there" is any more rational really?

Personal perspective, not saying one is better or worse than the other, nor that GW are doing it right, just that the logic on display is causing a dissonance for me.

Tell me you don't have a high school level understanding of chemistry without telling me you don't have a high school level understanding of chemistry

Dudeface 811321 11586467 wrote:

Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?

The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.

Because the people who already invested in to armies, and the shop owners where people play the game, will not let someone waltz in with bottle caps glued to bases and play. I really understand the stand point you are having. And yes, the "tube" is needed when both players disagree on visibility. The same they do with TLoS. The difference between that system and TLoS is, that if GW decides that my dude should have his halabard pointing upwards, I am not getting punished, because the size of an infantry/tank/knight class thing is fixed. Problems like do I see X behind ruins are gone. No more shoting in to banners, outstreched hands, wings etc GW modeled your dudes kneeling with their sniper rifles? no problem seeing over a wall. GW decided to give your raven lord a stand with a litteral wall as a base? you are no longer being sniped from the other side of the table. Terrain no longer has to be only L shaped and higher then a knight.
Also you remove models from the game all the time. When they die, when they move. if the model physicaly leaving the table is such a big problem, then I can not even imagine how you are actualy (as in technicaly terms) you play the game.

Deadnight wrote:

Dudeface wrote:So to clarify, being able to shoot at empty space due to an imaginary cylinder is less weird that seeing a bird and firing in its general direction?

It's all an abstraction. Some abstractions are better than others. 'Core' space represents more than a bird on a 20 foot stick.

Dudeface wrote:

Honestly the justification for not using TLoS is seemingly the same justification for the outliers in cylinder world existing and being accepted.

Disagree. Its a pragmatic solution. You can keep awesome models but minimise in-game friction. Worked a treat when I played wmh. Infinity too.

These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Which all loops back to: would you play with 0 miniatures at that point hypothetically? You could very comfortably play with a stack of cylinders. Again purely a thought exercise.

No, the Silhouette system facilitates NOT needing to play with cylinders.

It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?

As in literally the game aids are this:

Spoiler:

Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?

The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.

Uh huh, and what silhouette represents what, exactly? Pragmatically speaking, as it were? And not as some silly 'internet grammar gotcha!'? When you've got a hundred of term on the board all representing different things? Dont be that guy defending 'these empty bases are primaris and these empty bases are orks

Truth is, Considering the whole damn point of this Hobby is painting and putting together the miniatures in the first place if you were to drop thse bases with shapes on them and try anc be serious, id laugh, refuse to take you seriously
pick up, laugh again and walk away.

I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary. As to what that cylinder represents? On the narrative justification sense; the potential space your mini can possibly occupy in that "game second" when someone is firing. What it represents in a practical sense is a volumetric area to make cover rules simpler to implement irrespective of the models used that is likely to be detached from the dimensions of the mini itself.

I agree that the minis are what draws people into the mini, they're important, hence when I see a method that basically makes them irrelevant for gameplay purposes and is touted as better, it seems a little odd to me.

Gamewise, Models still would be a huge benefit for referencing what unit of what type of soldiers holds what equipment. I mean, you can do it with NATO signs but this quickly gets as messy as playing with bottle caps. What's more, I'm pretty sure many people are in for the minis first. Otherwise you could solve the problem of Line of sight by playing a game such as Rossiya 1917 at divisionary level.

There's still a pragmatic use to models in the games we're talking about here.

I feel the mods looming over us ready to terminate this thread at any turn because it's no longer got anything to do with the original question by the way

One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.

Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.

Slipspace wrote:

I really can't figure out why it's so hard for people to grasp the concept of a model's base and/or type being used to determine its size.

The base and type doesn't work because there are so many varying sized models on the same sized base, and models of a given type likewise come in a huge range of different physical sizes. A separate 'Size' stat would be the only option that would work for 40K without resculpting or rebasing a huge chunk of the miniature range... at which point you're adding an additional stat to remember, for which you need to remember the height that corresponds to. That's not super-difficult, but it is additional mental space for something that proponents of the silhouette system admit is only an edge case.

Clarity in the rules is a worthy goal, but if you're adding a bunch of extra stuff for players to remember for situations that rarely actually arise, the question has to be asked whether those rules are actually necessary.

Again, you don't need a size class for every 1/4" step of model height. Swarm/man/ogre/buggy/tank/knight is plenty.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.

Despite really liking Infinity and supporting height and base stats as a mechanic, I don't like drawing sight as a line with cylinders. While I think its an improvement in the sense that you can no longer model for advantage, it's still effectively a TLOS system and results in a lot of subjective model placement and arguments. I prefer a system where models have a height stat and you assign heights to terrain as one of their properties. Larger terrain blocks LOS. It just a very clean way that lets players position their models with clear intent of LOS.

Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.

 LunarSol wrote:
Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.

The flip side of that is that if your buildings all count as solid walls anyway, then you are forcing players to play with big solid walls, regardless of how they are modeled. I'd rather have terrain that has parts you can see through, and leave the full LOS blocking for the terrain that actually blocks LOS. A good table should have a mix of both.

Dudeface wrote:


It does both? You're assuming every mini is of a fixed height and a cylinder of volume based on the base of the mini right?

As in literally the game aids are this:

Spoiler:

Why use the mini at all at that point? You could easily play without them, yes?

The fact there is "Along with this pack we include an extra piece (SX) used when you remove the miniature from the game to place the Silhouette. Attach it to the miniature base and when removed there will be no doubt of the exact location where the miniature was. Say goodbye to shady moves." on the product description makes this sound horrid, I have to remove my mini form the table to replace it with a tube to see if it was in LoS hypothetically.

Because actual minis look better than play aids, like thats not hard to grasp at all.

And the "swap the mini for the template" scenario rarely happens, only for the weirdest fething angles, usually its pretty obvious if you have LoS or not, but thats been explained multiple times on here already


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning.

bruh ..... youre reaching HARD on that one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.

what human sized model comes on a 60mm+ base? genuinely asking, unless you consider stuff smaller than 60mm to be for monstrous creatures

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning.

bruh ..... youre reaching HARD on that one

This isn't a reach at all. If the rules solely use the base and an arbitrary height, and there is no interaction with the physical model, then the physical model is irrelevant. It's only there to look pretty.

 insaniak wrote:
Coherent base sizes are never going to be a thing in 40K, because GW's current design philosophy is to make pretty models and put the base that fits on them, rather than designing the model for a specific base size. So we wind up with human-sized infantry models on monstrous creature bases because the model was designed with a bunch of scenery attached.

what human sized model comes on a 60mm+ base? genuinely asking, unless you consider stuff smaller than 60mm to be for monstrous creatures

No idea, I haven't been keeping up with GW's releases that closely. It was an impression based on the models I've seen, rather than an objective fact. There are plenty of human-sized models on 40-50mm bases, though, and in most cases they only need that size base because of extreme posing or the inclusion of tactical rubble.

 insaniak wrote:

This isn't a reach at all. If the rules solely use the base and an arbitrary height, and there is no interaction with the physical model, then the physical model is irrelevant. It's only there to look pretty.

Determining unit size and loadouts?

And yeah, we could play current 40k with cardboard cutouts from the back of the boxes if we really wanted or even just random printed pictures (poorhammer anyone?)

I'm unsure how that whole argument is pertinent when talking about silhouette systems tho? Is it supposed to be a "haha, ackhually, silhouettes dont work" ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

No idea, I haven't been keeping up with GW's releases that closely. It was an impression based on the models I've seen, rather than an objective fact. There are plenty of human-sized models on 40-50mm bases, though, and in most cases they only need that size base because of extreme posing or the inclusion of tactical rubble.

honestly, is that really a problem anyway? If GW decided that a guardsmen needed to be on a 100mm base, so be it, the model should still have that big of a footprint considering base size is already a relevant metric in the system

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Determining unit size and loadouts?

Empty bases with the weapon name written on them will serve the same purpose.

I'm unsure how that whole argument is pertinent when talking about silhouette systems tho? Is it supposed to be a "haha, ackhually, silhouettes dont work" ?

Not at all. It's simply an observation, as explained earlier, that the silhouette system makes the models irrelevant, while using TLOS means the models have an actual function beyond looking pretty. Whether or not that matters is obviously going to be a matter of personal preference.

honestly, is that really a problem anyway? If GW decided that a guardsmen needed to be on a 100mm base, so be it, the model should still have that big of a footprint considering base size is already a relevant metric in the system

For determining LOS, yes, if you're tying LOS to base size, then the size of the base is relevant, and some bases being too large is a problem, particularly when other similar models have smaller bases... If a human sized model occupies a cylinder of a specific size, then all human sized models should occupy that same sized cylinder.

Conversely, a TLOS system should also make allowances for posing, so that a model crouching down, a model standing up, and a model with a backbanner* leaping into the air off a giant pile of rubble while accompanied by a purely decorative flock of cyborg cherubs should all be treated the same, so that you don't penalise players based on how the model is sculpted or how they choose to build it.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
One quick grenade I'd like to throw into this conversation is that Star Wars Legion recently (by which i mean December) adopted a similar Silhouette system. It has two silhouettes, one for troopers on small bases and troopers on notched bases, then for vehicles you make a cylinder based on their base, and measure to the top of their hull, the size of which is to be determined at game start.

Despite really liking Infinity and supporting height and base stats as a mechanic, I don't like drawing sight as a line with cylinders. While I think its an improvement in the sense that you can no longer model for advantage, it's still effectively a TLOS system and results in a lot of subjective model placement and arguments. I prefer a system where models have a height stat and you assign heights to terrain as one of their properties. Larger terrain blocks LOS. It just a very clean way that lets players position their models with clear intent of LOS.

Simplifying LOS rules just greatly improves the ability to play with cool looking figures and terrain. You can have windows, you can have a chunk of a wall missing, you can have massive wings. Simple LOS lets you play with cool toys, where trying to make it "real" forces players to play with big solid walls and boring poses.

For what it's worth, most legion vehicle units fit this very neatly, really the only ones that come to mind where this doesn't fully work are some of the Wookie vehicles, certain speeders, and maybe the Droid AAT tank where the turret can extend a good ways away from the hull and base. Other than that, basically everything in legion fits pretty nicely on their base, and even those they fit on them enough it's not that bad of a issue.

As for terrain hight, Legion splits things into Light cover, heavy cover, and none. Generally it's up to the players to decide, but generally it's less than half, half, and none obscured respectively.

 insaniak wrote:
Not at all. It's simply an observation, as explained earlier, that the silhouette system makes the models irrelevant, while using TLOS means the models have an actual function beyond looking pretty. Whether or not that matters is obviously going to be a matter of personal preference.

Unless you are modeling for competitive advantage, that's all models are supposed to do.

Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).

All miniatures games are abstractions, and it is to GW's credit that they found a way to keep a game going for decades without every figuring out exactly what the abstraction part is.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).

There has never been a version of 40K where a model would have been able to count cover from its own base, and attempting to do so would be a fairly guaranteed way of cutting the game short.


And the six-inch spire of rock is only a bonus if the rules allow it to be so. Which I addressed previously. But even if the rules technically allow it, there's nothing forcing an opponent to play against you when you plonk a model like that on the table, so, you know, good luck with it.

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Otherwise, having a sharpshooter mounted on a six-inch spire of rock becomes a legit way to gain sniper superiority, particularly if that spire is solid stone except for a tiny gap for his rifle (which is recessed, so you can't shoot the muzzle and hit him).

There has never been a version of 40K where a model would have been able to count cover from its own base, and attempting to do so would be a fairly guaranteed way of cutting the game short.

You forgot to add the "yet." Give it time.

And the six-inch spire of rock is only a bonus if the rules allow it to be so. Which I addressed previously. But even if the rules technically allow it, there's nothing forcing an opponent to play against you when you plonk a model like that on the table, so, you know, good luck with it.

But what about a prone model?

I mean, if models matter, tean they will matter, and people will game them just like everything else.

That's why having a common understanding of size, terrain, their ability to conform to terrain, etc. is the way to go.

I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.

Which is exactly what I've been saying is the way I would prefer it to work.

The model is used as a reference for what should be visible, but players should allow some leeway for posing. Essentially you use the physical size of the model, not its pose, to determine whether or not you have LOS to it. That's how it worked back in 2nd edition, and how it has sort of worked in various other editions.

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm old enough to remember a time when jump troops modeled in ascending flight could actually "hide" because, you know, they didn't always fly like that. Sometimes they took cover.

Which is exactly what I've been saying is the way I would prefer it to work.

The model is used as a reference for what should be visible, but players should allow some leeway for posing. Essentially you use the physical size of the model, not its pose, to determine whether or not you have LOS to it. That's how it worked back in 2nd edition, and how it has sort of worked in various other editions.

If you are asking me if 2nd ed.'s LOS rules were the best, you know what my answer will be.

I think the question is whether models should be assumed to be consistent, and that edition was clear that base size mattered, as did the size class (recall the distinction between "troops" and "monstrous" critters).

The Infinity system seems intuitive, and I suspect people who know it would internalize that X unit has Y size/width elements, and tailor their shooting accordingly.

Since no one asked, our 2nd ed. group will ask before moving about certain terrain so that everyone is on the same page. We love the urban nightmare battlefields, and our rule is that models adjacent to any wall will be presumed to have broken windows/punched holes allowing them to fire from hard cover. This also puts them in LOS once they shoot, but they could start hidden.

Models an inch away from the wall, however, are out of LOS, regardless of how the building is shaped.

Now, when fighting inside the building, that depends on the structure, and we go over that during terrain setup.

Honestly, that's the time when all this can be worked out. As the terrain is set, a discussion ensues about what counts as what, and everyone is on the same page when the bolters start firing.

Trust GW to screw that up.

All this talk of a codified LoS system such as those used in many other games leading to people not using models seems like such a red herring to me. Infinity games all seem to use miniatures on the tabletop. Even WM/H, which was famous for its hordes of grey models always used the actual models to play with, at least where I'm from. You could play without the miniatures, but it just doesn't seem to happen.

Using a silhouette-style system, or a size system as 40k briefly used, allows for more creative modelling, not less. You don't have to worry if your cool conversion is going to put you at a huge disadvantage because there are bits sticking out everywhere. You don't have to worry about being accused of modelling for advantage by converting a model to be crouching or prone. I just can't understand why people think it's immersion breaking to assume a roughly human-sized model takes up the same general volume as another, but it's not immersion breaking that you can shoot the blade of a sword sticking out on a sergeant model, or the top of Dante's axe because he's apparently permanently fixed in that pose.

There are abstractions in both systems. One set of abstractions seems like a sensible modelling of reality given the constraints of the models we use. The other leads to all sorts of bizarre situations or the requirement for house rules about what counts for LoS.

Dudeface wrote:

These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.

Some level of abstraction is required, regardless.

One is better for gaming, full stop. Regardless of whether it's narrative, competitive, pick-up etc. The alternative isn't more 'immersive' either, it's just clunky.

Dudeface wrote:

I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary.
.

I think its less a case of one overrides the other and rather both are equally important. Function and form. And its not like infinity fans treat their models (or painting) with contempt - like gw, corvus belli value the 'look'. infinity's range is sublime and its aesthetics and quality are one of its main draws.

In terms of rules writing, Gw continues as they do because they don't do 'technical' writing, it's all 'flowery prose'. Gw rules, as we all know, are often awful. Corvus belli are more like privateer press than gw in that they lean towards clean, technically accurate rules.

I completely disagree that 'cylinders' makes the miniature itself 'secondary' in any sense. Abztract Cylinders support the use of miniatures when it comes to their practical use (ie gaming), they dont override or replace. Like i said above its form and function. And cb clearly love their minis. The infinity fans also love their minis. If the minis were secondary, they wouldnt give a hoot about the aesthetics/quality nor would they have the likes of angel.giraldez painting them.

While The game isn't necessarily more important than modelling/collecting, it completes the circle. Clean, sensible and intuitive rules doesnt take away from awesome minis. you need clean rules. Abstract cylinders for los help the game side of things just as much as the various tokens etc that you can drop on the board as visual aids. It's a good thing.

Exalted you nailed it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's been coming back in this topic but GW seems to terribly lack cooperation and consistancy between rules and miniatures' departments, and I'd say it has an impact on how they interact in the end, then leading to even more unstable or awkwards rules, leading to reboots...

They would really benefit from coming together and trying to work with common goals and requirements in mind.

Deadnight wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

These two are in conflict for me, having an imaginary space because it has schrodingers mini somewhere in it is no more or less pragmatic than sticking to TLoS, both are systems that require you to acknowledge dumb stuff can happen, one is likely better for competitive gaming, the other more immersive. In my opinion.

Some level of abstraction is required, regardless.

One is better for gaming, full stop. Regardless of whether it's narrative, competitive, pick-up etc. The alternative isn't more 'immersive' either, it's just clunky.

Dudeface wrote:

I'm saying if you consider LOS to be a series of wonderfully perfectly identical cylinders irrespective of the mini itself, then the mini itself is secondary to the rules functioning. GW continues as they do because the mini is inherently integral to the game functioning, with the practicalities of LOS being secondary.
.

I think its less a case of one overrides the other and rather both are equally important. Function and form. And its not like infinity fans treat their models (or painting) with contempt - like gw, corvus belli value the 'look'. infinity's range is sublime and its aesthetics and quality are one of its main draws.

In terms of rules writing, Gw continues as they do because they don't do 'technical' writing, it's all 'flowery prose'. Gw rules, as we all know, are often awful. Corvus belli are more like privateer press than gw in that they lean towards clean, technically accurate rules.

I completely disagree that 'cylinders' makes the miniature itself 'secondary' in any sense. Abztract Cylinders support the use of miniatures when it comes to their practical use (ie gaming), they dont override or replace. Like i said above its form and function. And cb clearly love their minis. The infinity fans also love their minis. If the minis were secondary, they wouldnt give a hoot about the aesthetics/quality nor would they have the likes of angel.giraldez painting them.

While The game isn't necessarily more important than modelling/collecting, it completes the circle. Clean, sensible and intuitive rules doesnt take away from awesome minis. you need clean rules. Abstract cylinders for los help the game side of things just as much as the various tokens etc that you can drop on the board as visual aids. It's a good thing.

Very well worded response, thank you. Again I agree the minis are the key to the hobby, and infinity minis are especially well sculpted. As long as people are enjoying the game and the rules aren't jarring for them then that's a fantastic outcome. I think it's also ok for it not to gel with me, there is no one perfect solution for everyone and as much as I know people can't understand the cylinders = minis are less relevant angle (I wouldn't play with just a load of cylinders either fwiw) again, I think that's fine as I do have a weird perspective on things sometimes.

I think the GW LoS rules need some improvements irrespective, regardless what form those take but I can see how the Infinity system is more gameplay driven where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products which isn't exactly a solid foundation.