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.

Dudeface wrote:
...where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products ...

While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.

It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.


*The 'so long as...' bit there admittedly does some heavy lifting, but as has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, 40K's rules have never been written for hard-bitten, tournament play. It's a game that is intended to be played by like-minded people who make that social contract to work together for a better experience. They've always been fairly clear on that point.

 insaniak wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
...where as the GW method is more based around their consumable products ...

While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.

It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.


*The 'so long as...' bit there admittedly does some heavy lifting, but as has been discussed ad nauseum on these forums, 40K's rules have never been written for hard-bitten, tournament play. It's a game that is intended to be played by like-minded people who make that social contract to work together for a better experience. They've always been fairly clear on that point.

This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.

its one of those things that only ever really crops up with "TFG" type players pushing this or some other rule to absurdity and then getting it pushed back

the rules are too fragile for it, state intent when moving e.g. "I'm moving here to be out of sight of that unit but to be able to see this other one" and move on, if neither player extract the urine its very seldom an issue

where it is I find the following guideline helps

its a wargame, stuff should explode, err on the side of stuff exploding

I don't think it's remotely TFG to put a model assembled just as it comes from GW behind cover and then notice, huh, nobody can see it and it can't see anyone, that isn't right, how do we handle this?

It's something that can usually be resolved on the fly but I'd submit that if you've never, ever run into a LOS question that you had to roll off for or have a significant discussion about, you haven't played much 40K. See also: vehicle obscuration percentages.

insaniak wrote: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.

That's the entire point of the silhouette system, except in a coherent and codified way rather than 'well, like, just imagine if he was crouching and had no tactical rock, he'd totally fit behind that wall', let alone 'okay, so going by the webstore I think the official model is just a little smaller than my conversion...'

Again, you are seriously overstating the complexity of a deterministic LOS system or the cognitive load it imposes in play. The overwhelming majority of the time it's just TLOS, until you do hit those edge cases where LOS isn't immediately obvious, and then having the silhouette system resolves it quicker than trying to get to model's-eye view to figure out whether you can see the LOS-eligible hand or just the non-LOS-eligible sword.

Outside of GW this is a solved problem. But GW has some real not invented here syndrome when it comes to their design.

that gun team can go behind any wall a guardsman can see over and fire/be fired at, no issues from me

used to playing games with crouching and prone models on bases, weirdly its only ever 40k where this sort of thing seems to crop up, historical games for example just never seem to have this issue

stick models on good looking bases, mini diorama etc, no problems there

my point was the sort of person who does have a problem with it tends to be someone you will have all shades of problems with anyway

Agreed. That's also a common understanding that comes back regularly: if you play with nice people, you'll have no problem solving issues in a friendly manners. Problems come up when people start being douches.

However, while ultimately, it is up to the players to make sure everyone involves enjoys himself, this does in no way excuse bad rules or for that matter rules churn because "well ya know it's nothing you can just agree to be nice and patch every bad rule we designed" continuously, thus perpetuating a circle of writing bad, unchecked rules and suffering no backlash because of it.

GW's relative monopoly over the market makes them probably extremely confident that they can wave away any criticism because after all, people get along by themselves and keep playing (buying).

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Agreed. That's also a common understanding that comes back regularly: if you play with nice people, you'll have no problem solving issues in a friendly manners. Problems come up when people start being douches.

However, while ultimately, it is up to the players to make sure everyone involves enjoys himself, this does in no way excuse bad rules or for that matter rules churn because "well ya know it's nothing you can just agree to be nice and patch every bad rule we designed" continuously, thus perpetuating a circle of writing bad, unchecked rules and suffering no backlash because of it.

GW's relative monopoly over the market makes them probably extremely confident that they can wave away any criticism because after all, people get along by themselves and keep playing (buying).

Sure, I'll send them another Email/letter/smoke signal detailing the issues & wave my fist angerly at the in the direction of Nottingham.
Maybe they'll listen this time.
They don't seem to have paid much attention over the last 30 years, but maybe THIS time....

Meanwhile, as I await thier response, I've got games to get on with playing. Several of them 40k/AoS.

Not sure what you get mad at because that's pretty much what I said, in a less aggressive manner. Well I, not I, that's a common opinion I recalled.

I'd prefer a game written to the same level as Star fleet Battles personally, which for all the flak it sometimes gets for being able to kill your opponent with the rule book is well written, consistent and comprehensive

I suspect I may be in a minority though

40k is designed to sell models, the rules are set out to not get in the way of this (hence why "bring anything!" is a thing), fully expecting allies to be brought back at some point as well in various ways to further push this

any rule that means a new player gives up in frustration is a "bad rule" regardless of how good it is at leading to a better actual game

its never going to get better, sadly, destined to be some very nice models (and some horrible ones) with rules that are more or less an afterthought

but a game that can be a fun way to spend a few hours with friends

 insaniak wrote:
While there are any number of decisions that GW make that are clearly driven by the product, I honestly don't think that the LOS rules relying primarily on TLOS instead of defined volume is one of them. I think it's purely coming from being the simpler option, as it doesn't involve fiddling with templates or measuring anything just to figure out if you can see something.

The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.

Indeed, whenever GW comes to the fork in the road between "needless complexity" and "elegant simplicity" we know which path they choose.

Indeed, if GW wanted to keep things simple, they wouldn't change the entire rule book every three to five years.

Just having a stable system with years of feedback, FAQs and unwritten understanding of how it works would solve almost every rules problem. As someone else said a while back, does Battle Tech have any rules questions left at this point?

Battletech is interesting, similar vintage to 40k, yet take some of the really early stuff and its all recognisable in the mechanics

and its still going, various spin offs but it all integrates

and then they went for a "simplified" system with Alpha Strike and pretty much got that working out of the door as well

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.

I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"

Indeed, if GW wanted to keep things simple, they wouldn't change the entire rule book every three to five years.

I think you're confusing the company's corporate goals with those of the design studio, there.

 insaniak wrote:

I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"

Because you would internalize the idea that it's representational and not literal.

Also, GW players can estimate size and distance pretty darn well. People were sniping with Great Cannon and catapults to the quarter of an inch from across the tabletop for years.

Most (if not all) have at least one finger whose length will correspond in some way with either inches or centimeters. I guess those without, can mark their prostheses. Either way, it's not that hard to gauge height if the base is known.

 insaniak wrote:

It's far from a perfect system, in no small part because they keep changing how it works instead of refining it... but for the most part, so long as* you don't take advantage of it, it's simple and intuitive: If you can see the model, you have LOS. And it's immersive, because you're constantly putting yourself into the model's view and seeing the battlefield from their perspective. That process of checking LOS, for me, is akin to making the 'click, fwooosh!' noise when you place a flame template. It's just one of those things that enhances the gaming experience.

And then GW adds towering and 10th ed overwatch combined with fate dice, and a WK is blowing up a unit on the opponents turn. A size system removes the problem of two people having to argue what ever a model is 45% seen or 50%. In fact it is so clear you don't have to engage in talking with the other person at all. On top of that is universal. Removes the problem of "but at my store we play with first floor blocking LoS no matter how many windows it has.

Good rules stay good. Rules that require the opponent to be a good person, and do what you want AND neither of the person wanting to use a clear adventage is bound to fail and create negative expiriances for players. Especialy when playing strangers or in new places.

I don't mind edition churn as longs as they're, you know, good.

Dudeface wrote:
This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.

All it takes is one person in your group to play it exactly as written and you'll see it taken to the extreme: Whole squads vulnerable becase of the tip of a gun barrel. Tanks blown to pieces because of an antenna sticking out above a hill. And so on.

There's nothing intuative about TLOS. Being fast doesn't make it better.

The shooting phase is faster with the current line of sight rules since it is very easy to see if you have line of sight or not.

On the other hand the current line of sight rules make movement slower since you have to put much more effort in trying to hide your models so not a single chainsword or antenna is sticking out and dooming an entire squad.

If they at least added more modifiers for movement, distance or obstructions and made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit(defender can pick any model as casualty so not possible to snipe individual models) then it would actually help speed the game up since then you don't have to be so careful in your movement phase. If 1 guy sticks out a bit then it's fine. He will get some nice cover bonuses and at worst die. But right now that tip of a barrel can doom his entire squad.

It also makes terrain much more boring.

Line of sight rules, shooting modifiers, lethality, weapon ranges, model speeds and terrain rules all need to be made with each other in mind to have a good experience and good mechanics. If some parts, like line of sight, movement and weapon ranges as in modern 40k, are very generous then it forces the game to be either quite non lethal in the shooting phase or have there be a ton of line of sight blocking terrain that mitigates those factors.

You didn't need as much terrain in some of the earlier editions because models had shorter weapon ranges on a larger table. If they moved to get better shooting angles they were usually penalized quite harshly for it. Most models were also slower and if there were terrain in the way it slowed models down even more. Models in cover also got huge protection bonuses against high powered weapons compared to what they get now. In such an environment the current line of sight rules could probably work since there were other limits than just pure line of sight to make the game less lethal. But now its all about if a model can be seen or not and thus it makes effective terrain quite boring and one dimensional.

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.

I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"

I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play.

One problem may be that the Infinity system works fine but it was presented ITT without the context of the game itself and the models. In reality, it's just a system that defines height because the width of the silhouette is equal to the model's base. It makes much more sense and is much more intuitive when seen alongside the models in an actual game situation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This lines up with my experience, as a player and in a group we've never pushed TLOS into the absurdity that it get criticised for, but I understand having to have the conversation in the first place belittles the point for some people.

All it takes is one person in your group to play it exactly as written and you'll see it taken to the extreme: Whole squads vulnerable becase of the tip of a gun barrel. Tanks blown to pieces because of an antenna sticking out above a hill. And so on.

There's nothing intuative about TLOS. Being fast doesn't make it better.

Yup. Not so long ago in another thread I wrote:

Cyel wrote:
I get what you're saying. It was only after I moved from wh40k to Warmachine when it suddenly turned out that knowing and following the rules and measuring distances neatly and transparently makes you a good player and a desirable opponent and not a ruleslawyering powergamer.

Now I started playing Kill Team, and, what do you know, there are some players in the group who just misinterpret the rules and do impossible things when it comes to distances (interestingly only when it favours them) but when you play correctly they look down on you making comments on how they are casual players and leave such approach to tournament powergamers who just want to win at all cost.

and this is exactly an example of that. If playing by the rules makes me "that guy" in some of my opponents' eyes it means these are just pretty bad rules.

Slipspace wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The point is: it isn't simpler. That's the point. GW could simply things just by using a fixed set of bases and pegging those to size classes, but they don't do that.

I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"

I think you're hugely overstating the amount of mental load in this type of system. It really isn't complex at all and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even come into play.

One problem may be that the Infinity system works fine but it was presented ITT without the context of the game itself and the models. In reality, it's just a system that defines height because the width of the silhouette is equal to the model's base. It makes much more sense and is much more intuitive when seen alongside the models in an actual game situation.

Honestly Malifaux has a much easier LoS system.
That fence? Height 1. This gremlin? Height 1. This human? Height 2. The gremlin is obscured and out of LoS, the human gets partial cover. Anything Height 3 or higher gets nothing.

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

I'm with you there, I'm pretty sure this has existed in a past edition as well?

yep, from 8th- present. At least.

I skipped 6th and 7th.

 insaniak wrote:

I honestly don't follow the logic here. Fixed size classes are certainly a valid approach, but I just can't see how 'What size class is this model? What height does that correspond to? Ok, grab a tape/template and place that by the model..." is simpler than "Can I see the thing I'm looking at?"

again

In infinity, you only ever need to actually use the templates once per 10 game, and in infinity, LoS is much more complicated than in 40k.

(shooting a sniper through a car, between two bushes to hit the top of the head of a guy behind a garbage container)

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.

Karol wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Klickor wrote:

If they... made it so you could only kill the amount of models that you can see in a unit

This right here IMHO is the best change that could be made to visibility/ LoS. The fact that seeing one dude allows a player to nuke the entire unit is the most ridiculous system I can imagine. Obviously, Area of Effect weapons could have a splash range that allows hidden members of the unit to be damaged; most weapons that would be capable of doing this are already tagged with "Ignores Cover," so it's easy enough to do.

Some might argue that it can interfere with speed rolling, but I see it as viable when split fire is an option.

And it is all nice and good till your friend spends 30+ hours painting and scratch building his commander with a jet pack out of a stormcast eternal model and in his first game ever learns that having a character on a 3" string in the air means everyone can see the model and it is dead turn one. Or when , because of how GW designed the models, your squad gets wiped out, because one model in the squad has his pole weapon risen to the high of a dreadnought. Getting shot in the banner or cloak ain't much fun either. True LoS or even the one we have now, just doesn't fit a game where even elite armies run 30+ models per side. And lack of proper abstraction for armies where ranges and LoS is super crucial turns each turn in to a 45min slog, or you lose because you missed some range or potential movment with a buff, and no one likes that. Not the player and not the opponent.

Just count the model as being regular height. What do you do when sir Jumpsalot can't fit through a tunnel because he's twice as tall as he ought to be? Same thing with a crouching Wraithknight, count it as being as tall as a regular one so it can't suddenly move places the regular model cannot. A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines. On the other hand, making every model able to lower their weapon to go into tunnels and therefore necessitating stand-in bases for every player is silly as heck, unless you are proxying or using a model that is so converted it might as well be a proxy you should not need stand in bases, vision cylinders or any other kind of gak. Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad. Making dwarfs as tall as Space Marines or as tiny as Gretchin is easy to attack, why pretend it's perfect or even better?

 vict0988 wrote:

Just count the model as being regular height.

so... houserule a silhouette system?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
Part of the same reason why D12s and D20 ideas are bad.

You're gonna need to explain that one

 vict0988 wrote:
A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines.

Do you have knees and/or a waist?

Plus, if a mini can't fit, in say, a tunnel then the silouhrtte system comes in handy because you can use it instead of the mini for reference. Further point to it.

Finding points in favor of a silhouette system is easy, but it's easy to find points in favor of removing the psychic phase and all the useless psychic powers, I'm saying it's complicated because needing cylindrical tokens to stand in for your models is a hassle, it might be worthwhile to some, but it'd be a huge change, much bigger than anything 10th edition did and people complain that it changed too many things. It's possible to find points in favour of Stratagems despite a lot of people hating them. Making the perfect 40k edition isn't easy, it requires iterating and constructive criticism from fans.
Implementing D12s into 40k would require a huge amount of changes and wouldn't add much to the game.

 Altruizine wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A ruleset where a Gretchin has the height of a Gretchin, a dwarf the height of a dwarf and a Space Marine the height of a Space Marine sounds perfect for a game with Gretchin, Votann and Space Marines.

Do you have knees and/or a waist?

What a great image, Space Marines walking on their knees, squats jumping in the air so they can be shot. If you want Space Marine-sized squats put them on tactical rocks and if you want squat-sized Marines have them laying down, I don't care, it's all pie in the sky gak anyway.

The implementation of capture weight and unique abilities for every unit in 10th has been awful. Rules should first and foremost represent the fluff, secondly each unit should have a niche. Random abilities that have nothing to do with anything and randomly generated objective control numbers add nothing to the game. The game would be far better served with a handful more USR including sticky objectives and objective secured instead of this new nonsense stat and the countless nonsense abilities.