40K: Does True LoS Need To Go Away?

imperial-fist-space-marine

How will 8th Edition tackle the Line of Sight Rules and the interactions with Cover?

Hey BoLS Readers, AdamHarry here with a simple question with a not-so-simple answer: Does True Line of Sight need to go away in 8th Edition? Let’s face it, while the current system does work it’s far from perfect. There has been lots of confusion, frustration and debate about this very topic. So before you say yes or no, let’s talk about the pros, cons and what could replace True Line of Sight.

warhammer-40k-logo

The Pros

True Line of Sight (TLoS) is an important part of what makes 40k cinematic. There is nothing quite like getting down and taking a look at the board from a model’s eye view. I think it’s important because it really helps draw you in to that micro-level and get absorbed in the sea of models and the narrative you’re telling. It also makes a lot of sense from a rules standpoint: Would this model be able to see that model?

bols-dp-1810Target Locked. Prepare to fire…

If you can’t very literally draw a line from one model to the other then you can’t shoot. It’s also very easy to tell if a model can do that with the use of a laser pointer (unless you opponent can bend light in which case you’ve probably got other problems).

The Cons

While getting down on the same level of a model sounds cool in theory, in practice, it’s not always easy. It’s hard to get your human-sized head in the right spot behind a 28mm model and “see what they see.” Anyone else ever been poked by a terrain piece when they did that? Yeah, I know I’m not the only one. And while using a laser pointer does end the “can you see it” argument, that also means you have to actually bring a laser pointer!

laser_eyes_16I just need to get those Laser Eye Upgrades…

Also, what about the abstraction of the game? These models represent troops running, crawling, standing and shooting – in essence they represent movement but are static. How does TLoS compensate for that? While it might make sense from a rules perspective, it doesn’t make much sense as a representation of war.

Cover Saves

Before we go into the replacements – lets also talk about the real issue of TLoS: Cover. How many times have you had to stop a game and get in a debate on what kind of save you’re getting because of the LoS? For me, it’s been a constant thing and it’s getting old. In my mind, if my opponent rolled a difficult terrain check to get into cover and the model is still in the cover, then sure – you get a save. We used to call it common sense…

But that’s not technically how the rules work for cover (which are on 37 and 77 of the BRB). Keep in mind I’m talking purely about infantry and not vehicles or even Monstrous Creatures – that’s a whole OTHER ball of wax I don’t want to dig into.

flying-hive-tyrant-wut-bout-meNope. Not going there.

Going back to the Cons – how do you represent “go to ground” with static models? If the unit went to ground should you lay the models down? But that would change their LoS profile and could alter if they could be shot at in the first place…which is probably why we don’t physically lay the models down. That part of the Cover/LoS dynamic is abstracted – why can’t we use to make things less complicated and less argument prone?

Replacing True Line of Sight

So what could we replace it with? Well Warmachine uses an abstracted system for most of it’s rules regarding LoS and Cover. Models occupy a cylinder of volume determined by their base size. If you can draw a straight line from one base to the other then you have LoS. Even terrain uses “templates”  that you can represent with paper-cut outs. It very clear if a model is in cover, fully within cover or outside of cover. There is no room for arguments to happen because it’s painfully obvious.

warmachine-volume-chart-1

I like this system for it’s simpleness but it really lacks that cinematic vibe you get with the current rules in Warhammer 40,000. Plus this really cuts down on the need to create detailed terrain pieces. The system really doesn’t encourage the hobby aspect with your board/terrain that you play on/with. This total abstraction, while super practical, just doesn’t look good.

On the flip side, I can’t really think of a game that actually uses an entirely accurate TLoS system either. If you have a good example let me know in the comments below! Most systems are some type of hybrid between total abstraction and variations on Line of Sight. These variations might uses Squares, hexes or some other measurement to “draw” line of sight – Imperial Assaults LoS rules come to mind.

liger-drawing

So What about Hybrids? Well, the current system already feels like a mix. It uses TLoS for determining if a model can see another model, but then it gets abstracted for things like cover. The down side is that the current rules leave room for debate – anytime the rules say “dice for it” that means players can (and some DO) argue for a cover save. If you’ve never had to deal with “That Guy” pulling this on you, then consider yourself lucky. It’s happened to me so many times I just stopped caring (see my reasoning above about “did you roll for difficult terrain check”). So while the current system is (I think) a hybrid, it’s still too lax to stop all arguments.

I think Deadzone has a really intuitive LoS/Cover system as well and it’s a good Hybrid example. Basically if ANY part of the model is obscured, you get a cover save (folks like to call this “Toe-In” cover). Now the cover save tops out so that goes both ways – If I can see ANY part of the model, it can be shot. That means even if it’s just a “Toe-Out” you still get a save, but you can be hit.

Deadzone Spread

Now, that could work with 40k, but you’d have to go in and rework cover in general. Would Cover be a static 6+ save then and then all the other modifiers would get added on (shrouding, stealth, going to ground, etc)? I’m not sure! But it’s a good discussion to have.

So maybe it’s not that True Line of Sight needs to go – maybe it’s the rules for cover that need a rework…

 

So what do you think? Does True Line of Sight need to go? How would you change it?

  • no.

  • Crablezworth

    true line of sight and obstruction based cover is far superior to un-flankable bubbles of cover from all sides. What point is there in out maneuvering your enemy or outflanking them or taking a higher position if los is totally abstract?

    • ZeeLobby

      Er.. cause you can get behind them and it requires maneuvering. Skills lost in the modern day I guess. Now you just come on, plop down, and start firing.

      • zeno666

        Need to maneuver and using tactics? In this game?!
        No, no, that just won’t fly 😉

    • zeno666

      I agree its much better when a Knight can shoot below Mephistons skirt to hit that Space Marine laying behind him.

  • Jared Swenson

    If you got rid of tlos, you would need to define the dimensions of every unit, model, and even terrain piece. No. I like looking down at the battle and seeing what’s going on. When you go simulated los, i lose that connection with what’s going on. It’s really not as much of an issue as people think it is, unless you are into the hyper-competitive crowd, which I am not.

    • rtheom

      Agreed. It has come up in a handful of my games, and even then, most are resolved quickly by either discussing it briefly or rolling a die to see which interpretation you’re using. I’ve never had it take up more than a few seconds of game time.

    • Valourousheart

      I agree that I like it better getting down at table level. But I can understand the argument on the other side.

      I live in Dallas and the highways here are constantly under construction. Well most of the time you can look back and see that there were 2-3 large construction vehicles that you couldn’t see before because they were blocked by a line of trees.

      But to get that same effect in 40k for a Rhino or a Land Raider, you would have to build the trees such that infantry couldn’t move through them.

      Now I don’t think that trees should block an Imperial Knight, because it is so tall. But it is frustrating that a land speeder can’t even hide behind trees.

      Then there is the other frustration about intervening models. The gap between trees in area terrain does not grant over if you are in the open on the other side of those trees. But the gap between models in a unit does grant cover to units in the open on the other side of the unit.

    • Shawn

      And you hit the nail on the head, Jared: Not an issue unles you are into the hyper-competitive crowd.

    • ZeeLobby

      Or just create LoS rules for terrain: Ruin 2″ thick, forest 3″ thick. That’s pretty easy to do.

      • Shawn

        What? House Rules? Say it isn’t so, “40k-ers hate doing that.( Yes, Sarcasam).

    • zeno666

      Yepp, that means more work for GW. So it won’t happen.

  • Hussein Alobaidi

    No, trim the fat elsewhere for 8th

  • Karru

    True LoS is one of the greatest things in 40k. In games like WarmaHordes, the fact that there is not True LoS makes the game somewhat complicated and draws it out. Considering that his happens with a few dozen models, it wouldn’t be fun to do with 100+ models in 40k. So no, True LoS is super simple and fun mechanic so keep it.

    • Karru

      Here is a lot of things that you can do instead to reduce rule bloat.

      Let’s start with the biggest ones. Changes to Flyers, Flying Monstrous Creatures, Super Heavies and Gargantuans. Many times I have just suggested to remove these from the game and every time I get a massive flood of people saying they shouldn’t be removed. Instead of continuing the pointless argument with these people, I’ve tried to find a compromise.

      Currently those things take up 10 pages of rules. 3 of them are mostly just pictures, but that is still quite a lot of rules for those unit types. Here is the solution in short, you make them just “special” versions of their original counterparts.

      Flyers become skimmers again. There are two differences though. First of all they can move up to 18″ normally, going Flat Out, they can move 18″ more. Secondly, they can as if they were stationary as long as they move 12″ or less. If they move the full 18″, they can only shoot 2 just like Skimmers would normally.

      You no longer need 6’s to hit them, they are not forced into reserves automatically and so on. This reduces the amount of rules slightly.

      Next up, Flying Monstrous Creatures. Simple changes here, they are still just Jump Monstrous Creatures, but can move up to 18″ in their movement phase. Same thing as above, makes life easier for everyone and reduces the amount of rules needed to learn slightly.

      Then the big things, Super Heavies and Gargantuans. All Super Heavies are just tougher versions of their counter versions mostly.

      They don’t ignore the damage table results any more, but they don’t apply any modifiers to it. This means you just can’t shoot at them with a Lascannon and get a lucky 6 to destroy it. This means that they can be shaken, stunned, immobilised and their weapons can be disabled. They could of course get some sort of save here, for example on a 4+ they turn the hit into a Glance.

      Shooting with them is still as it is now. They can shoot at different targets with all their weapons and are always counted as remaining stationary when moving. Of course, they can only move up to 6″ a turn. Exception is the Super Heavy Walkers that can move up to 6″ and shoot normally or move up to 12″ and only shoot with one of their Weapons.

      Gargantuans are Monstrous Creatures that can Stomp and can move up to 12″ normally. Stomping is also different in this version. It’s now a D6 (or 2D6, not sure yet) extra hits after all attacks, including those done in Initiative 1 at the models unmodified Strength but with no AP. Super Heavy Walkers also get this as well.

      This means that Gargantuans are now vulnerable to Poisoned Attacks and Sniper Shots, just like everyone else.

      All that will take about 2 pages to explain, instead of 10. It also makes the game much more balanced, as some armies can spam all those things in great numbers while others lack any meaningful way to take them down. This makes them a lot more balanced.

      Of course, there might be a lot of rules that I’ve missed regarding these guys, but this is just a rough idea. Point is to reduce rule bloat, bring balance to the game while not invalidating entire armies, like Imperial Knights.

      • Stealthbadger

        This means that Gargantuans are now vulnerable to Poisoned Attacks and Sniper Shots, just like everyone else.

        Wouldn’t that make sternguard literally the only unit SM players needs though?

        • Stealthbadger

          Actually scratch that. I shall leave this and the other comment up as testimony of my nonsense.

          I don’t really see flyers as a problem though if you ignore death from the skies.

          • Karru

            The problem with flyers comes when you start to take multiples of them. AA is expensive as F in the game right now and serves no other purpose. If I take a Stalker or Flak Missiles, they are no longer useful to me if my opponent doesn’t bring any Flyers or Skimmers, since they can only Snap Shot against ground targets.

            This leads to you never taking them, but when your opponent decides to bring 3 Hell Turkeys, suddenly you find yourself suffering greatly. You have no reliable way of bringing them down so they have free reign. Unless you bring your own flyers, the opponent goes first and both of you manage to get yours in on the second turn, then you might be able to even the odds.

            Also, these are just things to reduce the bloat in the game. Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures have so many unique rules attached to them that using can drag the game a bit. On top of that, explaining them to new players is always bit of a drag.

          • Why not just have a side board of units then.
            If your just talking about a pickup game.

          • Karru

            Again, the main focus here was to reduce rule bloat. Nothing says that GW wouldn’t be allowed to re-release Apocalypse for 8th edition with all the old rules for Flyers, Super Heavies, etc so people who liked them can use them.

            Also, I consider that List Tailoring and I personally don’t prefer that when it comes to pick up games. It’s okay to know who you are playing against and then make your list, but learning that your opponent just brought 3 flyers so you bring 1/3 their price worth of AA to completely shut them down doesn’t feel right.

            AA is expensive when you have no use for it. AA is cheap when your opponent brings a lot of Flyers.

          • I don’t agree that it’s list tailoring to just have other units to take up those points.
            As for the apocalypse book thing. That’s been one of the nice things about 7th edition. Not having to buy yet another additional set of rules while more or less still being compatible with the last release of Apocalypse. I’m sure the AA problem could easily be solved with a short conversation.
            I don’t see the rules bloat.

          • Karru

            Yeah, the unfortunate side effect for those savings is a massive cause of unbalance. Now people can bring those lovely little Knights and Wraithknights on mass to the gaming table while armies that still have to pay the Apocalypse sized points for a model that can dish out 1/3 the damage those cheaper versions can.

            The Rules Bloat comes from the fact that it’s 10 pages of rules against 2 pages of rules. First of all, the 40k battles we fight are not in large enough scale to justify “super sonic” aircraft fighting on top of it. In Epic they are perfect, in 40k, no. It makes a lot more sense that a Valkyrie or a Storm Talon are in hover mode when providing Air Support during these engagements.

            Flying things have so many rules attached to them on top of being Skimmers/Monstrous Creatures turns it into rule bloat. That’s why it should be removed from the base game.

          • These are problems I don’t encounter at all.
            The last Superheavy I aced was a Knight. it died in close combat to a Gorkanaut after charging across terrain. Oops. Gorkanaut strikes at inish2. gotcha. (Full battle report on my blog! )
            I can understand what your saying but I don’t agree.
            Does GW have to set up comp for games of a certain size in the rules? They did that before and then said, but if you want to do it a different way then just talk it out with your opponent. Which, is effectively what 7th edition is.
            I’m not saying it’s perfect.
            Meh, I need more coffee…

          • Karru

            What GW did before was limit the use of some characters by putting a point limit. This meant that if someone wanted to field them in a game less than their required amount, they would have to ask their opponent first.

            The problem now is that there are no limits. You can even bring the Unbound army if you so desire. They only thing limiting you is the point size, everything else is free reign. I can bring an Eldar list with nothing but Jetbikes, Warp Spiders and Wraithknights, let’s see how fun my opposing DE player would have. My guess would be not that much. They don’t need to ask their opponent if its okay, it’s the opponent that has to ask them if they would tone it down a bit. It’s a completely different situation.

            It creates a “standard”. For some, bringing a Knight and multiple CADs into every game is fine. Everyone does it or does something similar so it’s fine, right? Now, a new player rolls in with hits small collection of models. The other guy crushes him because he doesn’t have all that stuff to field. The image this game has right now is not good. It’s the exact opposite. On the outside it looks like great fun, but after you realise the requirements for a standard game, you suddenly start to lose interest.

          • Again I don’t agree. It seems to me that your advocating for change because you have a different relationship with your local gamers than I have with mine. You mentioned “your list” and said the other player might not have a good time. If you think they wont have a good time then why take that kind of list. Or, the other player see’s that’s what your playing and looks for another game with some one else. All because of this idea of a standard pickup game. Or, the other player has a chat with you and selects an appropriate list they may already have on hand so they feel they can at least have a reasonable showing during the game.

            I understand what your saying about new players. I get it. However, It’s really up to there area as to how they interact. If I’m planning to play the new guy, I’ll play a list at their level. And gradually step it up. I’d be glad to play a game a points below what they have collected so they can try to change up their list’s with what they have. It’s no problem. ( Orks are only 6 points each after all. )

            I’m not sure where your going with the last bit about the “image of the game” .
            If the people playing it play cut throat games then there it is. It’s completely subjective. It’s not for everyone. It doesn’t have to be.
            I think where I’m coming from is summed up with, Abusive players will be abusive regardless of what is allowed in 40K.
            It’s up to the players to decide what they want to do and then do that.
            I mentioned not playing pick up games any more. I’d think it would be easier now days though. With social media and groups for your local community. The standard is what you decide it is.

            Sorry if this is a little repetitive.
            I can tell we both have strong views on what we like and what kind of games we want. I do hope you can find a group of like mined gamers and have epic games.

          • Karru

            The difference is that in 5th edition where we didn’t have all these bs units and possibilities, I could take on a hardcore tournament list and have a close game.

            Some players like to play hardcore lists and I don’t have anything against them. They can play however they want, but if the list is too powerful that I’d have to match my list to his if I even want to have a chance, then I don’t want to play them.

            Different players like to play different ways. I like to play balanced lists with multiple different units or themed armies. Some people like to play with optimal lists, but are not necessarily highly competitive. That’s just the way they enjoy playing. If they feel like they are purposefully gimping themselves, it might lead to a bad game.

            This is why limiting all those things would be great. That way the power gap between an optimal army list and a balanced, themed list becomes a lot smaller.

            Also, my comment regarding the image of the game means that since the new players see people bringing Knights and large quantities of models into the game, they get the idea that the only way to play the game for real is to do the same. This might turn them off because they start to look at the price of those things.

          • Nemesis

            IMO as a recent returning player from 5th, I’d rather super heavies, MC’s, GMC’s and fliers remain separate to 40k.

            40k for me was more fun when there weren’t fliers and it was more boots on the ground fighting. By removing them, it allows you the OPTION of adding them via a supplement like Apocalypse.

            That way, players like me know what to expect in any given game. By including them in the core rules, it basically means I have to “put up with it” unless a gentlemans agreement is treated prior to the game.

            Apocalypse should be separate. Very much the same way Death From The Skies is separate (although fliers are still in the core rules and shouldn’t be.)

            “Hey want to play 40k with heavies fliers etc”
            “Sure, I’ll get the APoc expansion out my bag”.

          • Not to sound too rude but 40K is a gentlemans agreement.
            You should be playing with like minded people. I don’t use flyers or superheavies in every game. but they are there for me to use if I want to. By saying they shouldn’t be there, unless I buy another book, which I don’t need this particular edition, then “you” are deciding for me what I should or shouldn’t have in my standard games. the models are there GW will continue to put out rules for them and sell their kits.
            If you don’t care to use them then don’t.
            If your just returning then take your time to see what they are all about before you decide one way or the other. Play with people who don’t feel bad about accommodating your needs.
            If the goal is to have a good time every time then some communication ahead of time will certainly help.
            Also. I have no idea how you play Apoc. now day. I haven’t played a proper apocalypse game since 5th edition. We just say, hey, want to play 7 thousand point next Saturday. And then we do that.
            I have the last Apocalypse book. to many extra rules that we apparently don’t need to play, but there there if we want them.

          • Nemesis

            Your whole reply was covered when I said a pre determined Gentlemans agreement. I’m agreeing with you but want to remove the need to have to do that awkward thing where you ask if your opponent can leave his titan at home.

            I do play with likeminded people but the fact there is a rule book that states they are allowed dictates that the game is allowed to incorporate these things regardless of wether one player wants to or not and that is how it comes across in multiple communities in which I play, even when people are asked not to use them.

            Branching out from the same like minded circle of opponents is what I enjoy. What I dont enjoy is rocking up against an unfamiliar opponent without the anti air models GW wants me to buy to be able to have a good game against the kid who got 3 heldrakes for Christmas.

            40k as 2 games helps the communication. Do you want to play 40k or do you want to play 40k Apoc.

          • DaveTycho

            I think the simplest way to fix AA is have it be able to turn on and off like with the Tau.

          • Karru

            I’d still prefer if Flyers turn into skimmers in standard 40k. It makes the game much more simpler, easier to explain and balanced overall. GW can release another “Death from the Skies” expansion or even just re-release Apocalypse with those rules for people who like to use them.

            Sure your proposal is a solution, but its not reducing rules bloat.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            I much prefer being able to do things when it’s ok with my opponent to not being able to do things at all.

        • Karru

          I was about to comment on this, but I realised you understood the problem. Grav is always the answer, no need for those Hellfire Rounds.

        • Drpx

          Still need Drop Pods/Rhinos.

    • zeno666

      Indeed its better to argue about it for a couple of minutes instead.
      Bases actually meaning something is just complicated.

      • jeff white

        i am down with using the base sizes for visibility around corners and so on. i am also down for not making a tail a target, or a gun tip sticking beyond that base. but making everything into a cylinder is silly.

        • zeno666

          Didn’t you just do that?

          • jeff white

            nah. not worrying about the height cuz infantry can crouch and press up against walls and trees and so on. the base stickin out represents that model lookin around the corner to get a look at what compatriots who cannot look around the walls or past the tree line can’t see…

          • zeno666

            Ok. What about that Kind-of-important-space-marine standing behind that drednought?
            Do Dreadnoughts often lay down or kneel?

          • jeff white

            Enemy models block los … If the base is sticking out then a cover save is appropriate however I am partial to the old rule that units must target closest models unless they have some special ability or roll a LD test

          • zeno666

            Still sounds like cylinders to me. But if you don’t want them to be, sure.
            Your idea is still a lot better than the current TLoS 🙂

  • Heinz Fiction

    True line of sight made the game slower and is a constant source of dispute.
    Because in reality it is sometimes hard to impossible to determine it unless you want to smash your models and scenere with your face.

    • Aezeal

      TLOS through your own or enemy units was horrible in fantasy…

    • kingcobra668

      Or get a laser pointer at the dollar store.

      • Nathaniel Wright

        No way, that 5 dollar laser pointer will break me! Now forgive me as I buy a 157 dollar knight titan for reasons.

        • kingcobra668

          Also, its kinda silly that Adam mentions having to actually bring on as a negative. You can’t keep one in your dice pouch? Or with whatever you bring your models or other gaming aid/tools? They are incredibly small.

          • jeff white

            soon they will be molded into the sniper rifles of assassins and powered by an inductive gaming mat. little thing will get up from crouching, climb a ladder, and kneel into
            sniping position.

      • Heinz Fiction

        Good point. Smashing your scenery and models with a laser pointer will at least save your face. Still it’s obnoxious to determine wich particular model can see which particular enemy instead of just saying: “your 6 inch inside terrain so i can’t see you.

        TLOS is the dumbest invention in tabletop gaming ever.

        • Karru

          So instead of using a laser or your own eyes, it is easier to get a tape measure in there?

    • kobalt60

      If I ever played an opponent that seriously argued about TLOS in a game of little men, I might want to smash his models with my face

      • Tiernoc

        It’s better if you use HIS face for the model smashing, just FYI 😉

      • Heinz Fiction

        Well it’s not that we are drawing knifes or something but I did not have a single game without discussion about Line of sight since TLOS was introduced.
        Thats a natural thing because both players see the battlefield from different angles and checking things from the model’s perpective is not always trivial. Usually it goes like: “ok, i’ll agree you on this one if you agree me on that one”, but it still drags on the game…

  • MarcoT

    I don’t care, as long as they pick a single system. I like AoS. Seeing something matters, but covers does not. No bookkeeping like going to ground, no pre-game argeeing, no real discussions. Smooth as silk.

    Reduces the cinematic feel though, no disagreeing there, and flanking should have some sort of advantage. But in that regard I’d prefer to first see the return of whiping units out that you catch while they flee (forgot the name) and the blocking of transport exits.

    • Aezeal

      NOOOO overrunning was the most horrible mechanic in the game. Everything running on the roll of a single dice.. and that dice mostly determined on static combat results most of the time.

      • MarcoT

        O that one, no I mean where units got destroyed if their escape route crossed an enemy unit. If you managed to get a unit behind someone, that was a big deal.

        The one you mean I don’t love either, but on the other hand removing units that are alreay running… who cares.

        • Aezeal

          Was that a rule? Can’t remember using that (in fantasy).
          And running units could rally.. but the whole unit running is something I have issues with too. I like AoS system much better, from a gameplay perspective at least.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Yes, in previous editions if you had to retreat through an enemy you auto died. So let’s say an undead army could summon a unit of skeletons behind a unit they charge. They kinda auto break the enemy as they cause fear, target unit retreats and auto dies!
            40k had a similar function called cross fire. If you surrounded an enemy and they had to pass through you, they died. It became they were able to move around you or terrain if need be. Unless in the case of a transport if you surround it totally and they can not get out when it is destroyed they auto die.

          • zeno666

            Yeah and you seem to be the perfect source for comparing the two systems…

          • Aezeal

            Well I never said that. I just know that complete units getting destroyed on a single dice roll, often with only 1-2 casualties out of 30 or something… doesn’t make for good gameplay.

        • jeff white

          so right.

  • SplinterMD

    Just get a laser pointer if you can’t determine LoS, never understood why it should even be considered an issue… get one of those tiny ones that fit on a keychain and problem solved

    • CMAngelos

      Even better are ‘army painter’ line lasers they’re great for this kinda thing.

      Edit: I’m sure other companies make them too, TAP is just the one I own.

      • Lord Elpus

        Also make great pet toys. I switch mine on and the dog will chase it for ages!

    • Kbeelar

      Yeah, I’m not sure why that isn’t considered an essential tool to play the game like templates or a tape measure. Sure, I’d prefer to use the model’s perspective in a casual game but if there’s ever a dispute its over in an instant with a laser pointer. No idea why ‘actually bringing one’ is considered a con in this article.

    • Drpx

      Also, get a snow shovel if you want to play Nids.

  • I hate TLoS, I’d much rather go back to 4th (actually I like pretty much every aspect of 4th except rulebook allies and expanded detachments and formations. 4th was better than 5th, 6th, or 7th

    • Walter Vining

      3rd/4th had similar rules the worst thing about 4th was the LD check to shoot at units that were the closest to you. LOS rules were better then than 5th and beyond that I will agree with

      • Yeah, I could go either way on the target priority thing. It did make a certain kind of sense and made Ld more important

    • Drpx

      Meh. Having to play against Fish of Fury and Oldcrons every weekend for six months killed my interest in 4th.

    • petrow84

      4th was far from perfect, but I’d choose its LoS system over TLoS on any day.

  • Lord Elpus

    Old fart that I am, I remember the OLD days before Tlos, there were far less squabbling and arguments around the table.. it certainly slowed things down as folk hum and hawed over cover saves and what part of the model could be seen….

    • petrow84

      And you almost never felt like “yeah, no terrain to hide my vehicles from his gunline – again…”

  • Lion El’ Jonson

    Doesn’t matter when ya got Nuncio vox’s on every unit lol.

    ….helps ease the arguments with my Medusas

  • euansmith

    I’ve not been a fan of TLoS since it poked its head over the parapet back in 5th Edtion. A cynical reading of its introduction would be that it was brought in to encourage players to purchase more GW terrain.

    I don’t see that there is any loss of tactical nuance with using abstracted cover. You still need to flank and enfilade targets without TLoS.

    If the target is in a patch of area cover, it is assumed to be in area cover from any angle. If the target is relying on a linear obstacle or a building for cover, you can still sneak around the back and negate their cover save.

    What abstract cover can do, I think, is reduce the micromanagement aspects of miniature placement; where you have to worry that, finishing a minis movement in such and such a position, will allow them to be sniped out of the unit by TLoS shenanigans; like a lascannon hitting them through a small hole in a wall.

    I know some people like fretting over millimeter perfect placement of figures, but it has never appealed to me. Different strokes for different folks.

    I feel that TLoS places limits on cool poses and basing, as going to town on a mini can make it difficult to hide them from sight.

    It is not as if TLoS is somehow more “realistic” than abstract line of sight. In the “real” world, the troops would be crouching and ducking, not standing up, boltgun at port arms. Also the air would be full of drifting smoke. Real ruins and clumps of trees ware far more complex and difficult to see through than any terrain piece. Also the world simply is not a flat tabletop with the occasional lump of LoS blocking terrain. tn the real world even “open terrain” is full of rises and dips that can provide effective cover to infantry and even vehicles (I know this from trying to spot the enemy in ARMA 3).

    • It’s been forever now but I remember really enjoying 5th edition terrain rules. My bigest issue with 7th is the lack of terrain rules, that is I don’t find them to be very good rules. I really thing some things need to be abstract to make for a good table top game. Woods and other area terrain for sure. I can see ruins being true los, I guess. I find that easier to deal with then a base with “three trees on it”. which is silly. My own is fixed. My trees don’t move from their bases. and everything is leafy, it’s suppose to be a dense jungle. We tend to use a lot of terrain regardless of which armies we are playing. It’s kinda funny, at this point I’m surprised we don’t use more terrain rules from older editions in my group, we more or less started playing as a group in 3rd edition.

      • Shawn

        I loved the mysterious terrain rules in 6th. It add a level of mystery and spice to the game. I mean, after all, with billions of worlds in the galaxy, there’s bound to be a war where the forest or the river fights back!

        • I took a long brake from the end of 5th to nearly the end of 6th. I’d only played a handful of games before 7th came out.
          We use the mysterious objectives in out games. Sadly I don’t know for sure if they’ve made an impact. I remember the excitement at rolling one or another in a good spot on the table. But I can’t say after that if we remembered to apply it. haha.
          We’ll have to be more mindful of them.

          • Shawn

            Yeah, I’d forget sometimes too. I think that stems from “edition fatigue”. GW seems to have a habit of arbitrarily adding/removing rules that no one is sure what is what anymore, so when rule gets mentioned/used they forget to apply it, or add a rule that no longer exists.

          • It kinda makes me thing about making some cards or something to set next to anything using those rules. Anything useful to help get the full effect for a good game.
            I page marked my 6th edition rule book. for faster referencing. Not every chapter but a bunch of them.
            Rules fatigue is real!

          • Shawn

            That’s not a bad idea, Steve. They have cards for psyker spells, cards for chapter tactics, and faction-based maelstrom cards. Why not cards for mysterious terrain and mysterious objectives. Or, how’s this: cards for mysterious ruins/wreckage? Maybe there’s a monster hiding under that ancient wreck of a rhino, or what you thought was just a ruined building is possessed by Chaos and trying to eat you so it can regrow!

          • I could see that. terrain effects and “random encounters”. Just as long as it’s playable. So they’ll have to be something that can be dealt with fairly quickly. I can see traps and mines for a city fight and plants and animals for a jungle. (Maybe quakes and storms messing up troop actions, or just hindering them a little some how.)
            I like the idea. Maybe set it up so each player draws a card, like the old strategy cards, to use on the other player’s army/units. Just to keep it easy to play.
            Too much going on gets some players worked up. haha.

          • Shawn

            I’m relatively new to 40k Steve (tail end of 5th ed), so O don’ tknow anything about the old strategy cards. What were they?

          • During second edition they were part of the game. A little like war lord traits. A little like events. You have a stack of cards and , we used to draw one for ever 500 points. One might let you set up a unit in hiding further up the table, Or maybe you gain a strafing run you can use later. Typically we’d keep these secret until we used them. There were lots of cards. One was even banned by GW! “what were we thinking!” they said in the white dwarf. Ha!

          • Shawn

            Now that’s funny. You don’t still have those cards, or know where I can get a copy do you? That would add a great element of fun, I think, even for this edition.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Indeed. It seems weird to me, that in a game where everything is abstracted the line of sight rules should be the exception.

    • Shawn

      I don’t really have an issue with true line of sight. Now, I didn’t start playing until the tail end of 5th and I haven’t had any real issues with it. Before that I played warmachine, and had more disagreements about line of sight in that game than I have in 40k. I think cover saves need to be reworked, and jink made it’s own kind of save. I really think that it’s stupid that the Tau can ignore jink when there is no real obstacles involved.

    • zeno666

      Its also quite silly, and boring, to imagine the models not moving around so you just can’t take those pot shots through a 3mm hole between a models weapon and armour.

      • euansmith

        Apparently in 40k, they revived the ancient tradition of the Mannequin Challenge. Everyone rushes in to position and then freezes and holds their pose for five minutes. 😉

        • zeno666

          LoL! That actually explains a lot 😉

  • Ryan Smyth

    i find the TLoS very nice cinematic and fun.
    but my main complain is mixing it with cover saves.

    cover saves in 40k are not cinematic or logic. (you can get a cover save if you’re on the base of a ruin). and true TLoS for vehicules.

    something is weird.

    if you keep the TLOS, the covers should not be a save for the target but making the shooting harder.
    if you keep the cover saves, the TLoS have to change as well.

  • The issue is you mentioned a bunch of other crap that needs to go away.

    Difficult terrain checks, shrouding, stealth, gone to ground, all that crap needs to get merged into a single rule. Call it what you like but it grants this one effect (+1 cover, for instance).

    TLoS is part of what bloats this magnificent beast down, but there’s a lot tied to it.

  • SilentPony

    The problem with the Warmachine LOS is the models themselves are bigger than the bases. So its the bizarre situation were you’re like “Ha, I can see your shoulder so I have LOS” “Yes, but can you see my feet?” “No.” “Then no line of sight. You have to be able to see my feet! That’s the rules!”

    GW’s rules are imperfect, and they really need to do away with the dubilcates like rule X gives you rule Y, and Rule Y gives you Rules X and Z. Just have the unit get Rules X/Z and save 4 pages in the rulebook. But its still a better, more thought out system. Simple doesn’t always mean better.

    • kremmet

      That’s…not how Warmachine works. At all. In Warmachine, you draw a cylinder up from the base that forms the volume that the model is considered to be occupying at all times. It has nothing to do with any part of the model because using the model is both bad for the verisimilitude and the game play as those models should be in motion, but aren’t. The cylinder represents the area that model will *always* occupy which allows for a better approach in terms of suspension of disbelief and a much cleaner rules system. A side benefit, and one GW games would especially benefit from, is that it allows you to convert your models however you’d wish without any worry about it impacting game play which is something more 40k players should be able to get behind.

    • Frank

      Look at the image they used in the article again. In WM, you measure from base to base, but each model has a set height and volume based on said base size. Their official template sets even have the heights measured out on the side so you can quickly check this.

      • SilentPony

        But what happens when the model is larger than the base? All of the models shown exceed the cylinder drawn. What then? I see your hands, Mr. Huge Base, how is that not line of sight?
        I see the top of your pole, Ms. Medium. Why can I shoot you?

        That’s the thing with GW. If you can see the model, which not to put too fine a point on, is what you’re aiming for, not the base of the model, then why can’t you shoot it?
        Seeing the base is worthless.
        Otherwise you get those bullsh*t situations where the wolf lord on a thunderwolf is 95% off the base, because its jumping or whatever, and because its model-to-model contact for charge, it gets an extra 4+ inches, but because you need to see the base for shooting, oh look at that, its in cover! How nice!

        Never EVER underestimate the Tournament player to be the absolute worst at rules lawyering. The tighter and more rigid the rules, the better.

        • Frank

          How big the model is on the base is irrelevant in WM. Each base size has a predetermined volume. I see you complaining about modeling minis to your advantage. Well, that doesn’t happen in WM. The only thing that matters for measurements is the base. Modeling a miniature leaping forward is purely for aesthetics. That’s why the game is so great competitively. You can’t do BS stuff while assembling your miniatures to gain an in-game benefit.

          Honestly, this is the system that a lot of other games are going with these days because it’s just plain easier. Infinity even dumped TLoS for the silhouette system to give their sculptors and hobbyists more freedom to model their minis however they want without it affecting gameplay. No more disputes over LoS, no more cheesy ways of assembling your minis to gain an advantage.

        • euansmith

          That point is an issue I have with TLoS, that it penalises people for making dramatic minis and promotes modelling your minis to present the smallest profile possible.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Just make terrain simpler.

    Three types of terrain: Area, Obstructions and Buildings.

    Area terrain would be forests and ruins (and other terrain with a base). Buildings would be houses, fortifications and etc. Obstructions would be walls, fences, etc., as well as the outer edges of a building.

    Soft cover reduces the shooter’s BS by 1, hard cover reduces by 2. A roll of 6 always hits, a roll of 1 always misses.

    Half the unit + 1 must be in/behind cover to benefit from it. Wounds must be allocated to models outside of cover (relative to the attacking unit’s perspective) first, otherwise the controlling player picks which models suffer the wounds and pulls models accordingly.

    • Graham Bartram

      Sounds like a fair start to me. I’ve argued cover should effect BS and armour/AP should just be Toughness/to wound adjustment for a long time now. Point blank (2″ or less) should auto hit anything stationary too. Rolling to hit a building at point blank and missing is pretty silly IMHO. BS should also be effected by speed (of firer and target) and by the size of the target too.

      • Karru

        Or not, because this is 40k and not Fantasy. We already have lots of rules to worry about, having to calculate, measure and look at dozen or so charts to see how well my units hit and wound would make the make extremely confusing.

        This is not Fantasy, where Shooting, Cover and “Large Models” were much more rare and didn’t come up every game. Some armies didn’t even have shooting in any major way, Warriors of Chaos for example.

        Now transfer that to 40k where pretty much every single unit has a ranged weapon. Having played Empire during 7th edition and sometimes brining an entire Gunline army, it could get a tad confusing at times. Measuring if I was within half range, if the opponent was in cover, was it a large model and then calculating the required result took a lot of time to get a hang off.

        So no, 40k doesn’t support that system well at all.

        • Graham Bartram

          Why would cover adjusting BS do this? We would all know the adjustment easy enough and we just avoided needing separate cover saves. Why would armour/AP being just a Toughness/to wound adjustment do this? With armour and toughness reduced to one stat along with strength and AP we have a lot less chart checking, not more. Point blank auto-hits just speed the game up. A -1 BS for the firer if the target is running/combat speed or -2 at cruising speed isn’t difficult, neither is a +1 or +2 BS bonus for shooting at very bulky or monstrous creatures.
          I would note here too that I would not give a bonus to firing at models that are just “bulky” as they are too common. You see what I did there? I just moved the post as to what was “large” as this is a relative term to the game. As this is 40K “large” means “larger than normal for this game” and not “larger than normal for a game of fantasy”.

          • Karru

            Are you saying that 40k should take the awful wounding system from AoS? I am not sure what you mean by those changes, can you explain it a bit better?

            Strength vs Toughness needs to stay. I already see what it did to AoS and I don’t want that to happen to 40k.

            Now Armour Saves and AP could change. Something we can port over from AoS is the Rending System, but it should be more brutal. Plasma Gun would be -4 Rending, Autocannons would be -2 for example. The idea is to make cover matter for other armies. Sure, Space Marine or Terminator can still stand in the open and soak up Lasguns and Shootas, but once the Lootas our Autocannons turn around, it’ll be a completely different story.

            This forces people to use cover where they normally didn’t. Deathstars stomping across the field with 2+/3++/5+FNP re-rollable saves suddenly finds itself taking a lot of damage when simple Autocannons start shooting at them. Of course, there are other changes to the game that needs to be done before Deathstarts would actually suffer greatly, but I already made my comment about that to Red_Five_Standing_By

    • Karru

      I’d prefer if Cover didn’t effect BS and instead still gives the save. Armies that rely on it, Guard, Orks and Tyranids for example would simply die faster than they do now. That system only help armies that don’t need cover while those that need it will suffer insane amounts. Lootas hitting everything on a 6, same thing with Shootas. Meanwhile that unit of Lootas die on a singe shooting phase from a unit of Tactical Marines thanks to no save.

      It works in games like Fantasy, where shooting isn’t the main focus and is “rare”. Empire Handgunners or Crossbowmen could wither down a unit of Boys running towards them, but there is still quite an army still stomping towards them. In 40k, those Orks are dead long before they get to the Space Marine lines, thanks to lack of saves. Even if you play with lots of LoS blocking terrain, you still have to be balanced with it and make sure that there are lines of fire through the board. At some point those Orks have to come to LoS and then they just melt. Tau would have a field day in that system as well. Army just focusing on shooting and increasing BS through Marker Lights? Cover system that doesn’t actually provide Cover? Hellllloooo majority 5+ save armies!

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        20 Bolter Shots at a squad of Ork Boyz, the Boyz have 4+ Cover. 13.333 hits, 6.677 wounds, 3.33 wounds taken.

        20 Bolter shots firing at a squad of Boyz in the open where the Orks have Hard Cover in my system (so -2 to the Marines’s BS). 6.667 hits. 3.33 wounds, 3.33 wounds taken.

        20 Bolter Shots at a squad of Ork Boyz, the Boyz have 5+ Cover. 13.333 hits, 6.677 wounds, 3.33 wounds taken.

        20 Bolter shots firing at a squad of Boyz in the open where the Orks have Soft Cover in my system (so -1 to the Marines’s BS). 10 hits. 5 wounds, 5 wounds taken.

        of course I would also like to eliminate the AP system and use a simpler rend system, like AoS, subtracts a number from your save. So if a Marine gets hit with a Lascannon, he is likely getting a -3 to his Save (so he would have a 6+ save rather than a 3+).

        The game would need to be reworked to accommodate this, especially with armies that manipulate their BS and/or the saves (like Tau).

        • Karru

          I do agree that the AP system should change into Rending system from AoS. I’d prefer more brutal version, like Plasma Guns being -4 to save and Autocannons would be -2 and so on. Basically a system where you’d have to rely on cover saves instead of your armour saves, even if you are a Space Marine. Basic weapons like Bolters, Lasguns and so on would be AP 0/-1 at most.

          In this system the Cover Save is much better than the reduction to BS.

          40k is fighting in the far future, so shooting should be the main focus of the game. It should be devastating if you are caught out in the open by heavy weapons. Autocannons ripping apart Tactical Squads, Heavy Bolters actually damaging Wraith Constructs.

          We have multiple problems in 40k where people make 2+ re-rollable save units extremely easily. AP2 weapons are pretty rare and expensive unless you are a Space Marine, so those units are extremely effective. They just walk across the field or drop in right amidst your army. This should never happen in any game that takes place in the far future. That unit should be ripped apart if you turn your heavier weapons against it.

          Of course, it’s not the save that causes most problems. I believe that Invulnerable save should be counted as a FNP type save. A Special Rule that you are allowed to take instead of your regular save. You can’t take both FNP and Invulnerable Save. The difference is that Invulnerable Saves can be taken vast majority of the time, while FNP saves can be taken only when the attack isn’t twice the toughness.

          Also, it would work like this. If you take a hit from a bolter and it goes through your Armour, you can take either one, FNP or Invulnerable. If you take a hit from a weapon that goes through your armour, you can make your FNP or Invulnerable save. If the opponent shoots with a weapon that is twice your toughness in strength, then you can only take your Armour Save, if possible, and Invulnerable save.

          This is another system where the old cover save system would be better.

    • AdeptusAstartes

      You lost me at soft cover – it’s not 1994, and we’re not playing historical!

      Drawing line of sight to model over area terrain = save (notionally 4+)

      Drawing line of sight over obstruction = save (notionally 5+)

      As all static models represent models in motion, so all terrain represents obstructions – neither is literal. So if you like modelling then make your terrain fancy-dan, everything can still see through it because it is figurative, not literal.

      Only solid objects block line of sight, and only then if you’re fully obscured behind it. The edge of a base represents a head poking around a corner for a cheeky look – BANG, head fall off, next guy not so cheeky.

      It’s the 41st Millennium, you can see everything, and everything can see you – it’s just the flight of the projectile that’s important!

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        The difference between hard and soft cover is no different than a Woodland giving you 5+ cover and a Ruin giving you 4+.

        There is a big differnece between an ork fence built with whatever they can find and a sturdy Imperial rockcrete wall.

        Drawing line of sight to individual models means we’re back to rolling attacks on at a time because one guy is tanking the hits out of cover and the guys behind him are in cover.

        • AdeptusAstartes

          Okay, so how dense is the woodland? 3 trees and a bush, like the literal model, or redwood 3ft thick trunks, stop a tank round, as the model figuratively represents?

          And how much of your ruin is left after the bombing? London WW1 zeppelin damage, or Caen Allied flatten it bombing?

          The rules set a general standard, you can accept it, or agree variations with your opponent based on your table terrain. For me it wouldn’t matter, you’re moving a distance away behind an obstruction – I’m going to find it hard to hit you, so the rules offer you a better chance of surviving. As the americans have discovered, if my gun is big enough, it doesn’t matter what you stand behind! The projectile will kill you, or the thing the projectile blows at you will kill you!

          And the wound pool works just as well with this terrain mechanic, so allocate to the nearest, and maybe bring back elective target selection if you’re uncomfortable with it – then the guys in the open will really tank it! But that’s the firer’s choice, so where’s the harm.

        • AdeptusAstartes

          I should add – I don’t see this cover save as an invun, it would be equivalent to an armour save, so low AP is still going to blow big holes in terrain and trooper alike!

  • “which is probably why we don’t physically lay the models down”
    Nope, we don’t lay them down due to damaging the paintjob.

    • Graham Bartram

      Damn right,

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      They make sealers for a reason 🙂

      • They do. But it still doesn’t prevent every kind of damage. Dunno ’bout you, but my paintjobs are too time-consuming to risk laying down miniatures 😉

  • Sleeplessknight

    You can go down and look at your models eye view at any time. I’d rather not be forced to do it when I don’t want to.

    True line of sight is a pain in the butt. It’s consistently the most common instigator of players arguing with one another. It also slows down the pace of the game.

  • Astmeister

    Basically euansmith said all of it already.
    I also think that the old Warhammer Fantasy editions without TLOS and 40k before TLOS was much more clear and simply easier. Abstraction is good. Just use the base size and the unit type to determine if someone can be seen.

  • kingcobra668

    Personally, I would like to see people that want a simple rules system just leaving and playing another game.
    I’ve been playing since RT, I don’t need or want simple rules.

    • Defenestratus

      Seconded!

      • kingcobra668

        Awesome username, btw!

    • Karru

      It’s good to see that there are people that realise 40k shouldn’t be simple. People who want a simple table top game produced by GW, play AoS. Leave 40k alone.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Complexity is not the same as rules bloat

        • Karru

          Of course it isn’t, but there is a massive difference between reducing rules bloat and killing a game.

          If 40k becomes AoS in Space, it kills the game. It stops being 40k altogether. It’s no longer unique or different, it’s just AoS with different models. That is not good in any way. I don’t understand why people can’t see that.

          A good company would want people to play as many of their games as possible. Best way to accomplish this is to make them different enough to get people interested in both. This way they have to get rules and possible supplements for both systems on top of their armies. If 40k goes AoS, there is no longer any major reason why people should play one or the other if they already have committed to one of the games. It’s just waste of money, your experience won’t change at all. It’s just the same super simple game with no character between units. Massive grey blob fighting another slightly different shade of grey blob.

      • Admiral Raptor

        It’s going to be gutted, and the result will be the best edition since 3rd. It’s the only way 40k will survive.

        • Karru

          If they go AoS route, 40k will die. Veterans will go away on mass and play older editions or what would be 40k version of 9th age. No more people promoting your latest game, less sales for GW.

          I just can’t understand why people want to turn 40k into AoS. You already have AoS, why do you need to destroy 40k? “I want balance and reduce rules bloat!”, I hear you say. No you don’t, if you wanted that you’d look for ways to actually do it and not destroy 40k.

          I have made MULTIPLE suggestions on how to balance out the game, all very effective, but still people believe it is best to make 40k just AoS in Space.

    • Admiral Raptor

      The market has passed you by. Nowadays people want fast, fun, easy to learn, hard to master games. Not enough people want to spend 4+ hours on a single game. Especially one so bloated that it requires near constant rules referencing and a library worth of source books to play.

      • kingcobra668

        Then simply go play those games that better appeal to you.

    • Drpx

      And then the GW stores close, the indies stop carrying, and only when your immediate circle stops playing do you scratch your head and wonder where it all went.

      • kingcobra668

        K.

        • Drpx

          K.

  • Sure

    They had an abstracted system (4th ed.). True LOS came in with 5th. Havn’t met anyone who doesn’t think it wasn’t an improvement. Yoor gripes with LOS seem to be that you can’t get along with others and you don’t like moving, not the gameplay.

  • DrunkCorgi

    I like how Infinity does it, though it wouldn’t work well for 40k; games would take forever to complete.

    When a figure moves, it can be shot at at any point during its path. That means ending in cover doesn’t help a figure until after it arrives, rather than allowing figures to “teleport” from one cover location to another.

    It also uses a template system based on a size characteristic for each model. You don’t need it frequently, but it’s nice not to miss a chance to shoot because the figure is sculpted kneeling, or is always a target because of a big hat or pointing arm.

    • kremmet

      That wouldn’t work at all for 40k given that it doesn’t have a reactive phase to anything but charging. Furthermore, that rule has little to do with LoS which in Infinity is standardized silhouettes.

  • frankelee

    True line of sight is amateur game design at its finest.

    • euansmith

      I agree. Others do not. Still we’ll all see what GW rolls out for 8th 😉

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Bloody cop-out it is.

  • silashand

    True Line of Stupid as I prefer to call it. Sight in 40K is in no way representative of how LoS should work on a battlefield, nor in a game. For all the complaints of abstraction, TLoS does exactly that by ignoring factors such as light, shadow, underbrush, etc. IMO it is a delusion to think it is any more “realistic” or “cinematic” than abstracting it more appropriately.

    • euansmith

      It will always remain True Line of $hite to me 😉

  • cuda1179

    True line of Sight has some advantages, however, when it comes to certain kinds of terrain, like forests, an abstract area terrain is MUCH better. If you ever model a forest to look “real” it would be impossible to get models into or out of it. For these situations area terrain needs to make a return.

  • Nyyppä

    Nope, but they need to define the point from which it is drawn.

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    for what its worth, firstly lets make cover modify to-hit rolls rather than a save. Would make armour worth something again. Soft cover/intervening models -1, hard cover -2, fortified cover -3. Gone to ground adds an extra -1. Sixes always hit.

    I think should keep TLOS for targeting purposes, ie you need to be able to see a member of the unit to shoot at it, EXCEPT that you should be able to see into but not through cover like woods or ruins to target infantry. You could still target vehicles/monstrous creatures etc if you could see them with TLOS but they’d benefit from a minus to hit them.

    This would the game far more tactical and instantly make all those ruins into decent line of sight blockers and make infantry more valuable.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      So basically a mix of Warmachine and Bolt Action. I can get behind that.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      I would add a -1 modifier to units shooting out of terrain, to make the cost/benefit analysis for what you want to do with a unit more interesting. Stay in cover and be safer but less accurate or jump out of cover and be more vulnerable but also be more precise.

  • Adam Poultney

    Solution: 4+ cover to anything in cover that is about a quarter obscured more… And always bring a laser pointer, which GW should sell for just this purpose!

    • EmperorOfMankind

      4+ is too much for everything though.

  • piglette

    GW should make modular terrain pieces that perfectly fit X number of models in them. They then can make the rules require the use of only these terrain pieces and make more money 🙂

  • Admiral Raptor

    Cover needs to be a hit modifier and not a save. Cover saves are nonsensical and certainly not cinematic. I’d like to see cover done in the old WHFB style where light cover gave a -1 to hit and hard cover gave a -2. That’s all cover needs to be.

    • V0iddrgn

      I agree 100%. I’d also go so far as to only grant Bikes and Jetbikes “cover” if they turbo-boosted in their previous turn, removing Jink from the game entirely.

  • Frank

    I greatly prefer the way Warmachine, Malifaux, and Infinity handle LoS. In those games, models have a set height or volume value, and their official template sets have measuring tools to quickly figure this out. The base and base size are all that really matter in those games when it comes to measurements. It’s a nice, abstract concept that makes LoS simple and quick to determine, and it’s a big part of what makes those games so tournament friendly.

    This abstract system also allows your much more freedom from the hobby aspect. You don’t have to worry about modeling your minis in specific ways because it could affect LoS in games. As someone who likes to go crazy with making bases, this is a pretty big plus.

  • Ray Lairmore

    In my area at least warmahords boards are boring and flat because you don’t need good terrain because its not t-los. 40k rules forces (ish) players to make a map that looks better because it matters. that’s what does it for me.

    • Frank

      We generally play WM with 2D terrain too. It’s less about the way the LoS rules work and more about getting as accurate a measurement as possible. WM is one of those games were getting accurate measurements can literally win or lose games, and 3D terrain makes that difficult.

      Then again, this is a very competitive meta.

  • jeff white

    difficult terrain and cover are not the same things… some things provide cover and do not impede movement.
    tlos should be model based and simulation strengthening.
    toe-in works for infantry skirmish, but not gargantuan creatures and vehicles.
    just commit to “realism” and play fewer points on larger tables with smarter terrain.
    if you want craters, build them from 2″ foam and make craters.

  • Spacefrisian

    No TLOS should stay, i remember the nitpicking of some very annoying players before that was introduced who would claim that i couldnt see there precious Hammerhead cause the flate part of a terrainpiece was in between my model and his.

    Cover is a different story, and that should be made more clear i think…vid Batreps tend to invent the 6+ cover save for some terrain, even though that doesnt exist in the game for said terrain piece.

    Some logic should be applied.

  • Deacon Ix

    I think this is skirting the real issue – is cover really worth it? In the meta I play in it is mostly MEQ so a 4 up generally does nothing, (a couple of us where chatting and agreed that basically if a weapon doesn’t have AP3 or better then we basically write it off… that is how bad it as got) I jumped from 2nd to 6th/7th and the first couple of games I was going from cover to cover until it twigged that IT DIDN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE (unless you could completely hide).
    Basically I’m a fan of multiple saves and save modifiers.

  • Rainthezangoose

    True Line of Sight is COOL, and i love it. But at the end of the day you are rewarding neckbeardy cheese types who would convert all there models to be on their knees. Bet someone somewhere went to tornement with all their guard models on these : http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65f79db4ba8ccb2b70a334fed872baf2df888b73c129ec2bbd7c5adefcd304d2.jpg

  • AX_472

    you missed out the only real problem with TLoS, models with scenic bases. i have an army of harlequins and recently bought execution force, all the harli’s and noteably the calledus stand on things, rocks and such. these increase the models height significantly. The calledus for instance will find it impossible to be in cover unless its behind a building. With the assassins they thought this through and made it easy to detach them from their scenic parts and fit them to a flat base but its a pain. Harli’s you have no choice, they’re pretty well attached to their scenic parts so no cover for them ever (accept whole buildings).

  • EvilCheesypoof

    True Line of Sight is what makes 40k a miniature war game, and not a simple board game, in my opinion. I understand it’s not a perfect representation of what infantry would be able to do/see, but without True Line of Sight, the movement phase would become a very bland “check for range” section, and then you roll dice at each other until a unit is dead. Woo. One of the most exciting parts of 40k is trying to move from cover to cover without getting shot.

    I think the cover system should be changed. Especially with the amount of ignores cover weaponry, that kind of thing is ruining the point of terrain, IMO.

    Also I find it odd that “Toe-in” and “Obscured” cover exist in the same game. It doesn’t make sense. If I stand on top of a boulder, I have no cover. If I stand on top of a pile of “rubble” I have 4+ cover. Why? GW can’t decide if they want physical cover or abstract concepts.

    Hear me out, I think “toe in” cover should go away entirely. It doesn’t fit the game mechanics. Instead there should be cover classes for true line of sight. Light 5+, Medium 4+, Solid 3+. You use true line of sight, and pick the best cover save partially obscuring the model. (Ignoring the save of terrain 3″ from the shooting model, they won’t shoot the cover they’re behind)

    Get rid of Ignores cover! Instead, give -1, and -2 cover modifiers to weapons that could make cover less effective. But the cover save can get no worse than 6+. This make infantry way more viable in what should be a mostly infantry skirmish based game.

    I think this does a good job of representing physical cover, supporting true line of sight, and giving any type of model a chance to hide behind something.

    Obviously if there is nothing in the way, no cover save/go to ground for 6+ is still a great rule.

  • Henry Blake

    I like the current rules but I feel that being behind multiple pieces of cover should have an effect.

  • Viper666

    Damn I miss the days (2nd edition) when cover was a negative modifier to Hit instead of a replacement save for armour…..

  • ZeeLobby

    It would make for a better game. Some people dont’ care about that though…

  • ZeeLobby

    BTW I thought that arms, legs, body and head were fine volume sizes. You don’t have to go to WMH length. Then just give terrain rules like 3″ thick, can’t see through. Done.