Discussion- Line Of Sight
- Thread starter Orngog
- Start date
The main points for consideration is dynamically posed models, such as crouching or stretching. The introduction of models with flying stands, such as the hover boards and wreckers as really exasperated this issue though.
Particularly the wreckers as if you choose to use the one on a flying stand, they'll seriously struggle to take cover behind any small objectives - which is a significant disadvantage.
Each of these alternative methods is intended principally to mitigate that issue in some way and to varying extends.
Particularly the wreckers as if you choose to use the one on a flying stand, they'll seriously struggle to take cover behind any small objectives - which is a significant disadvantage.
Each of these alternative methods is intended principally to mitigate that issue in some way and to varying extends.
The use of hit boxes is a “fairer” system as it eliminates the idea of modelling for advantage of all human sized fighters occupy the same sized cylinder.
My main issue with the use of cylinders/hit boxes is that in a game where there is an inordinate amount of partial cover it can be very hard to tell where the hit boxes would actually be if the base is partially or fully obscured from view.
We do technically have a gods eye view of the table and can walk around the table to see everything, but practically I don’t think anyone actually does this and it would be easy to overlook models where the cylinder is just sticking out from terrain.
Personally I would be ok with the change, but I don’t see the real need for it to move away from what the current LOS rules are.
I do still think that the term Visible needs to be defined as being in both the vision arc AND line of site though as it is currently missing from the rules.
My main issue with the use of cylinders/hit boxes is that in a game where there is an inordinate amount of partial cover it can be very hard to tell where the hit boxes would actually be if the base is partially or fully obscured from view.
We do technically have a gods eye view of the table and can walk around the table to see everything, but practically I don’t think anyone actually does this and it would be easy to overlook models where the cylinder is just sticking out from terrain.
Personally I would be ok with the change, but I don’t see the real need for it to move away from what the current LOS rules are.
I do still think that the term Visible needs to be defined as being in both the vision arc AND line of site though as it is currently missing from the rules.
I agree, although personally it's the idea of substitutions that fails for me. This seems unnecessary, time consuming and fraught with potential for illegal movement of models.
the old whippy sticks with a bit of blutac on the end would have been perfect for it.
Really you just want something that you can change the rectangles on.
You would only really need the ones that are relevant to your gang so unless you have lots of different base sizes and sizes models you will likely only need 1-3.
What would you end up with?
- 25mm small cylinder for small pets (lizard cats and cyber doggies)
- 25mm normal cylinder for all human sized fighters
- 25mm “flying” cylinder basically a double height cylinder with the top half being targetable for wreckers.
-32mm small cylinder for bigger pets (cyber doggies)
-32mm human cylinder for Goliath
-32mm flying cylinder for hoverboards and the psychic potato.
-40mm small cylinder for the biggest pets (sump krok sand phyrr cat)
-40mm big cylinder for brutes (zerker, ambot, etc)
To be honest though you could just get away with three actual rectangles sized for the large models and mark the smaller cylinders on them.
All you really need is a rod with the 3 heights marked on it. Then all you have to do is place it vertically on the base of the miniature and imagine the rest of the cylinder.
Having an actual cylinder to see is a lot more reliable than imagining it though. Especially in a situation where the base is obscured by terrain (a common occurence).
This way of playing it is definitely more awkward than it would be normally, although it's not insurmountable, I prefer a 'hybrid' method where you simply discount anything that protrudes outside of the footprint of the base.
This way of playing it is definitely more awkward than it would be normally, although it's not insurmountable, I prefer a 'hybrid' method where you simply discount anything that protrudes outside of the footprint of the base.
I don't see how a cylinder is in any way open to abuse, because assembling the model off centre is entirely meaningless to the silhouette.
However, you're absolutely right about a more classic approach being quicker and easier, which is why I favour that approach as well.
However, you're absolutely right about a more classic approach being quicker and easier, which is why I favour that approach as well.
There really is no possible abuse since the miniature is completely ignored. You could play with empty bases and get the exact same result. That's kinda the point.
TLoS on the other hand, is extremely open to abuse.
TLoS on the other hand, is extremely open to abuse.
I think that the cylinder method is the most fair and least open to abuse, but may result in LOS being drawn when the actual model is not visible. TLoS as Thorgor mentioned, is very open to abuse.
Hybrid method tries to be in the middle. Somewhat open to abuse, but not too much and does not require additional templates for the game (but may require substituting with a neutrally posed fighter at times).
Hybrid method tries to be in the middle. Somewhat open to abuse, but not too much and does not require additional templates for the game (but may require substituting with a neutrally posed fighter at times).
I also think it's important not to get our knickers all in a twist over an issue (abusing LoS) that in reality isn't a very big deal at all.
Similar threads
