YCE suggestions- general principles

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
So, things to clear up in the "General Principles" section of the rules!

Top of the list has to be d3 rolls, natural rolls etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
Order of the application of modifers

May I suggest that the order is in line with the mathematical convention BODMAS

BO - Brackets
M - Multiplication
D - Division
A - Addition
S - Subtraction

Obviously the first item in the order is sort of irrelevant in Necromunda.

It would also be good to state how any 'always hits/wounds/saves' on a X+ interacts with modifiers.

I think the only example is invulnerable/field saves which are reasonably clear in how the interact with armour modifies (they ignore them), but this feels like a general game principle to me.

Finally the subject of always a failure and always a success.

I feel a clarification that unless noted a 'natural ' roll of a one is always a failure (or a 2 on 2d6) is needed.

The inverse a natural 6 or 12 etc is always a success unless noted might also be required.

These are mostly clarifications I think but important to get clear upfront.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
I kinda like YCE abbreviation, it is recognizable, and is easy to differentiate from NCE. I suggest we drop N17+/N20+ names and just call whatever we are trying to make "YCE". N17+/N20+/Nwhatever should be used to refer to GW's publications to avoid confusion.

1). Anyway, other than "nat X is always a fail/success", we need a clarification of what a "natural" roll is. I'd suggest that a natural roll is an unmodified result on a single die, or in case of multiple dice rolled, an unmodified sum of them. If one die is substituted with anything else (for example, D6 used in place of D3 and halved down)"natural" result should take into account number of outcomes the original dice was supposed to have - so getting 1 or 2 on D6 substitution for D3 would be a "natural" 1. In case of 2D6 a "natural" 7 would be rolling 1-6, 2-5, 3-4, 4-3, 5-2 or 6-1.

2). Dice substitutions for new players who don't have an Injury or Firepower dice,
D6Outcome on Injury dice
1-2Flesh Wound (FW)
3-5Serious Injury (SI)
6Out of Action (OOA)
D6Outcome on Injury dice
11 hit and an Ammo check
2-31 hit
4-52 hits
63 hits
I'd say that we should go 1 step further and leave instructions on how to convert a D6 into a scatter dice. Since 8th edition gutted scatter dice, new players will usually not have any. I don't have a scatter die, nor D6 on myself, but quick search gave me this:
ScatterLayout.png
 

Attachments

  • ScatterLayout.png
    ScatterLayout.png
    37.8 KB · Views: 78
  • ScatterLayout.png
    ScatterLayout.png
    37.8 KB · Views: 77

Orngog

YCE Project Manager
Aug 30, 2014
724
659
113
Wiltshire
I agree @JawRippa, dice substitutions is an excellent idea. On the subject of d3 I'm in the same camp, but I feel we should hold off on that as it has been a contentious issue.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
If GW releases a FAQ in foreseeable future and (hopefully) adresses the D3 conundrum, we will use their interpretation (in general trying to stick to GW's FAQs is a good idea, to avoid confusion when players switch rulesets). I don't really care what ends up being the "correct" way to treat a natural 1 on D3, for now we need to establish a unified approach for everyone to be on the same page.

Regarding Line of Sight: I would like to see rules stress that you can draw Line of Sight regardless of fighter's facing because a lot of players get this rule wrong. Rulebook 2018, Page 46: "while a fighter's vision arc is determined by their facing, their line of sight (i.e., what they can see) is determined by the presense of terrain and other fighters".
Also we need to establish what LoS can be drawn from, since LoS cannot be drawn to fighter's base or any insignificant elements, but nothing stops you doing the opposite. By RAW you can have untargettable fighters who shoot with their mohawks (as ridiculous as it sounds, I had to get into argument about this, once). So I'd recommend that LoS should only be drawn from fighter's head and upper torso. This way you always have to expose your fighter to shoot anything.
 
Last edited:

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
If GW releases a FAQ in some future and (hopefully) adresses the D3 conundrum, we will use their interpretation
What? No.
We should do what works best for the game, period.
In this particular instance, I think it's best to only have 1/6 chances of critical failure when rolling a D3 (as 1/3 chance of failure means nobody in their right mind will use the associated effects). We just have to change the rules to make it happen.


LoS, FoV and how they interact with the visibility of a fighter from another fighter's pov certainly need to be clarified.
Btw, TLoS is another of those archaic rules that imo need to go as it encourages modelling for advantage and discourage creative posing. Not to mention ridiculous things like people claiming cover from a Prone miniature's base.
 

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
What? No.
We should do what works best for the game, period.
In this particular instance, I think it's best to only have 1/6 chances of critical failure when rolling a D3 (as 1/3 chance of failure means nobody in their right mind will use the associated effects). We just have to change the rules to make it happen.
...
I'm not suggesting to slavishly follow whatever GW writes in their FAQs (especially if it is a straight out mistake or creates even more confusion), but still try to stick to their interpretations of rules - when it works. Regarding D3, as I've said, I'm okay with both interpretations, as I see both approaches to "natural" rolls as being possible.

I agree on creative posing being discouraged by TLoS and I would love to see some changes to it. Maybe we could take an infinity approach and allow drawing LoS to fighters' silhouettes which are determined by their bases? Oh, that also reminds me that in N17+ fighters can blind fire while prone and it can lead to a lot of headscratching. Either treat blind firing fighters as standing for LoS or straight out disallow blind firing (tbh I'd be in favor of later, since it promotes very passive gameplay).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog and Thorgor

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I made a pass on the General principle rules. Here are my notes (there may be some overlap with what has already been discussed here or elsewhere):

General note:

A lot of unnecessary yadda yadda could and should be cut from the rules. For instance, we don't need to know that "A fighter is very vulnerable whilst this (Seriously Injured) is their Status, being susceptible to enemy attacks and unable to defend themselves" as it gives no information as to how the Seriously Injured sub-status technically works.
I've not listed all those passages as it's about half of the rules.

Conversely, the rules are very greedy when it comes to examples. We should add a lot of them, as they are a very efficient way to clear up ambiguities.

_______________________________

Characteristics Profiles (RB page 41)

Mental stats: either there are too many of them or they are badly used by other effects. Willpower is seldom used except for psykers, and Leadership is only used for Leadership skills. I think it'd be better to only have two mental stats: one 'active' mental stat that is used to do stuff (so basically a merge of Leadership, Intelligence and most of Willpower) and one 'passive' mental stat used used to resist effects (so Cool plus the rest of Willpower), similar to how we have Strength and Toughness to deal/resist damage.

Introduce and define the notion of 'base stat' (i.e. the stat before any temporary effect is factored in) so that we can use it later if need be (for Leaping for instance). Base stat should only take into account 'permanent' modifiers from advancements, injuries and equipment (bionics and stuff like servo-rig)

_______________________________

Models and Fighter cards (RB page 42)

Should we keep fighter cards, get rid of them, or keep them but only as an option? A Gang roster can replace fighter cards for all purpose except selecting fighters at random, so we should keep that in mind.
Also, it should be clarified that players can access their opponent's fighter cards (or roster) at any moment (i.e. everything written on those cards/roster is public information).

_______________________________

Weapon profiles (RB page 43)

Replace E with 0" in Melee weapon long range to avoid the Engaged/b2b contact confusion caused by Versatile (or find another way to solve the issue).
Move long range to short range for non-Versatile Melee weapons so that their profile is consistent with Versatile weapons.
Clarify the effect of a positive Armour Piercing stat (especially if the target has no armour)
Clarify how the Ammo characteristics works for Melee weapons.

_______________________________

Dice (RB page 45)

Give the correct number of different dice used (6).
Add a paragraph explaining injury dice
Provide conversion tables for FP and Injury dice
If possible, provide a method to emulate a scatter dice for people who don't have them
Give example of 'natural roll' for D3 and 2D6 to clear any ambiguity
<pet-peeve>Remove roll-off from the game and replace with a coin toss (explain how to emulate a coin toss with a D6)</pet-peeve>

_______________________________

Visibility (RB pages 46-48)

Clarify that fighter A is 'visible' to fighter B if and only if they are both in fighter B's LoS and FoV (and use this consistently throughout the rules)
Replace all references to 'Vision arc' with 'Field of view' (or the other way around)
Explain exactly from where a LoS can be drawn (separately whether the fighter and/or target are Standing or Prone — the rules for measuring could be generalized for Prone fighters: everything is done as if the fighter was Standing)
Drop TLoS and replace with a more sensible method
Determining Cover should use the exact same method as determining LoS
Remove the specific method for determining cover in 2D Zone Mortalis and use the same method as in 3D games (just clarify that 2D ZM walls count as being infinitely high)

_______________________________

Measurement (RB page 49)

Remove the no-premeasuring rules
Clarify what count as 'solid terrain feature' and should be measured around instead of through. Give graphical examples to illustrate all cases that may be ambiguous (can you measure through a window/grid/crack/etc.)

_______________________________

Take-backs (RB page 49)

Clarify that any action can be undone provided it can physically be undone (i.e. the player has gained no information they didn't previously have access to, no random outcome has been determined, and they remember exactly what the state of the game was prior to the action they wish to undo)

_______________________________

Fighter statuses (RB page 50)

Use only the sub-status when referring to a fighter who is Active, Engaged, Prone or Seriously Injured (i.e. no need for 'Standing and Active', just use 'Active', etc.)
Clarify the Engaged/base-to-base/Versatile mindfudge.
Clarify that a Pinned fighter also automatically Stand up when they are the target of close combat attacks (re: Versatile)
Move the 'Prone fighters don't block LoS' rule to the Visibility rules
Seriously injured: remove 'as the result of being reduced to 0 Wounds or as the result of an attack from a weapon with a Trait such as Gas or Toxin' as it's needlessly restrictive.

Important note for later: every single action added by a skill, special rule, equipment, etc. should specify in which statuses they can be used

_______________________________

Conditions (RB page 51)

Make the list exhaustive and explain what every condition does so that players can easily refer to it later
Clearly separate Out of ammo from fighter's conditions as it's a completely different beast

_______________________________

Terrains (RB pages 52-53)

Remove the ZM/SM dichotomy. Players should be free to have Doors in their game regardless.
Those pages should simply define terrain. What effects terrain has on gameplay should be moved to the section where it matters (Visibility, Measurement, Movement, Actions, etc.) The definitions themselves should be moved to before the Visibility rules.
 
Last edited:

Jayward

Ganger
Aug 4, 2020
167
275
63
Order of the application of modifers

May I suggest that the order is in line with the mathematical convention BODMAS

BO - Brackets
M - Multiplication
D - Division
A - Addition
S - Subtraction

Obviously the first item in the order is sort of irrelevant in Necromunda.

It would also be good to state how any 'always hits/wounds/saves' on a X+ interacts with modifiers.

I think the only example is invulnerable/field saves which are reasonably clear in how the interact with armour modifies (they ignore them), but this feels like a general game principle to me.

Finally the subject of always a failure and always a success.

I feel a clarification that unless noted a 'natural ' roll of a one is always a failure (or a 2 on 2d6) is needed.

The inverse a natural 6 or 12 etc is always a success unless noted might also be required.

These are mostly clarifications I think but important to get clear upfront.

M-D-A-S is absolutely the way to go, even if it's not strictly BODMAS. It's easier to avoid rounding glitches.

Speaking of rounding, there should be a clear guideline on how to round. I'm not actually sure how often it comes up outside of D3 rolls, but to bring it in line with the D3 I'd recommend rounding up.

Have to be careful with 'Natural 1 always fails' and similar, as some things test by rolling below the target number. (Not saying that this isn't something that needs to be considered; it absolutely is. Just a caution that the game has a lot of loopholes for this).

Should Saves be included in the initial Characteristics section? To all intents and purposes they are another characteristic check, and probably one of the more commonly used ones!

Right at the start of the rules doc I'm looking at there is a definition of what a fighter is and what a gang is. On top of this I think it would be good to add the definition of a Crew. It might also be worth adding the definition of a [faction] or something similar: the new House of Blades Group Activation rules say you can only activate an Escher Fighter, but what is that? Any member of an Escher gang or crew? That would let you activate bounty hunters and ambots. You could go with 'has Escher in the name or description' so you could activate Escher Gang Matriarchs, Escher Wyld Runners, Escher Khymerix for example, but not an Ambot.

Rules Priority and Timing is an unbelievably important area that Necromunda completely ignores. 'If you're not sure, have a chat or roll a dice' is about the most inconsistent thing possible. Any consistent ruleset needs something like this, and you have to be pretty tight with the wordings. (An example of what I mean here would be Chem-Synth and Spring Up. If I'm pinned, I can't use Chem-Synth. But if I successfully Spring Up I'm not pinned. One triggers 'when activated', one triggers 'at the start of their activation'. Is their any meaningful difference between these two statements, and what is the timing. I think most people gravitate to 'active player chooses', but it can get more complicated that that and it would be really good to make this clear.

Standard terms would be immensely useful. I've seen rules that use Turn in place of Activation, Action, and Round.

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point; I'll have a proper go through later and draw up a nice list so I don't just sound like I'm grumbling about whatever pops into my head.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Hero
Apr 4, 2018
1,224
1,588
128
Bristol, UK
I don't think chemsynths and spring up are ambiguous, spring up allows you to take the stand up action for free, so imo chemsynths definitely happen first.

We definitely need to clarify dice rolls and visibility/measuring in terrain.

Although I'm not sure we want to abandon TLoS, similar to D6s it feels like an integral part of the game that, if changed, will limit the appeal.
I don't think it's inherently bad as long as we specify stuff. Even if we say disregard prone models (and their bases), removing them temporarily if necessary.

I'd also like to clarify how statuses overlap.
Such as being insane, panicked, and ablaze.
With Escher chems that's not actually that rare at all. What happens first? How do you resolve each one? Do some status override and replace others?
Especially webbed, in what ways is webbed distinct from seriously injured? In what ways is web removed?

Also when rules might be useful in multiple places, the rules should either be repeated or a page reference given.
For example the Conditions lists Blaze, but tells you nothing about it. If you want to know what your blazed fighter should be doing, keep searching!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spenetrator

Spenetrator

Gang Champion
Honored Tribesman
Apr 2, 2018
423
1,114
163
York, UK
While discussing LoS and FoV, I don't know how you guys feel about altering the cover mechanism, I think we could overhaul the half/full cover rubbish which seems to cause disagreements.

Personally I'd go for an 'obstruction' rule for terrain between active shooter and target, and a cover bonus if they are B2B with the terrain - using a 'hard' (reduces visibility and offers protection, like a wall) and 'soft' (just reduces visibility like a bush or light fence) definition which can be assigned before a game.
 

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I would also add in as it is similar to line of sight, we need to clarify what qualifies an attack to have originated out of the fighters vision arc (I.e. for things like furnance plate, backstab and turning to face for reaction attacks).

As I mentioned in the other thread I've house ruled that the attacking fighters base has to be completely out of the defending fighters vision arc to qualify as the attack originating from out of arc. I'm not wedded to that solution, but it's something that needs clarified.

On pre measuring, there seems to be a split on this, some people like it, others do not, I feel this may be our first serious debate.

As much as Leadership and Int are rarely used in the game compared to cool (and increasingly willpower), I don't like the idea of combining then down to 2 stats (will and cool being combined leads to odd things like how to treat goliaths, amazing cool, terrible willpower as one of their glaring weaknesses).

I think the value of the lesser used mental stats can be sorted out in other areas such as making them more useful (*cough* leadership test required for Overseer *cough*) and suddenly it's a more important stat.

Basically make them used a bit more to justify their inclusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Right at the start of the rules doc I'm looking at there is a definition of what a fighter is and what a gang is. On top of this I think it would be good to add the definition of a Crew.
...
Rules Priority and Timing is an unbelievably important area that Necromunda completely ignores. 'If you're not sure, have a chat or roll a dice' is about the most inconsistent thing possible. Any consistent ruleset needs something like this, and you have to be pretty tight with the wordings. ...
Standard terms would be immensely useful. I've seen rules that use Turn in place of Activation, Action, and Round.
...
Yeah, crew sounds like a thing that needs to be specifically clarified. Also 100% agreed on clarifying "Round", since GW really likes to mess it up around rules constantly. Perhaps use Action points in place of "Actions"? It gets really confusing how fighter has 2 actions to make when activated, yet can only do one double action...

I agree with most of Thorgor's list. Points below are the ones I do not agree with or wish to clarify.

Characteristics Profiles (RB page 41)

Mental stats: either there are too many of them or they are badly used by other effects. Willpower is seldom used except for psykers, and Leadership is only used for Leadership skills. I think it'd be better to only have two mental stats: one 'active' mental stat that is used to do stuff (so basically a merge of Leadership, Intelligence and most of Willpower) and one 'passive' mental stat used used to resist effects (so Cool plus the rest of Willpower), similar to how we have Strength and Toughness to deal/resist damage.
I think that changing base statline of fighters would be too radical of a change that would push a lot of players away. There is nothing wrong with having multiple mental stats, as long as each is used more or less constantly. And I kinda like "RPG" flavor it has, since you can have fighters who are dumb as rocks, but charismatic and can rally fighters (low INT, high LD) or be brave, but reckless (high COOL, low WP). We just need to give each fighter a way to use WP and LD.

<pet-peeve>Remove roll-off from the game and replace with a coin toss (explain how to emulate a coin toss with a D6)</pet-peeve>
I'd rather clarify the roll-off (original rules don't explain the term) and leave it at that. Some roll-offs could have modifiers, so coin would not suffice. And since a tie for priority roll-off has a resolution, I don't see roll-offs being annoying because of ties all that much.

Replace all references to 'Vision arc' with 'Field of view' (or the other way around)
...
Drop TLoS and replace with a more sensible method
Do we really need alternative term for Vision arc? I think it works alright already.
Maybe instead of dropping TLoS, we need to add a suggestion for players to be more forgiving when it comes to determining LoS to fighters with lunging poses or be vary of fighters in kneeling poses? And temporarily replacing those with fighters of the same size in a more "relaxed", standing pose in case of LoS ambiguity, facing same direction. Pretty much every gang will have one. Removing TLoS is a pretty radical change and could lead to a word salad in description on how cover is supposed to be determined.

Measurement (RB page 49)

Remove the no-premeasuring rules
Clarify what count as 'solid terrain feature' and should be measured around instead of through. Give graphical examples to illustrate all cases that may be ambiguous (can you measure through a window/grid/crack/etc.)
Aw, come on. No-premeasuring has a lot of charm and speeds up the game. The only problems with pre-measuring are target priority and fighting in the dark, why not clarify those separately? (Well, also movement and pre-measure is janky, but almost everyone I know plays it differently to rulebook).
I'd vouch for anything that can be passed through/over by fighters without having to climb as a non-solid feature.

Important note for later: every single action added by a skill, special rule, equipment, etc. should specify in which statuses they can be used
Great catch!
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog and Al_Weeks

Al_Weeks

Gang Hero
Honored Tribesman
Dec 22, 2014
513
533
123
Bristol
I'd also like to clarify how statuses overlap.
Such as being insane, panicked, and ablaze.
With Escher chems that's not actually that rare at all. What happens first? How do you resolve each one? Do some status override and replace others?
Especially webbed, in what ways is webbed distinct from seriously injured? In what ways is web removed?


This, even if the answer is the the models player decides the order multiple conditions are resolved in.

Doesn't really matter (I think, it might from how 2 interact), but a clear and consistent resolution for this needs to be decided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
Personally I'd go for an 'obstruction' rule for terrain between active shooter and target, and a cover bonus if they are B2B with the terrain - using a 'hard' (reduces visibility and offers protection, like a wall) and 'soft' (just reduces visibility like a bush or light fence) definition which can be assigned before a game.
I love this idea!
I assume obstruction would be an accuracy modifier while proper cover would give extra armour?
That would be more elegant than the current rule for cover with Blast and Template (instead of having two different rules depending on the weapon, it would be a single one, with Blast/Template ignoring only obstruction)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. M

JawRippa

Gang Hero
Mar 31, 2017
1,069
1,380
133
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
While discussing LoS and FoV, I don't know how you guys feel about altering the cover mechanism, I think we could overhaul the half/full cover rubbish which seems to cause disagreements.

Personally I'd go for an 'obstruction' rule for terrain between active shooter and target, and a cover bonus if they are B2B with the terrain - using a 'hard' (reduces visibility and offers protection, like a wall) and 'soft' (just reduces visibility like a bush or light fence) definition which can be assigned before a game.
I do like the idea of some terrain serving as better cover, but I feel that it could lead to arguments in the middle of the game, since it is tideous to assign every feature of terrain a specific type of cover before the game and most players would skip that (do these massive rails serve as soft cover? but these ones have metal sheets on them, so they are probably hard cover, right?). Also what does obstruction do? Just flat -1 no matter the obstruction or -1/-2 depending on how exposed the fighter is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopsyKretts

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
4,580
10,522
148
36
Sevres 92130 France
I think that changing base statline of fighters would be too radical of a change that would push a lot of players away. There is nothing wrong with having multiple mental stats, as long as each is used more or less constantly. And I kinda like "RPG" flavor it has, since you can have fighters who are dumb as rocks, but charismatic and can rally fighters (low INT, high LD) or be brave, but reckless (high COOL, low WP). We just need to give each fighter a way to use WP and LD.
I'm ok with this as an alternate solution, but it may prove more difficult to do.

I'd rather clarify the roll-off (original rules don't explain the term) and leave it at that. Some roll-offs could have modifiers, so coin would not suffice. And since a tie for priority roll-off has a resolution, I don't see roll-offs being annoying because of ties all that much.
Roll-off are defined in the rules now (RB page 45). I agree they are technically needed for initiative past round 1 (as 58% can't be approximated with a D6, D3 or a coin).
It's not something very important though, just a pet peeve of mine. Roll-off are a waste of time and of good randomness.

Do we really need alternative term for Vision arc? I think it works alright already.
I thought the rules used both terms interchangeably but it looks like I was wrong. Maybe they used FoV in a previous book, or it was all just in my head. Vision arc it is then!

Maybe instead of dropping TLoS, we need to add a suggestion for players to be more forgiving when it comes to determining LoS to fighters with lunging poses or be vary of fighters in kneeling poses? And temporarily replacing those with fighters of the same size in a more "relaxed", standing pose in case of LoS ambiguity, facing same direction.
To clarify, that's exactly what I mean when I say we should drop TLoS. It's just that LoS should not depend on the miniature's pose.

Aw, come on. No-premeasuring has a lot of charm and speeds up the game. The only problems with pre-measuring are target priority and fighting in the dark, why not clarify those separately? (Well, also movement and pre-measure is janky, but almost everyone I know plays it differently to rulebook).
I'd say it's open for debate. The one thing I like about no-premeasuring is that it speeds up gameplay. I guess we could make it work if we are extra clear as to how things are supposed to be done (what the player needs to declare beforehand, whether they select their preferred target before checking for closest target, how it interacts with stuff like Terrifying, etc.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orngog

TopsyKretts

Hive Guilder
Tribe Council
Dec 29, 2017
4,634
4,577
193
Norway
I'll do my best to compile your comments in a google doc today. This is first pass, so we only identify topics for later discussion (2nd pass). No final decisions are made here.

Personally, it is too "radical" to change or drop stats. Even changing True LOS is something I'm not interested in. Yes, it is some times clunky, but everything doesn't have to be silk smooth here. Also all previous editions of Necromunda use True LOS? Same with no pre-measure.