A Bit of a Ramble - Alessio said something that struck a chord!

Whilst reading an issue of Wargames Illustrated on the way to work I was taken with a statement made by one of the regular columnists Alessio Cavatore (he of GW, Kings of War, Bolt Action and Loka fame!). In the article he discusses the problem of defining line of sight in a wargame and the two schools of thought - Abstract and True Line of Sight.

So in Abstract it is assumed that your toy soldiers occupy an area denoted by their base, and if that base is then grouped into some form of regiment then the regiment denotes line of sight. In addition all terrain features are assumed to be abstract representations of real world objects (woods, hills and buildings) and therefore define areas of effect. Therefore when drawing line of sight you are dealing with a set of rules that define the tactical options.

Example: My unit of 24 Saxon Thegns wishes to charge the rather annoying Welsh Combrogi that are shaking their bits at me. However as my unit is representative of a larger formation their line of sight is not simply 360 degrees signifying them looking around, but rather 90 degree arc to the front representing not only line of sight but also command and control of such a large unit of troops (to a degree). The naughty Welshmen are outside this arc and therefore I cannot declare a charge because I cannot “see” them.

Now in the example given above the line of sight is abstracted to allow the tactical movement of large blocks of troops that may be difficult to manage and thus is not just what someone can eyeball but rather how effectively the formation can function. The fact that they cannot see just indicates that the formation cannot initiate a charge into combat due to poor positioning and the unwieldy nature of a large group of angry Saxons with sharp stuff!

Now with true line of sight you do get down and eyeball things, taking the models eye view and making a judgement of whether (if you were the figure) you’d be able to fire/throw/charge. This works very well with skirmish games where the effectiveness of a model is related to the single models attributes but once you increase the model count and start to assign attributes to the (now) unit and what benefits they acquire due to there being more of them it becomes a little weird. The larger asset now has different effects on the battle but also different limitations. If you were to allow 360 line of sight then how would the guy at the back know that some of his mates are charging off after a briefly spotted enemy in front of them, after all he’s spotted some guys behind them and wants to charge them. So as you can see once you structure the individuals into a group they become more predictable but also more constrained, command and control is the dominant factor however their combat effectiveness is greater due to the effect of the mass!

"Ere Brian, can you see that Jerry hiding behind the truck?"

I have played both ways of defining line of sight and I have to say that abstract is a great way to play large unit/regiment/battalion actions, where it is not the effectiveness of one stat line versus another that matters but rather whether you can get the “asset” into a position to achieve some form of battle objective.

Now here’s where I get to the point of the post, Alessio then goes on to say that when play testing true line of sight he had a bit of a revelation in that by getting down and eyeballing it he became immersed in the game. He acquired the “Hollywood” feel of it and thus was playing out the story rather than rolling dice and playing a wargame. This is the bit that struck a chord with me, primarily because for most of my wargaming life I have always pictured myself as the General. I loved picturing giving orders to the troops and “eyeballing” the table and enjoying the diorama aspect of the game.

I have taken part in many forum discussions on the topic of line of sight, in fact I’ve abandoned whole systems due to changes in this aspect of the rules because I felt that it detracted from what the system was trying to represent. In one of my most recent rule sets (Bolt Action) line of sight is defined as “True” however many players have put their own house rules in place to mix elements of abstract into it to allow clearer play (area terrain for defining trees etc). And this it the bit that I don’t like, I want to get down and eyeball if my Tommy can bag the Hun hiding behind the tree. If said tree was actually a piece of green felt denoting a copse or wood then it begins to be a bit pointless eyeballing the target and thus that immersive element of the game is lost. If that is gone then I want something else to keep me excited and involved but as Bolt Action is very much a “Hollywood Movie” type game it is built around this mechanism and therefore if altered there isn't as much reward. Furthermore the models are static and therefore how do you handle true line of sight if the target is lying down and you can't actually see it! And thus the indefinable, unwritten and unquantifiable element of wargaming comes into play - Common Sense.

We can play games with toy soldiers representing actual real life people and events however they don't actually shoot or run or shout orders. And yet I have played games against people who will categorically state that I cannot eliminate more models than I can see because the majority are behind a wall. How did they get there, didn't they just run past my troops. We to have apply common sense and a good deal of imagination to the game to make sure that its an enjoyable experience and thats where true line of sight adds benefit to the experience. Yes that trooper is lying down however if the models counts as prone surely it cannot move, nor see anyone else? Or do we apply our imagination to the toy soldiers and picture them carrying out our orders?

Don’t get me wrong I am not saying either way is better than the other, in fact I would argue that both ways have the same level of importance but to different aspects of the hobby. If my group of Saxons Thegns were on a raid into the Welsh hills then they’d be in some form of loose formation rather than a prepared shieldwall facing down hordes of angry Combrogi bent on revenge. In the raid I’d be eyeballing whether I can sneak around the side of the wattle and daub shack to steal the sheep, when in Shieldwall I’d be using the eagle eye view to assess where to commit my reserves should my line break, the abstract view allowing me to estimate the effect of terrain on said reserves getting in to position.

So what I’m trying to say is don’t get frightened by true line of sight, if you have a enough terrain then play it as exactly as is, hide your troops behind the trees or walls then take a models eye view of the board and picture the action. It’s quite rewarding.