Thank you for this explanation! It changed my opinion on LoS in the game. I don’t find it confusing anymore, just stupid 🙃 I‘m not interested in tournaments, so I‘m going to house rule true line of sight - all guys I play with are certainly going to agree 😊
I feel it represents the dynamic movement of a character, being represented otherwise by a static figure on a game board. If you think of it as the characters are constantly moving and shifting trying to get their own shots off at someone, then the moment they peak around the corner they get shot at.
It doesn't really need to be explained better just as it is written. The brain melt comes in because people are used to true LoS from most other systems. So I guess, from that perspective this video is really helpful and more illustrations in the book would have been more useful. But man, it also seems a lot of people coming from other systems just "assume" before even reading the rules and really giving it a chance...I personally, find that all true LoS systems (played plenty) have LoS / cover debates, even with laser pointer etc, that leads to salty moments. People tend to be generous / fair / not measure with atomic size precision - until they are losing or it really matters often late game / crucial target. I prefer to avoid these situations...
You will always have that. Now you get to argue whether that range 5 template that you're holding in the air over top of the minis because the terrain is in the way actually touches both bases. The subject changes, but the arguments remain.
Such a better way of explaining it then what the rulebook does. That said, unless I’m missing something, you could ignore the 3rd element on your list. The 4th already covers that right? The terrain can’t be higher elevation than both character if one of them is overlapping it. Can you please make one of these video for cover now???
As someone who only really plays 40K this seems super weird. It’s just a lot more abstracted than using true LoS. Not really any different than a tank shooting round the corner of a building from its treads at a gun of an infantry unit poking from behind a pillar. Really clear explanation.
I really like the rules for lunch site. It took a couple of days to get used to but there’s so much going on in the game and it’s so hard to kill people that it’s great to be able to see targets so often.
Gr8 explanation. Simple and straight to the point! However, You can actually remove the "overlapping" condition, because of the "higher then both figures" condition. It is impossible for aby figure to overlap this kind of terrain :)
Excellent video but personally hate the LOS rules. So much so don't think I'll be venturing into the game which is a shame. Examples of this didn't come up in our demo game and I wish I hadn't pre-ordered now, really don't like the elevation rule at all.
I really like that this game is not like 95% of other miniature wargames with unique innovative elements like the (1) struggle tracker, (2) not just point and smash (heavy area control focus), (3) because characters don't just focus on fighting (2) and are harder to kill, it means it is more about their utility; and finally (4) actually the rules including LoS. (I have been playing games for over ten years and true Los - laser pointer and all - always leads to salty moments and fights). I would give it a chance despite the LoS (give it 5+ games) - but of course you are entitled to have strong dislikes and hard rules for how you want to play...
@@WhiskeyjackZA Its not hard rules. I was looking forward to a game that was focused on intense character driven battles which to a degree it is. We have multiple attacks, multiple wounds, random draw chance, the struggle tracker and lots of other good elements that focus on brilliant individual battles. . . . . but then LOS is cast aside and just treated as 2D. It seems stupid for a multi level game to me, but thats only my opinion. Just disappointed it took this route is all. The models are beautiful and worth the purchase alone, Oh and I've been playing games over 30 years, I was just hoping for something that would be a little bit deeper unfortunately.
@@aidanreid876 Fair enough. I found with Legion that I actually prefer the new LoS. I don't think we have had a real cover debate since then, in part because it is very easy to resolve and apply the rules. In the other systems I play (AoS, Bolt Action, Infinity) cover and LoS comes up frequently and time and social contract (capital) is spend on debating it. This also break immersion and storytelling...And oh boy can people be salty about it... Just to be clear, I totally get the true LoS preference. It is not a deal breaker for me either way because almost all systems have abstracted rules than doesn't make sense since you are trying to balance rules and design with the visual, narrative, fun and competitive elements. Other aspects of design matter more for me in the total experience. That said - I definitely get the very real brain melt that this system can cause at first...it is fair comment that it is not intuitive! But that is also different from saying it is unclear or badly written.
@@WhiskeyjackZA I didn't really say its unclear or badly written I don't think, I personally think its stupid in a game that's trying to focus on the nitty gritty aspects of a battle, it's just odd. I know the arguments of 'its to show the constant movement and flow in a real battle' that characters are always shifting position. However if you've never seen the character you're targeting using TLOS how the heck do you even know where they are to draw a bead on them through a floor or piece of scenery. Its just counter intuitive to our group. We've house ruled it and enjoyed the game immensely with TLOS so each to their own at the end of the day. Everything else is spot on.👍
Nice video! Thanks for the clarification. Is it just me, or is rule 3 a bit redundant? Is it ever possible for a mini to be overlapping a piece of blocking terrain that is a higher elevation than it?... Can you stand on something that is currently higher than the thing you're standing on?...
lmao you make a good point. I guess maybe if the thing you're standing on had a really tall bit that you were considering the same terrain feature rather than separate things?
@@Timberboar My first thought was that any terrain you could be underneath would necessarily be clear instead of blocked, so you could see through it anyway. But now I have a bigger issue. If I have a character inside a building with solid walls, can it just straight-up see through all the walls and roof because it is overlapping it?
I agree. I can get behind all of the other examples except for the last one of the video. To me, it 100% breaks thematic immersion, despite other commenters here spinning it whatever way. You will never be able to tell me that, in that example, with that huge of a "mass" in between the two characters, they would they ever see each other.
Ok but what if there is a pice of terrain that fulfills the fist 3 points, but on the last point 1 of the models is on another pice of terrain making them slightly higher up. Can they then attack, even though they still can't literally see?
I think alot of this comes down to common sense. As in obviously the last one will block LOS. They really made the rules weird here. So so many games have great LOS rules they could have just borrowed. Super odd.
The written rule is not that bad. Your breakdown into a checklist is better, but if you walk through the rules you arrive at the same conclusion. Most of the complaints I’ve seen about the LOS rules are because people don’t want to accept the nature of the game, meaning that it’s Star Wars, and characters are almost always shown as being very kinetic during combat, constantly moving around.
Combat is fluid, targets are on the move and seek best possible vantage points. It is nice to not have true LOS and makes for a faster gameplay without any discussions. This game will demand that you put some thoughts into your terrain elements. Not any old terrain you have lying around will be good for it.
I can see why this is done from a rules perspective, but man scenarios like the last one just feel so dumb (probably biased from playing so many true LOS games). Guess you can pretend it is just seconds of the battle so likely was running and had a better shot but just feels weird. How are you finding the game? Played a couple test games on TTS and both felt like wet noodles fights where basically no one ever got wounded let alone taken out of action. Which to me lessens the impact of my actions, but maybe that will change with different model choices.
I'm enjoying it a lot despite some of these weird rules quirks. So far it feels rare for a unit to be completely eliminated, but wounds are very frequent and very important.
I honestly don't understand how these folks are playing where they never wound each other. I have about 15 games under my belt and I always have 3 wounded if not one killed entirely by end of game.
A lot of the brain melt is just because people are used to true LoS. I also really like that this game is not like 95% of other miniature wargames with unique innovative elements like the (1) struggle tracker, (2) not just point and smash (heavy area control focus), (3) because characters don't just focus on fighting (2) and are harder to kill, it means it is more about their utility; and finally (4) actually the rules including LoS. (I have been playing games for over ten years and true Los - laser pointer and all - always leads to salty moments and fights).
On your step 2 you mentioned a statigh line between the bases, this is not as it's written though. As written it reads from your characters base to the object (target ) but it doesn't specify it's the base of the object. The way they are using the word object rather than target or enemy makes believe that perhaps there could be in the future other objects that could be targeted as an attack and that's perhaps why they didn't clarify base on the object.
the rulebook defines object as characters and tokens. So the "object" wording is still referring to the character's base, but could refer to other things that count as objects too. shatterpointquickguide.com/#objects
Really good game but the los rules suuuuuuck. I'd rather use a laser pointer for LOS and not need hunker tokens for cover, rather than these two very weird and completely counterintuitive implementations of standard tabletop mechanics
![EMPIRE vs. EWOKS [Shatterpoint Battle Report]](/img/n.gif)
Good video, weird ruling on the last one.
Fantastic video, a lot easier to think of it that way! Thanks for posting! Gonna make a quick 4-step printable checklist
Thank you for this explanation! It changed my opinion on LoS in the game. I don’t find it confusing anymore, just stupid 🙃
I‘m not interested in tournaments, so I‘m going to house rule true line of sight - all guys I play with are certainly going to agree 😊
Immensely helpful video! Thinking of it as a checklist is a great way to go about it.
The last ruling is super weird , they cant see anything of each other at all, maybe the other clone trooper tho. Really hope this is explained better
I feel it represents the dynamic movement of a character, being represented otherwise by a static figure on a game board. If you think of it as the characters are constantly moving and shifting trying to get their own shots off at someone, then the moment they peak around the corner they get shot at.
I was going to come in and talk about the "flow" of battle, but Don said it well.
It doesn't really need to be explained better just as it is written. The brain melt comes in because people are used to true LoS from most other systems. So I guess, from that perspective this video is really helpful and more illustrations in the book would have been more useful.
But man, it also seems a lot of people coming from other systems just "assume" before even reading the rules and really giving it a chance...I personally, find that all true LoS systems (played plenty) have LoS / cover debates, even with laser pointer etc, that leads to salty moments. People tend to be generous / fair / not measure with atomic size precision - until they are losing or it really matters often late game / crucial target. I prefer to avoid these situations...
You will always have that. Now you get to argue whether that range 5 template that you're holding in the air over top of the minis because the terrain is in the way actually touches both bases. The subject changes, but the arguments remain.
Hands down the best explanation I have seen. Clear, concise, easy to apply. BRILLIANT!!! Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Such a better way of explaining it then what the rulebook does.
That said, unless I’m missing something, you could ignore the 3rd element on your list. The 4th already covers that right? The terrain can’t be higher elevation than both character if one of them is overlapping it.
Can you please make one of these video for cover now???
This really cleared things up, thank you!
Huge help! Thanks!
Thanks dude super helpful. that paragraph is a mess to understand at face value, but I see why it is word like that,
As someone who only really plays 40K this seems super weird. It’s just a lot more abstracted than using true LoS.
Not really any different than a tank shooting round the corner of a building from its treads at a gun of an infantry unit poking from behind a pillar.
Really clear explanation.
Thanks for this, I was pretty confused when I read it in the rulebook.
Great video. Can you do a follow-up video adding cover?
I'll add it to my list of videos to make
ua-cam.com/video/rq16X2PWvFs/v-deo.html
I really like the rules for lunch site. It took a couple of days to get used to but there’s so much going on in the game and it’s so hard to kill people that it’s great to be able to see targets so often.
Gr8 explanation. Simple and straight to the point! However, You can actually remove the "overlapping" condition, because of the "higher then both figures" condition. It is impossible for aby figure to overlap this kind of terrain :)
Excellent video but personally hate the LOS rules. So much so don't think I'll be venturing into the game which is a shame. Examples of this didn't come up in our demo game and I wish I hadn't pre-ordered now, really don't like the elevation rule at all.
I really like that this game is not like 95% of other miniature wargames with unique innovative elements like the (1) struggle tracker, (2) not just point and smash (heavy area control focus), (3) because characters don't just focus on fighting (2) and are harder to kill, it means it is more about their utility; and finally (4) actually the rules including LoS. (I have been playing games for over ten years and true Los - laser pointer and all - always leads to salty moments and fights).
I would give it a chance despite the LoS (give it 5+ games) - but of course you are entitled to have strong dislikes and hard rules for how you want to play...
@@WhiskeyjackZA Its not hard rules.
I was looking forward to a game that was focused on intense character driven battles which to a degree it is.
We have multiple attacks, multiple wounds, random draw chance, the struggle tracker and lots of other good elements that focus on brilliant individual battles. . . . . but then LOS is cast aside and just treated as 2D. It seems stupid for a multi level game to me, but thats only my opinion. Just disappointed it took this route is all.
The models are beautiful and worth the purchase alone, Oh and I've been playing games over 30 years, I was just hoping for something that would be a little bit deeper unfortunately.
@@aidanreid876 Fair enough. I found with Legion that I actually prefer the new LoS. I don't think we have had a real cover debate since then, in part because it is very easy to resolve and apply the rules. In the other systems I play (AoS, Bolt Action, Infinity) cover and LoS comes up frequently and time and social contract (capital) is spend on debating it. This also break immersion and storytelling...And oh boy can people be salty about it...
Just to be clear, I totally get the true LoS preference. It is not a deal breaker for me either way because almost all systems have abstracted rules than doesn't make sense since you are trying to balance rules and design with the visual, narrative, fun and competitive elements. Other aspects of design matter more for me in the total experience. That said - I definitely get the very real brain melt that this system can cause at first...it is fair comment that it is not intuitive! But that is also different from saying it is unclear or badly written.
@@WhiskeyjackZA I didn't really say its unclear or badly written I don't think, I personally think its stupid in a game that's trying to focus on the nitty gritty aspects of a battle, it's just odd. I know the arguments of 'its to show the constant movement and flow in a real battle' that characters are always shifting position. However if you've never seen the character you're targeting using TLOS how the heck do you even know where they are to draw a bead on them through a floor or piece of scenery. Its just counter intuitive to our group.
We've house ruled it and enjoyed the game immensely with TLOS so each to their own at the end of the day. Everything else is spot on.👍
This is great, by any chance could you do a quick one on applicable cover too? Thanks!
ua-cam.com/video/rq16X2PWvFs/v-deo.html
THIS IS GREAT! very helpful video!!! TY
Nice video! Thanks for the clarification.
Is it just me, or is rule 3 a bit redundant? Is it ever possible for a mini to be overlapping a piece of blocking terrain that is a higher elevation than it?...
Can you stand on something that is currently higher than the thing you're standing on?...
lmao you make a good point. I guess maybe if the thing you're standing on had a really tall bit that you were considering the same terrain feature rather than separate things?
You can be below it...
@@Timberboar My first thought was that any terrain you could be underneath would necessarily be clear instead of blocked, so you could see through it anyway.
But now I have a bigger issue.
If I have a character inside a building with solid walls, can it just straight-up see through all the walls and roof because it is overlapping it?
Fair point. I would think maybe you would have to break up the larger terrain piece into smaller chunks
That's the way I read the rules, but man are they confusing.
Good description, but Los in Shatterpoint is just needlessly odd. Really dislike situations like the last example there.
I agree. I can get behind all of the other examples except for the last one of the video. To me, it 100% breaks thematic immersion, despite other commenters here spinning it whatever way. You will never be able to tell me that, in that example, with that huge of a "mass" in between the two characters, they would they ever see each other.
Ok but what if there is a pice of terrain that fulfills the fist 3 points, but on the last point 1 of the models is on another pice of terrain making them slightly higher up. Can they then attack, even though they still can't literally see?
Yup
@@ES-hg7ws that's retarded
I think alot of this comes down to common sense. As in obviously the last one will block LOS. They really made the rules weird here. So so many games have great LOS rules they could have just borrowed. Super odd.
The written rule is not that bad. Your breakdown into a checklist is better, but if you walk through the rules you arrive at the same conclusion. Most of the complaints I’ve seen about the LOS rules are because people don’t want to accept the nature of the game, meaning that it’s Star Wars, and characters are almost always shown as being very kinetic during combat, constantly moving around.
Combat is fluid, targets are on the move and seek best possible vantage points. It is nice to not have true LOS and makes for a faster gameplay without any discussions.
This game will demand that you put some thoughts into your terrain elements. Not any old terrain you have lying around will be good for it.
I can see why this is done from a rules perspective, but man scenarios like the last one just feel so dumb (probably biased from playing so many true LOS games). Guess you can pretend it is just seconds of the battle so likely was running and had a better shot but just feels weird.
How are you finding the game? Played a couple test games on TTS and both felt like wet noodles fights where basically no one ever got wounded let alone taken out of action. Which to me lessens the impact of my actions, but maybe that will change with different model choices.
I'm enjoying it a lot despite some of these weird rules quirks. So far it feels rare for a unit to be completely eliminated, but wounds are very frequent and very important.
I honestly don't understand how these folks are playing where they never wound each other. I have about 15 games under my belt and I always have 3 wounded if not one killed entirely by end of game.
A lot of the brain melt is just because people are used to true LoS. I also really like that this game is not like 95% of other miniature wargames with unique innovative elements like the (1) struggle tracker, (2) not just point and smash (heavy area control focus), (3) because characters don't just focus on fighting (2) and are harder to kill, it means it is more about their utility; and finally (4) actually the rules including LoS. (I have been playing games for over ten years and true Los - laser pointer and all - always leads to salty moments and fights).
On your step 2 you mentioned a statigh line between the bases, this is not as it's written though. As written it reads from your characters base to the object (target ) but it doesn't specify it's the base of the object. The way they are using the word object rather than target or enemy makes believe that perhaps there could be in the future other objects that could be targeted as an attack and that's perhaps why they didn't clarify base on the object.
the rulebook defines object as characters and tokens. So the "object" wording is still referring to the character's base, but could refer to other things that count as objects too.
shatterpointquickguide.com/#objects
Really good game but the los rules suuuuuuck. I'd rather use a laser pointer for LOS and not need hunker tokens for cover, rather than these two very weird and completely counterintuitive implementations of standard tabletop mechanics
That ding = instant headache...