Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Howdy,

I've created an article discussing the hobby issue of the different ways players handle line of sight in Warhammer 40K. Please give it a look and let me know what you think about it and the subject.

Also, I am missing a few pictures for diagrams (I don't really have the right models in my collection to take the appropriate pics) so anyone who could help me out by taking and emailing me pictures would be a lifesaver. There is information on the pictures needed in the appendix of the article.

Click below to download the PDF of my article and thanks for reading!

On the description of True LoS, the picture doesn't match the caption. The caption talks about a land raider and a Rhino, but you repeated the Russ/Salamander picture from the magic cylinder discussion.

Thanks! That was the text I wrote before I actually made the diagram with IG tanks. I thought I removed all the old references but obviously I didn't. I'll get right on it and post a new version right now.


Edited:  Well, an updated (1.01) version of the article has now been posted. Only a couple of minor changes have been made but feel free to dump the old version and check this one out now.

In your conclusion (I make the call), you should also address your opinion on shooting between a Monstrous Creatures legs or the open doors of a Drop Pod and such. IMO, this portion of the rule is far more controverisla than the cylinder vs Models Eye View. Saw a spelling error or two (Leman Russ, not Lean Russ).

Really excellent article. Outstanding work, Jon.

It?s the sort of thing that?s too good for White Dwarf, because you want people to be able to find it easily online and not have to dig for an old magazine if they?re a newer player.

Posted By don_mondo on 08/27/2007 8:53 AM
In your conclusion (I make the call), you should also address your opinion on shooting between a Monstrous Creatures legs or the open doors of a Drop Pod and such. IMO, this portion of the rule is far more controverisla than the cylinder vs Models Eye View. Saw a spelling error or two (Leman Russ, not Lean Russ).

Well, I do state that I personally advocate the "friendly model's eye view" style of play (which doesn't allow shooting in between gaps in a model that are enclosed on all sides. Or are you saying I should be more specific about it?

Also, I ran the article through spell/grammar check so if you spot any correctly spelled but wrong words ( like "lean" for "Leman" ) please let me know exactly where they are if you don't mind.

 

 

I really liked the article, and it cleared up a lot of things for me.

The problem I often have with the magic cylinder vs. models eye view is hills.

  I normally let my opponent decide how we are going to play terrain, and I adapt my play style to it.

  But for hills I often find it useful to give them a size category. (1, 2, 3), although in your pictures, you have some fine hills, but most of the time they are very small affairs that measure just 1” high that you will be sorely pressed to hide a grot behind. The reason why this is that hills are a convention. They are not really modeled to be large round hills that you can hide a tank behind because that would be impractical to stand and move models on top of. Look at GWs hills, and how they are large, flat and not very high. But for a miniatures game where you have to move models to represent where they are, you need to be able to place your models on them. Hills are modeled to be low, and practical for game play, so they really should be treated as 2 dimensional terrain pieces, and not representative of how they really look.

  Another thing that you alluded to is skimmers. How do you work line of sight to them? If you put them on a flying stand they are going to be taller than almost anything other than size 3 area terrain. Does this mean that I can’t use my playing stands anymore, and lay my skimmers flat on the ground from now on to avoid LOS?

Posted By Blackmoor on 08/28/2007 12:20 AM

 Hills are modeled to be low, and practical for game play, so they really should be treated as 2 dimensional terrain pieces, and not representative of how they really look.

I disagree.

If you're using low, flat hills, then they should be representing low, flat hills.

It's perfectly possible to model larger hills and still have them playable. I've honestly never understood why people  expect a 6 inch long, 1 inch high terrain piece to represent Everest. If you want Everest, build Everest. If all you've got is small hillocks, then use small hillocks.

I like the article Yak. It's really well laid-out and explains both sides quite well. The only thing that doesn't seem to be noted enough is that Model's Eye View really punishes people who want to be creative with modelling--daemon princes with giant wings standing on top of dreadnoughts, ripping out the mortally wounded marine inside... well... they're just up the creek because nothing will hide them. My wraithlord striding across a 3" pile of space marine bodies will be equally vulnerable... At the same time, seeing all those crawling wraithlords in 3rd edition really aggravated me (remember 2x height screening rules?)...

It's a complicated issue and I think you do it justice. If only GW would explain what they meant in a coherent article, things would be so much better... alas, water and wine are not changeable at this time.

Posted By Geddonight on 08/28/2007 1:37 AM
. At the same time, seeing all those crawling wraithlords in 3rd edition really aggravated me

So, how many was that, exactly...?

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone. I am working on a revised version of the article which makes it much more clear that the 'magic cylinder lite' is actually a model's eye view style of play despite it's name. I'm also adding a section that discusses the game impact between the friendly model's eye view and the Magic Cylinder lite styles since they represent the most common way the two sides are split.


@Blackmoor: The thing is, the rulebook (and later the terrain article) make it clear that hills are true WYSIWYG terrain. You're not supposed to play them as a convention even though many people do. I'm with Insaniak here, I've never understood why people always want their hills to be huge tank blocking things. . .that's what forests and other size 3 area terrain is for.

The real world is full of all types of hills, including gentle rolls in the earth that barely conceal a person. Hills are unique terrain features that give a cover save to models behind but don't block line of sight fully like area terrain. They are something different and that makes them cool, which is why it is such a shame that so many people just play them like a modified piece of area terrain.

When it comes to skimmers, what size stand you choose to put them on definitely has always affected how they are seen when using true LOS. There are no rules allowing you to change the shape/size of your model during the game so you would have to choose whether you want to play with your model off the flying stand before the game begins or ends.


@Geddonight: I can definitely add the fact that creative modeling (for the purpose of a cool looking model) affects gameplay in the model's eye view (friendly style and pure) and in the magic cylinder lite style too (the height of the model has game impact).

Actually, the 'kneeling wrathlord" issue is covered in the model height section and could be quoted as a precedence for true LOS. And in third (IIRC), there was a FAQ that covered the same issue.

A very fine article. I have run into many of these views, and pointing out these rules in the book tend to make 'magic' cylinder players mad, as they believe the game should be played by their interpretation of the rules. Which the game wouldn't be much fun if it had to be played by everyone's interpretations, instead of the 'Rules'.

The terrain issue is pretty simple though, as it should be decided upon before the game, and even before it is placed whether it is area terrain of a certain size, or if it is simply WYSIWYG.

Anyone 'magic' cylindering "you can't shoot my Russ becaus my buggy blocks LOS" needs a kick in the balls, as the rules spell out that you can draw LOS over and around them, even if wrecked. Model size does not equate to area terrain size...

As far as models and drawing LOS, I will advance my view, which is that if my Carnifex cannot move between other models because his base won't fit between, then you can't draw LOS around his leg or shell, but have to use his base, though I do concede his actual height would be used, as per the rules. The fact that monstrous creatures have bases, and are movement constrained by them, does not marry up to the LOS ruling on pg 20. Since the book says that a model occupies the area of its base, as it would be assumed that the model would be in action if it were real, the base should be considered to be the models zone of influence, and block LOS in width, and the models physical height is used in height.

I do really agree that tournament organizers should have predetermined, well thought out, clearly and succinctly written rules spelling all of this out, especially if they are not going to go with RAW LOS.

Addressing those jerks who put drop pods on bases....they're vehicles, which don't have bases that influence LOS....vehicles can be seen over or around, so if said jerk says I can't see past the open doors of the pod, yeah, you can because they are lying on the ground, and I can see over them, as per the rules.....

Actually height doesn't matter as that is all pre-determined. To the point if someone modeled all their guardsmen laying prone on the ground would not allow them to hide behind a piece of sewer pipe, and not be shot at.
Regular models are size 1. Vehicles and MC's are size 2. Tall buildings, etc are size 3. So technically a Rhino could park sideways in front of a Land Raider, and block LOS to it. You can draw LOS over and around it so if you can see part of the land raider around the rhino's magic block then you can fire at it although it will get to roll for hull down.
And you can fire over it into a level 3 building.

However height wise according to the rules a Rhino and a Land Raider are the same height. So you can draw LOS over them to something higher behind them but you cannot draw LOS through the Rhino.

However I agree adding a large base, or extra pieces to a vehicle does not change it's size at all. Same thing if you put a SM with a Lascannon modelled where he's standing on top of a 20foot ladder does not make him capable of seeing over anything that a normal marine cannot see over.
So kneeling a wraithlord, or squatting a carnifex would have no affect, etc.

Nor does putting a model on a bigger base such as extending a wraithlords base out an extra 2" to help it block LOS. All these sizes are fixed before the game ever starts.

Actually, that is incorrect. Model size is different from terrain size, a common misconception. And size 1 models are Nurglings, Snotlings, etc. Size 2 are guard, eldar, space marines, your normal infantry. Size three are vehicles and monstrous creatures.



They are the same size, not the same height. Pg 20 states that LOS can be drawn OVER or around a vehicle, so a Land Raider can be seen over a Rhino.



The Wraithlords base should be the monstrous creature base, which is the largest GW makes. I do think the MC's base should be the LOS blocker, as the rulebook says that the MC occupies the entire base, otherwise jerks would just pose their MC's with arms spread and legs all akimbo, just to increase the models LOS disruption, or turn them sideways, so they present a bigger obstacle without the drawback of a side AV. But this is becoming a discussion where purists would resort to brawling, because the pg 20 rule states that you can see over or AROUND a MC, while pg 6 says the MC occupies the entirety of its base.......gee, once again GW and their poorly worded and expressed rules don't mesh, and are actually at odds in this case.

Model and terrain 'size' has very little to do with blocking LoS.

The fact that a Wraithlord is size 3 means very little, unless dealing with area terrain, or if it is locked in CC. So yes, a carnifex laying down, that is lower than a sewer pipe, has LoS blocked by that sewer pipe.

Posted By Personification on 08/28/2007 12:33 PM
Actually height doesn't matter as that is all pre-determined. To the point if someone modeled all their guardsmen laying prone on the ground would not allow them to hide behind a piece of sewer pipe, and not be shot at.
Regular models are size 1. Vehicles and MC's are size 2. Tall buildings, etc are size 3. So technically a Rhino could park sideways in front of a Land Raider, and block LOS to it. You can draw LOS over and around it so if you can see part of the land raider around the rhino's magic block then you can fire at it although it will get to roll for hull down.
And you can fire over it into a level 3 building.

However height wise according to the rules a Rhino and a Land Raider are the same height. So you can draw LOS over them to something higher behind them but you cannot draw LOS through the Rhino.

However I agree adding a large base, or extra pieces to a vehicle does not change it's size at all. Same thing if you put a SM with a Lascannon modelled where he's standing on top of a 20foot ladder does not make him capable of seeing over anything that a normal marine cannot see over.
So kneeling a wraithlord, or squatting a carnifex would have no affect, etc.

Nor does putting a model on a bigger base such as extending a wraithlords base out an extra 2" to help it block LOS. All these sizes are fixed before the game ever starts.

Please tell me you did not just read my whole article and then post this. There's no possible way, right?

You just ignored my article and then posted, correct?

Posted By Salacious Greed on 08/28/2007 1:13 PM

The Wraithlords base should be the monstrous creature base, which is the largest GW makes. I do think the MC's base should be the LOS blocker, as the rulebook says that the MC occupies the entire base, otherwise jerks would just pose their MC's with arms spread and legs all akimbo, just to increase the models LOS disruption, or turn them sideways, so they present a bigger obstacle without the drawback of a side AV. But this is becoming a discussion where purists would resort to brawling, because the pg 20 rule states that you can see over or AROUND a MC, while pg 6 says the MC occupies the entirety of its base.......gee, once again GW and their poorly worded and expressed rules don't mesh, and are actually at odds in this case.

Actually, I believe the Magic Cylinder lite provides the easiest opportunity for players to convert their models to gain an advantage. They can increase the overall width of their model by increasing their base size and they can increase/decrease the height of the model to change it's ability to hide/be seen over intervening objects.

With the model's eye view style conversions to gain an in-game advantage take a little more time and effort to achieve and tend to be easy to spot.

I'm adding a section to the article discussing the difference between the firendly model's eye view and the magic Cylinder lite styles as those are the two that most everyone plays (with 'Personification' apparently being one of the 10%ish that plays the pure magic cylinder).

 

Posted By yakface on 08/28/2007 6:35 PM
Please tell me you did not just read my whole article and then post this. There's no possible way, right?

You just ignored my article and then posted, correct?

You can't save them all Yak.

Great Article, Yakface.

I find it sad that it takes a 16 page article to try and clarify 3 paragraphs in the rule book, but there you go.

I have found that in tournaments I've been to, my opponents have pretty much been 95% models eye view with 5% magic cylinder, and one guy once who tried to target the edge of a base that protruded around a corner, with no actual model in sight. I assume you can't target bases.

I also agree with I think it was blackmoor with the hills issue. I do find that almost everyone uses the GW style 1" hills, and it would be nice to have them actually count for something. I find most tourneys I'm in, we just agree to make them a size something area terrain for simplicity, and to minimise arguements later. If some common hills were 3-5" tall, I would have no comment.

You really should send this in to white dwarf, maybe your good work could be shared with the unwashed masses, and it would certainly be a much better article than most of the current faire, and useful to everyone.

Okay, I updated the article to try to address many of the points you guys brought up. In particular I tried to differentiate when I was talking about the pure magic cylinder and when I was talking about the magic cylinder lite (as they really are quite different).

I also added a whole section dedicated to discussing the gameplay impact of the friendly model's eye view vs. the magic cylinder lite (since these are the most common playing styles).


I'm still looking for anyone with the ability to take some good pictures for me. . .anyone?

For example, Geddoknight do you have any pictures of your heroically converted models? Could you possibly find stock versions of the same model and stand them on a battlefield behind a piece of terrain (or another size 3 model) to demonstrate that the converted model suffers from an inability to stay out of LOS?

Haven't read the update yet, but was thinking about this last night. Since you are already referring to certain points of 3rd ed, might you not want to make a comparison of current rules with the old screening rules, which did use bases to determine LOS for screening purposes?

Re submission to WD, I agree, go for it.

A couple of quick things...

First off, instead of having green arrows in Figure C (right picture) and Figure T (right picture), to represent true line of sight, I would put a green box around the model that can be seen (The top of the Leman Russ in C, and the Ork in T).

Yakface,

I like the update, and I admit, I am a magic cylinder lite player, though I abhor strict magic cylinder. I would love to be a friendly models eye view player, if GW didn't constrain my movement in certain situations of the game based on my base size. If I can't move into HTH because my carnifex's base won't fit between intervening models, it's not fair that my opponent draw LOS across my base. 4th Edition did away with the problem of infantry LOS and their bases almost entirely, only needing players to know to measure from the base, and to draw LOS from any part of my own model's base. Too bad concise rules is a pipedream, and apparently, from all the battle reports in WD, rules issues don't come up in the studio.

Well, actually reading the current WD battle report, they don't even know all of the rules to the game, as they didn't entangle the Berzerkers when their rhino was destroyed first turn. So yeah, it's a pipedream.....

Although it is a nice write up you have gotten several points wrong for us wizards and our amazing magic cylinders. I would also like to reiterate that you are clinging to past rules and do not want your lovely models to be magic cylinders and that is why you are sticking so bad to the old rules, and so doo all the other people who want it to be literal. I understand that urge but really:

"Do I understand why people like the Pure Magic Cylinder and want to use it? Absolutely. The Pure Magic Cylinder creates fewer arguments, speeds up the game, and doesn’t allow as much abuse of creative modeling. But to me, it also makes the game a bit boring. It takes the toy soldier out of the toy soldier game and essentially replaces him with a flat counter. I personally hope the designers never fully turn the game of Warhammer 40K into a two-dimensional game by utilizing a Pure Magic Cylinder approach in all game circumstances." 

Shows that you are simply clinging to your view and discounting the evidence against you. Here's some points you made wrong:

1)  There is no infinitly tall cylinder, that is an abstraction that people who don't understand Size Levels came up with. The height is the Size Level, and level 3 is simply taller than 2. There is no specific height to that, all you need to know is it is relatively larger. People complain that this must mean the object is infinitely high, but then you wouldn't be able to park a skimmer over an infinite height woods would you? Can't be infinite, just tall enough that LOS cannot be drawn over it.  

2)  "When playing with a Pure Magic Cylinder approach, the only time a player needs stoop over the table to get a model’s eye view is to determine if line of sight can be drawn

Not true, when using "normal terrain" we use the actual physical model as described inaccurately as targetting the "body". As most of us realize that it will be quicker and easier just to give a size level to the terrain we choose to play with terrain that only has size levels and avoid figuring out how high to hold a skimmer over some woods even though we have that option. We just avoid the poorly written normal terrain rules that do not fit with the definitions of models. I stoop over the table often to see if there is intervening models or terrain, I'm just not using "true LOS" but simply a better viewpoint.

3)  The old rules desribing model's eye view all qualify the terrain you can't see as "not being tall enough to block" without a visual. They don't actually clarify what that means, and do not show them using the model's profile. Old rules are irrelevant anyway, but I see what you are trying to get at with model's eye view, I just think that you are reading too much into it without an accurate picture in the old rulebooks.

4)  You keep limiting models to blocking LOS by size level only while in combat. That is true for general models, but Size level 3 models are specifically noted as always blocking LOS in the same section in a separate sentence.  As the rules have already clarified that Size Levels are the only thing that matter for LOS for models, then they Size level 3 models (including vehicles) would block LOS the same way models in combat block, by Size Level, the same way a Size Level 2 model would block when in combat. I've never understood this restricting when referring to Size Level 3 models since the SL3 qualifier (that it is SL3) is seperate from the general only blocks in combat rule for normal models.  

I'm also aware that it states that you can shoot over a vehicle or model if LOS can be drawn over it. If there was a Size Level larger than 3 then you would be albe to draw LOS over a Level 3 model by using a piece of terrain of that size to do so. Unfortunately the book does not list any Size Level 4 terrain although I believe there is some Size Level 2 artillery in the orcs you can draw LOS over.

5)  "The player has to assume that a “model’s eye view” is used only to determine if a firing model can see

Actually, look at figure C, it is much easier to see at the model's eye level that no parts of the tank are sticking out past the side of the Rhino than it is from an elevation. This is especially easy when lining up the edges of bases, or to see an uneven vechicle edge's outermost point. Model's eye view helps determine whether something is sticking out beyond their base or hull area ("footprint" .

6)   Why would you even want to end up holding a skimmer over woods to determine LOS when a jetbike over the same piece of terrain could just claim the terrains Size Level 3 for determining LOS? Isn't the model just using the height of the terrain to be elevated? This causes a problem for true LOS since area terrain doesn't have a literal height. There are no problems with LOS from on top of a wood with Size Levels, and this is another example of how poorly normal terrain works.

7)  "The player has to assume that when the rules require that

What blocks by profile? Normal Terrain, referenced as the only thing that needs to be looked over literally to determine LOS. What is normal terrain? Whatever you designate as such. When you are targetting a "body" which is not defined in the rules (but models with Sizes are) basically, this one sentence does not fit will all of the rest of the rules. I don't have to suddenly ignore "the only thing that matters" for determining LOS in all other circumstances because they used 'body' here. You also try to back it up with the FAQ that only talks about shooting over normal terrain, but does not mention shooting over models, as justification for being able to shoot over models.

_______

Your examples are good, you basic explanation of the two views is good and clear with how they work. Your logic and given proof contradict your view and your conclusion is both wrong and fmisguided. The split between the vote is from old players and those wanting to have their models mean something vs those of us who have read the rules fresh and like the new system. Normal terrain is the odd man out, not Size Levels. The article would have been better if you did not try to justify your view at the end because it cuts off critical thinking for a lot of people who defer judgement to the article.

“Line of sight must be drawn to the body of the target model” that they mean a generalized term “body”. A term that is actually represented by any area above the base of the target model."around an intervening object (as opposed to [i]over [b]it), despite the fact that a “bird’s eye view” (an overhead look at the table) is a far better way to determine this."[/b][/i]around another model/terrain feature; the ability to draw line of sight over anything is entirely granted via the size classification system."

To the bit about firing at a unit that had one fraction of a model's base poking out from behind a building say: I would let my opponant fire at the unit, but they can only target that one model (and generally, if more than 50% of a model's base is not visible, I expect a cover save). The rules are clear enough in that they allow shooting at a unit if you can see at least one model, but can only remove casualties from those in LOS, so that's not a problem. Personally, since the model takes up the space of the base, it makes sense that during the course of the turn the model is poking it's head out and trying to snap off a shot, or just peeking, and thus the enemy can try and tag it as it does so.

Otherwise, a good article, though I think calling the magic cylinder methed "2d" is a little incorrect. I do think though there needs to be more varied and defined height to units, the easiest would just to assign an inch height a unit occupies, in integers. So you can model the prone snipers, but "on average" during the turn they are 1" tall, just as they on average during the turn take up the entire base. That would make things a lot quicker.

Alternately, they could have rules for prone, kneeling and standing positions for models, but that would get messy with say Tyranids or Demon Princes who are masses of tentacles.
"Those tentacles are totally flexed, that's -2" of move!"

Yak-

Good article. I think you're right that your prejudices to bleed through a bit. I would fix that. I would take out words like "believe." The tone in which it is used could be construed as condescending. It certainly read that way to me.

Personally, I would say the rules most closely favor the cylinder-lite style of play. It allows for the use of size classifications in some situations, allos you to shoot over models, does not allow you to shoot "through" a model and supports the rule that models are considered to take up the area of their base.

The "friendly model's eye-view" depends entirely on the individual interpretation of "through" while ignoring that models are assumed to take up the entirety of the base. Why does "through" mean between the legs? Where did that come from? Why does "through" deal with things attached to the base? It really is just a made up convention not supported by the rules at all. It is "friendly" but just not right.

I have actually never encountered anyone that plays pure-cylinder. In 2ed I used to be a pure model's eye view player. That's what the rules called for and that's what I did.

ender502

 

Posted By snooggums on 08/29/2007 11:11 AM

4)  You keep limiting models to blocking LOS by size level only while in combat. That is true for general models, but Size level 3 models are specifically noted as always blocking LOS in the same section in a separate sentence.  As the rules have already clarified that Size Levels are the only thing that matter for LOS for models, then they Size level 3 models (including vehicles) would block LOS the same way models in combat block, by Size Level, the same way a Size Level 2 model would block when in combat. I've never understood this restricting when referring to Size Level 3 models since the SL3 qualifier (that it is SL3) is seperate from the general only blocks in combat rule for normal models.  

I'm also aware that it states that you can shoot over a vehicle or model if LOS can be drawn over it. If there was a Size Level larger than 3 then you would be albe to draw LOS over a Level 3 model by using a piece of terrain of that size to do so. Unfortunately the book does not list any Size Level 4 terrain although I believe there is some Size Level 2 artillery in the orcs you can draw LOS over.

“Line of sight must be drawn to the body of the target model” that they mean a generalized term “body”. A term that is actually represented by any area above the base of the target model."around an intervening object (as opposed to [i]over [b]it), despite the fact that a “bird’s eye view” (an overhead look at the table) is a far better way to determine this."[/b][/i]around another model/terrain feature; the ability to draw line of sight over anything is entirely granted via the size classification system."

Ok, first, you are mixing parts of the book. Pg 20 when discussing drawing LOS over or around vehicles, does not state anything about size levels. So, let me draw an example. I have a unit of trukk boyz standing in front of their truck, which is parked in front of a Gargant. I can draw LOS past the boyz to the trukk because it is both a vehicle, and a size level larger. I can draw LOS to the Gargant because the rule on pg 20 says I can draw LOS over the trukk, because the Gargant is physically larger. You are trying to apple and orange your magic cylinder viewpoint.

And I can't tell if you are challenging what is the body of the model. In the boxing ring, they don't go "body blow, body blow" when the guy is hitting you in the head or in the hand......

Posted By Salacious Greed on 08/29/2007 12:17 PM
Ok, first, you are mixing parts of the book. Pg 20 when discussing drawing LOS over or around vehicles, does not state anything about size levels. So, let me draw an example. I have a unit of trukk boyz standing in front of their truck, which is parked in front of a Gargant. I can draw LOS past the boyz to the trukk because it is both a vehicle, and a size level larger. I can draw LOS to the Gargant because the rule on pg 20 says I can draw LOS over the trukk, because the Gargant is physically larger. You are trying to apple and orange your magic cylinder viewpoint.

And I can't tell if you are challenging what is the body of the model. In the boxing ring, they don't go "body blow, body blow" when the guy is hitting you in the head or in the hand......

It doesn't have to state anything about Size Levels because those are already described as being the only thing that matters when drawing LOS. It already says that you use Size Levels to determine if you can see over somethings, and this is not mixing parts because the details about the Size Levels and LOS are made first, they are the foundation of the LOS rules.

On page 20, it gives an additional rule that regular models do not Block LOS except when in combat, so their Size does  not count when determining LOS. Then it states that a Size Level 3 always blocks LOS (so therefore, not just while in combat, but it would block the same way since models are only defined as having the height of their Size Level in the model section at the beginning). Page 20 also says that you can shoot over a vehicle that you can draw LOS to, and to do that would be to check your Size Levels as already explained earlier in the book since that is how it has already been explained.

Your Gargant is a good example of why the main rule book suggests using house rules to make the game work for you. If I played with Gargants I would say "As this is a nonstandard model for the game and it is described as being very, very large I suggest we consider it to be a 4th size Level." This house rule would allow the enourmous Gargant to use it's extreme difference in height to shoot over or be shot over vehicles by comparing their Size Levels, and allow it to shoot over Size Level 3 terrain. A Rhino in front of a Land Raider blocks enough of the model behind that you do not have a clear shot to make, represented by your inability to ake the shot, even though the top of the model can be seen. It would not block enough of this enourmously larger Gargant though.

Size levels do not mean a smaller Size Level 3 model is actually completely obscuring the model behind, just enough that you would not have soldiers that make the shot at the model behind. The earlier Size Level rule and the following special exemptions are not mutually exclusive as you believe.

Snoogums,

If your assertion is correct, that Size Level is the only determining fact, why do they make the caveat on pg 20 of 'A line of sight may still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.' They are not discussing terrain, only vehicles, wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery. So it is apples and oranges, as they are stipulating that whatever my model can see past your say, ork trukk or salamander, can be fired at by that model. Because the model's eye view that I was just instructed to use means I see over them, even though they are size level three....

And if you go back to pg 7, the paragraph following the 3 sizes says that I only need to remember the size levels for intervening terrain features and ongoing close combats......huh, not masking other vehicles.....weird