In another thread I voiced my concerns with the reliability of the TLoS rules in 5e. Other posters feel these are the most robust LoS rules we've had so far. I'd like to get more clarity.

Two issues immediately come to mind as I consider the new rules in the context of the games I've played in the past.

So, to preface this, this is all how I used to play. If I was misapplying 4E rules, and nothing has really changed in 5e, let me know.

Here's the big quote that it all revolves around: "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms)."

1) Marines in Buildings:

When I'm playing my Marines, I tend to have a least a few squads sitting in buildings and shooting (Devs, Las/Plas, etc). At my FLGS there are a bunch of generic foamcore "building ruins" that basically look like multistory cubes with regular windows, and then some degree of battle damage. They're simple but effective pieces of terrain, and I like them a lot. In the past, I've just plopped my Marines in them, maybe spread over levels, more or less just "in the building." I didn't worry if every guy was right in front of a window, I just put them in the building and assumed they all could shoot out, and that the building itself wasn't going to create LOS issues, so long as they were generally near a window. I also spaced them oot nicely to avoid blasts. Nobody I played ever took issue with this, and it seemed to be generally the way everyone else played too.

Now what? If I take the new rules at face value, a model that doesn't have LOS to a model in the target unit can't fire. So now I need to take the time to place every model at a window? If a model happens to be just a quarter of an inch too far left or right, so he can't see the obvious cluster of charging Daemons, he can't fire at all? Even if the model, IRL, could just lean a bit and shoot? And what aboot terrain with lots of detail to it, lots of rubble, that makes it hard/impossible to do this, even if I wanted to take the time to carefully stick everyone at a window? That points me to p13 and "wobbly model syndrome" which says I can leave models in safer positions... Am I seriously going to do that with a whole unit? Is this not pointing to how stupid it is to take the model's position totally literally, when it's clearly not possible?

2) Crisis Suits Behind Buildings:

With the same buildings described above, just as everyone understood that being inside the building meant you could see oot and get a cover save, everyone also understood that being outside and behind the building meant it blocked LOS. So, I would put my Crisis Suits behind the building, J-S-J with them, and nobody would start claiming they could shoot through the building because their Devestator could see part of a Crisis Suit's shoulder (or whatever).

Now what?

I don't even entirely know what the rules are saying in this situation. Do they mean you have to be able to see any part of the body? Even a sliver of leg is enough? Or do you have to see all of one "part?" I.e. you have to be able to see all of the head, or all of the legs, or all of the torso?

These are just two examples where I can see the TLoS rules falling apart, or becoming more of a confusion and hassle than they're worth.

In closing, let me add that I'm aware I can write house rules that things have to operate however I want. This is not a helpful response, since my goal (and I think most everyone's goal) is to be able to find a game easily, and to have a consistent understanding of the rules with any opponent you might come across.

Phryxis wrote:Now what? If I take the new rules at face value, a model that doesn't have LOS to a model in the target unit can't fire.

That's correct. Area Terrain now works the same for LOS as all other terrain does... and the way all other terrain did in 4th edition.

Note that Buildings and Ruins are actually two seperate things now. Intact buildings are treated more or less like Transport vehicles now. Ruins are WYSIWYG area terrain.

That points me to p13 and "wobbly model syndrome" which says I can leave models in safer positions... Am I seriously going to do that with a whole unit?

People have been doing so, without the benefit of a rule that actually allows it, for as long as I've been playing. It's not really that big a deal in practice, since from my experience most people put at least a little thought into how models are going to be able to stand on it when building the terrain in the first place. I've not yet come across a terrain piece that required an entire unit to be placed in anything other than their actual locations.

Is this not pointing to how stupid it is to take the model's position totally literally, when it's clearly not possible?

How?

If the terrain for a miniatures-based game is built in such a way that models can't be accurately positioned on it, that's a failing of the terrain, not a failing of the rules.

I don't even entirely know what the rules are saying in this situation. Do they mean you have to be able to see any part of the body? Even a sliver of leg is enough? Or do you have to see all of one "part?" I.e. you have to be able to see all of the head, or all of the legs, or all of the torso?

If you can draw a LOS to one of those defined parts of the body, you have LOS.

It's that simple.

I like the rule but the problem is that current terrain even cities of death is really making it a pain to have windows to fire out of.

I reread these rules in 4e. They're significantly more vague. In some respects, I can see why one might argue that this is in fact an improvement.

My concern remains, though... When something is sloppy and informal (as TLoS is) it's best to treat it as sloppy and informal. I feel like that's what the 4e rules did. The 5e rules are trying to be much more strict in the interpretation of something that doesn't really support it.

For example, of the 5 or 6 Eldar Ranger sculpts, all but one are standing, and that one is kneeling. If we take these rules seriously, that model pretty much can't ever fire oot of a ruined building with windows higher than his eye level.

I'd argue that a reasonable thing would be to say that as long as a model is near a window, even if he's crouching too low to see oot, he can shoot and be shot, through that window. The 4e rules did generally support that interpretation, or at least didn't specifically negate it. The 5e rules do.

So no matter how many times you say they're the same rules, they're not THE SAME. They're quite similar in motivation, but 5e attaches all manner of very specific conditions which fundamentally change the character of the rules.

This is a critical difference between 4e and 5e: In 4e, they just say 'see if the model has line of sight.' What this ultimately ends up meaning is "be a reasonable human being, and see if it looks like the shot would work." That's literally as good as you're going to get with a TLoS system (which is one reason I don't like it).

In 5e, as you've implied, that's still more or less what the rule actually is (and they admit it). Only now they've attached all this impossible detail and rigor to the process, which does nothing but limit the game and create confusion. Now we're locked into the bizzare, static poses or models take, and it's ridiculous.

The new take on TLoS is NOT more helpful, it's foolishness. It's all based on the incorrect assumption that TLoS can do any better than ask the players to be reasonable.

But, enough editorializing on my part. I want to know how I'm supposed to play these rules.

1) If I've got my squad of Eldar Pathfinders in a building, and I can't place the crouching model so he can see oot a window, what should happen?

2) If I've got my Crisis Suit behind a building, and an enemy Devestator can see one of his toes through a hole in the ruin, what should happen?

Phryxis wrote: The 5e rules are trying to be much more strict in the interpretation of something that doesn't really support it.

Ok, now I am confused.

You don't like true LOS because it's sloppy and vague... but 5th ed is worse because it's less sloppy and vague?

Here is something to add to the morass. Coherency. When you are lining up your models in that building or behind that ruined wall you still have to adhere to unit coherency rules. This should add to the difficulty in placing troops. Vertical firing lines behind a window? You can still shoot through your own troops.

One thing I think you are failing to consider here is the fact that your troops are still behind cover and the cover save rules have been beefed up if I remember right. This should balance out the fact that more shots are going to be taken at your troops.

Just my two cents.

You don't like true LOS because it's sloppy and vague... but 5th ed is worse because it's less sloppy and vague?

No, I don't like it because it pretends things that are sloppy and vague aren't, and then makes the game beholden to that false assumption.

Lame analogy time:

Let's say you've got a new job making widgets, and they've got performance metrics. Something like "100 widgets a day" would be nice, right?

But that's not what you get. You get "enough widgets." What's "enough?" Who knows, it's sloppy and vague.

Ok, if that's what the deal is, fine. We can still make it work if management is cool aboot it, and comes to you and says "look, we need more widgets, can you pick up the pace?"

That's what 4e was. They accepted that statically posed models on handmade terrain was a sloppy and vague arrangement, and they said "hey, be cool aboot it."

Now 5e comes along, and it's pretending like things aren't sloppy and vague. If you miss your metrics for ONE month, you're fired. It'd be one thing if the metric was clear. 100 widgets, and you keep your job. But it's not clear. It's "enough."

That's BS.

It's treating sloppiness as real data.

So, put simply, I don't like sloppy, vague rules. What I like even less are sloppy, vague rules that don't get what they are, and then tack some draconian BS on top.

MORE lame analogies:

The 4e LoS rules were like a clumsy drunk that needed to be humored to be tolerated.

The 5e LoS rules are like a clumsy drunk with a kaiser helmet and spiked elbow pads. I don't want to tolerate.

Go play Warmachine, or even better, go play Classic Battletech where it is 100% ok to use cardboard cutouts as your models, and the game is simply a process of equations.

We get it. You don't like TLoS. you've written three seperate threads to tell us you don't like TLoS. We understand. you don't like TLoS.

You're, so far, alone in this.

Two of the best minds in our industry/hobby, Insaniak and Yakface (who's FAQs seem to always become the basis for GW's official FAQs), have both told you you're howling at the moon. They've told you you're wrong - not in your opinion, that's 100% yours and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong in your assumptions that the TLoS rules are ineffective/worse-than-they-have-been/etc.

My suggestion: chalk your opinion up to "you don't like it" and move on. Keep playing, don't keep playing, whatever, but it's time to move on.

And yes, we know, you don't like TLoS.

Warmachine is TLOS also just so you know (except for screening).

And Battletech rules, don't be hating.

LOL, I know, I know...

The warmachine thing was cause that's where all the disgruntled former GW players go. Its just funny to me there are an awful lot of people that think Privateer press $#!7$ sunlight and happy fun times, and it's usually because some innocuous thing "drove" them away from GW.

As for battletech, it popped my gaming cherry, nothing but love. But it might solve some of the OPs complaints, there is absolutely nothing debatable about Battletech LOS rules.

The real failing of the new LOS rules is their confusion of abstract and non-abstract concepts.

1) Models out of LOS/Range can be wounded because the position of the models in a unit are "abstract" those models could actually be anywhere in the footprint of the unit.

2) To draw LOS to a model, you need only clip its right elbow with a laser.

So you use the exact pose and position of one model to allow you to damage any number of other abstractly positioned models? Shennanigans.

But as with all things, we will get used to it and play the game. Its that or leave the larger community. Since 40K is a social hobby first and a game second - the rules are lower priority than simply playing.

My group was trying to figure out if firers within area terrain shooting at vehichles causes the vehicles to get the cover save or not?

A little different, but overall I like the new TLOS thing a lot, admittedly I have to build all sorts of new style terraint to allow for at least some hiding places on the table, but that wont take to long!

Phryxis wrote:

But, enough editorializing on my part. I want to know how I'm supposed to play these rules.

1) If I've got my squad of Eldar Pathfinders in a building, and I can't place the crouching model so he can see oot a window, what should happen?

2) If I've got my Crisis Suit behind a building, and an enemy Devestator can see one of his toes through a hole in the ruin, what should happen?

1) Place the crouching model slightly outside the terrain. All you have to do is have the majority of your models in your terrain so you're good to go. When your unit suffers a casualty, pull the kneeling model if it's not a good fit for the terrain you're in.

2) Your Crisis suits get shot, albeit with a 4+ cover save.



After reading all of your posts I think it's fairly clear (apologies if I'm misconstruing your intentions) that you wanted the game to fully move to a 2D system with size categories used to handle height differences. The fact that the game hasn't moved to this place seems to be bugging you. However you have to realize that 40K since its inception (yes even rogue trader) has used the 'model's eye view' as the basic determining factor for drawing LOS.

If you're playing a game with 3D models on 3D terrain a model's eye view is the *only* way to fully utilize the unique three-dimensional nature of the game. Any other system strips the three dimensionality out in favor of simplicity.

Obviously you're in favor of losing this element of the game for ease-of-play but there are many of us (including the game's designers) that this element is what makes the game *great* and unique and therefore should be celebrated, protected and treasured.

40K is a game of 3D models interacting with 3D terrain. If this core idea doesn't sit well with you then you are indeed going to have a hard time playing the game.

DeathGod wrote:Two of the best minds in our industry/hobby, Insaniak and Yakface (who's FAQs seem to always become the basis for GW's official FAQs), have both told you you're howling at the moon. They've told you you're wrong - not in your opinion, that's 100% yours and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong in your assumptions that the TLoS rules are ineffective/worse-than-they-have-been/etc.

C'mon now. My opinion isn't any more valid than Phryxis. Either way they're just one gamer's opinions.

Augustus wrote:My group was trying to figure out if firers within area terrain shooting at vehichles causes the vehicles to get the cover save or not?

A little different, but overall I like the new TLOS thing a lot, admittedly I have to build all sorts of new style terraint to allow for at least some hiding places on the table, but that wont take to long!

Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures need to actually have 50% of the model (or facing in the case of vehicle) physically obscured by terrain (or intervening models) in order to get a cover save.

In short, area terrain isn't going to provide cover to vehicles or MCs unless the actual terrain elements in the area terrain are big enough to obscure the vehicle/MC model (like some individual tree models are big enough to obscure a vehicle or MC model).


It's the one thing (besides Troops being the only scoring unit) that slows down the Godzilla Tyranid army. It is much harder for them to get cover saves now.

that you wanted the game to fully move to a 2D system with size categories used to handle height differences.

I'm not sure it'd take that exact form, but I would like to see something a little more generalized, which doesn't (as I complain aboot in more detail in another thread) lead to ridiculous outcomes and put a damper on creative, bold models.

I mean, I sat here and thought aboot it for 5 minutes, and I come up with this simple solution:

Added to p16, new paragraph, after "majestic wings, etc."

"Some poses may cause models to be unable to establish line of sight in situations where a living, breathing soldier might reasonably do so. If at least one model in the firing unit has line of sight to at least one model in the target unit, then the controlling player may temporarily substitute any model of the same type, and from the same unit, for the problematically posed model. This substitute model may then be used to determine line of sight as normal, and once a determination is made, both models must immediately be returned to their original locations."

I'm sure a bit of cleanup and impact analysis is called for, but come on... How simple is that?

The problem with that solution is that as soon as you start allowing players to substitute models, you create arguments.

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

While a lot of poeple aren't going to care over-much about a model moving a couple of mm sideways during the swap... a lot will.

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

Sure, but try measuring range without jostling the odd model. Try moving around terrain without periodically bumping something and toppling/moving models.

I see your point in general, but I think that anything that presumes that the models will maintain exact position, and which relies on that exact position, is operating under a false assumption.

While a lot of poeple aren't going to care over-much about a model moving a couple of mm sideways during the swap... a lot will.

Right, but this game is aboot fun, and GW isn't going to kowtow to a few bad apples, right?

One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

Phryxis wrote:

Try swapping one model for another without altering the model's position, even slightly.

Sure, but try measuring range without jostling the odd model.

I do it all the time. I'm fairly sure I've never seen anyone actually touch a model to measure range. I've rarely seen situations (barring somewhat enclosed cover) that couldn't be measured by just holding the tape measure above a model's base and measuring. In terms of bumping terrain, sure it happens. What, maybe 1 in ever 2nd or 3rd game? How often would it happen to a terrain that is housing some unit that may be 12" away... or maybe 13?

Phryxis wrote:
I see your point in general, but I think that anything that presumes that the models will maintain exact position, and which relies on that exact position, is operating under a false assumption.

Bumping terrain is something that happens once in a while, usually won't overly impact the game, and is just something you take in stride. Beyond that, though, I can't really see many scenarios where the models are moving unless they're being moved purposefully for either movement, run, assault, counter-assault, or massacre. I think that if your opponents' models are not staying in the same place outside of movements, you might need to call shenanigans. Especially if models are changing position during range measurements, because that's sketchy at best.

yakface wrote:

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

What I believe he is saying is that this



used to be represented on the tabletop as this



but now, under 5th edition, to actually represent the first pic on the tabletop you have to model something like this



If you placed a tank in the 2nd pic, under 4th edition, you'd just move some trees around and the tank would still get "hull downed" or whatever.

What holden88 was saying is if you place the tank in the last pic under 5th, and you move some trees around in order for the tank to fit, the tank is no longer 50% obscured, and thus it won't get a cover save, due to TLOS.

Personally, I think it is quite okay, in friendly games at least, to declare before the game starts that wood templates count as thick woods and block LOS, and that models in it get a cover save regardless of TLOS.

Phryxis wrote:

I mean, I sat here and thought aboot it for 5 minutes, and I come up with this simple solution:

Added to p16, new paragraph, after "majestic wings, etc."

"Some poses may cause models to be unable to establish line of sight in situations where a living, breathing soldier might reasonably do so. If at least one model in the firing unit has line of sight to at least one model in the target unit, then the controlling player may temporarily substitute any model of the same type, and from the same unit, for the problematically posed model. This substitute model may then be used to determine line of sight as normal, and once a determination is made, both models must immediately be returned to their original locations."

I'm sure a bit of cleanup and impact analysis is called for, but come on... How simple is that?

I personally disagree that something like this should be in the rulebook (and this coming from the guy who likes to have every detail spelled out in a tournament FAQ).

The more caveats added to a rule, the more the simplicity and clarity of said rule starts to get watered down. Right now, the rule is pretty much perfect in terms of being easily understandable. Some veterans are having a hard time wrapping their head around the perceived changes because some tended to play the game in some form of magic cylinder style of play.

But I think if you took the rules and had a new player read them, they'd be pretty easy to pick up (and a heck of a lot easier than the last edition of the game, for example). Besides models in the unit that is firing, when you bend over to draw LOS, if you can see your target you can shoot it.

Not only is this idea easy to grasp but again it emphasizes the unique 3D nature of miniatures on a 3D modeled tabletop, which IMHO can only be a good thing.

The sacrifice for this simplicity are some of the issues you've described. In some situations oddly shaped models can be penalized (or get benefits), but I'd say that upwards of 95% of the time, the system works fine as is because of its simplicity.

As soon as you start introducing exceptions to the rule you also possibly introduce new and different ways for loopholes to be found. While I think something like your suggestion might work in a tournament FAQ, I don't think it belongs in the rules because any added benefit of clarity is outweighed by the difficulty of actually implementing the rule in-game, especially with new players. For me personally, I would hate to play in a game where my opponent started swapping his models around in order to draw LOS. It would slow down the game and just be annoying.

Why not just leave the couple of kneeling models outside of the terrain? Just work within the given rules and suck up the rare occasion where it is actually a hindrance to you.

yakface wrote:

holden88 wrote:One thing that bothers me about the new system is this scenario:

You have wooded terrain piece with movable tree's on it. You drive your tank into the woods to get some cover. In order to physically place your tank into the woods, you need to move some trees aside. Now the enemy can see you and you don't get the cover save.

I must say I preferd the previous edition when the actual positions of the tree's didn't matter and you could move them around to accomodate minis.

Putting a vehicle into area terrain doesn't give it a cover save. The vehicle actually has to have at least 50% of its armor facing physically obscured by the terrain to get a cover save.

So if you want your vehicle to get cover from a tree in area terrain, you have to park the vehicle behind the tree. No need to actually move the vehicle into the area terrain.

Yes, I realize that. That's my point. By nature of moving the tree's around it affects what cover save I may have been granted. I think it's an added headache to now have to worry about where the tree's are positioned on the terrain and also to make sure that they get placed back where they came from when your vehicle moves on.

Also, moving the tree's around affects the save granted to other units too. Lets say I have a unit behind some woods. If the enemy were to shoot at me, I'd get a cover save. Then my opponent moves his vehicle into the woods. He removes some trees in order to accomodate his vehicle. Now there are no trees screening my unit so they lose the cover save (even against other more distant units).

I enjoyed not having to worry about the exact position of the trees in 4th.

Actually, the rules don't really accommodate moving the trees to place the models any more.

They mention that you might need to move them in order to more easily move the models, but tell you to put them back after you have finished moving in case they affect LOS.

So if you want to be able to move vehicles into area terrain, you're going to need to build your area terrain with space for the vehicles.

Remember that a forest base doesn't need to be only trees. You can add smaller plants, rocks, fallen logs, and the like to further break up LOS.

We are going back to using plug in trees. You can pop them out and back in as needed, so you always know exactly where they are.

Terrain will need to be modified at most shops. As even our gaming tables started seeing people put out green felt for trees, and grey felt for ruins. No need for the actual terrain, it was just an abstraction anyway.

I'm fairly sure I've never seen anyone actually touch a model to measure range.

Seriously? I mean, I was playing something of devil's advocate in my post, but you've NEVER seen somebody touch a model when measuring range? I've seen it countless times. Sure, when things are clearly in range, the old "hover and show" is enough, but when it's tight (Meltguns for example), I see it all the time.

Also, I should have been more accurate. I also meant movement, assault, etc. When people move and assault, I see them touch the model with the tape virtually every time. Of course, the model is aboot to move, so it's less a factor, but still.

Anyway, the rule I propose allows for the movement of models, and calls for their replacement in their original location. While insaniak is right, there might be some disagreement over this, I'd point oot two things:

1) You don't actually have to move the models. Just as you do the "hover and show" when it's obvious that something is in range, so too might you point to the next model over from the crouching one, say "he'd be in LOS" and not move anything, because both players can see it without doing so.

2) It doesn't actually matter. These models were moved to where they are, or placed there at the start of the battle. The player controlling them no doubt put them where he wanted to put them in the first place. There's no advantage to be gained in shifting them around a bit. Or, if there is, the cheater already had ample opportunity to fudge an extra half inch in the movement phase.

All academic, of course, the books are printed, and nobody cares what I think. I just want to demonstrate that with MINIMAL effort, we can have more of the best of both worlds.

The more caveats added to a rule, the more the simplicity and clarity of said rule starts to get watered down.

Simplicity yes, clarity sorta, but only insofar as it requires more thinking to become clear. I don't think it's important that the rules be easy to learn, so long as once they're learned, they're clear, tight, and tactically nuanced. Clearly GW doesn't agree.

Note also that this rule has the added benefit of being unnecessary to follow. You don't have to know it to shoot, the game doesn't fall apart if you forget aboot it, but if you do know it, you can squeeze a bit more effectiveness oot of your army.

I would hate to play in a game where my opponent started swapping his models around in order to draw LOS. It would slow down the game and just be annoying.

I can fully understand this, and I would agree. However as I said above, I don't think it'd really come to that. I think it's going to be very clear when models have LoS the great majority of the time. I simply wrote it as I did to capture the situations where a model aught to be able to shoot without just saying "if it looks like he could, hey, go for it!"

It's a thought experiment, mainly. Just putting my money where my mouth is. If I'm going to say I think GW wrote shoddy rules, I should at least have a plan to fix them.

Phryxis wrote: There's no advantage to be gained in shifting them around a bit.

There's all sorts of potential advantages to be gained.

- if the player only just realised that his model isn't quite as far into the cover as he thought
- if the model was out of sight when initially placed, but is now borderline visible due to enemy movement
- if the model was right on the edge of being in range

That's just 3 straight off the top of my head.

At the end of the day, it would just add an extra opportunity to fudge things, whether intentionally or not.

The group I regularly play with use "plug in trees" and they work quite well.

With the new LOS rules it really requires a mind shift as to what "area terrain" actually does.

Under 4th area terrain provided cover saves, affected movement (making it difficult and or dangerous) and blocked sections of LOS. Under this system a pile of rubble provided exactly the same protection as a forest.

Under 5th area terrain simply affects movement (difficult / dangerous). The LOS issues that different types of terrain caused are now resolved by TLOS. Now a forrest does a much better job of blocking LOS.

This is a big "system shock". I was very upset by the whole TLOS thing when I first found out about it. Just like I was upset by the whole shooting through enemy units provides a cover save, but can't hurt the intervining unit. Once you get your head around it, in the context of the whole rule system, it is quite good.

I think TLOS will cause most people "issues" until they have played several games with it and get used to the change in what area terrain actually does.

TLOS seems to be the same as "what I can't assault out of my rhino?" was when they changed from 3rd to 4th. Once you get used to it .... it isn't a problem anymore.

That's just 3 straight off the top of my head.

And I have to be honest and give you those. There are advantages to be gained by shifting models. I just think there's a chain of reasons that minimize those to the point that they're a nonfactor.

I've itemized those, and I feel like you're being a bit obtuse by just focusing on one piece of the equation.

I mean, think through the chain of events.

1) A model has to be oot of LoS due to some sort of pose issue. Shouldn't be TOO common, or you wouldn't be so comfortable with TLoS.
2) Model has to be oot of LoS in a way so borderline that it's not obvious that he could just stand up like the guy right next to him to have LoS.
3) Player doing the moving of the models has to want to cheat.
4) Player doing the moving has to be able to change the ootcome in one of the ways you list with only a very small, unnoticable move.
5) That move has to be possible at all. For example, you can't move a guy closer through a wall. You can't nudge a guy right through another model. Etc.

How often is all this going to come together?

Also, I'd argue that the game rules are already so open for abuse in so many ways, this is just a drop in the bucket.

Take your examples...

if the player only just realised that his model isn't quite as far into the cover as he thought

To what major advantage? To get a quarter inch further into terrain? I'm not sure I see a huge benefit here.

if the model was out of sight when initially placed, but is now borderline visible due to enemy movement

Certainly a noteable advantage to be gained with this, but hardly something that can't be done ootside my proposed rules. Cheater bends down to check LoS, sees it's not in, but taps the guy with his finger to nudge him the right way "this guy has LoS." Well, now he does.

if the model was right on the edge of being in range

First off the rules don't call for range to be measured until after LoS is checked. Indeed, a unit can waste its shooting by being in LoS boot oot of range.

Even then, can't the actual measurement be used as a cheating point more easily than what I'm proposing? When you're measuring there's a big bulky tape measure in the picture, and often it's predictable where the players are looking. The cheater can be stretching oot the tape from the base of his model, watching the opponent see if it comes up short, even as he slides his model forward with his other hand.

At the end of the day, it would just add an extra opportunity to fudge things, whether intentionally or not.

I think that's true, but I also think it's irrelevant in a game that already ceases to function when confronted with a cheater.

Isn't "hey, if you want to cheat and ruin it, we can't make rules to stop you" one of the themes from GW with this release?

But hey, how aboot this: GW makes a line of special plastic markers that fit around bases to perfectly mark the model's original position. Another thing to sell! We all win!

Speaking of which, your points make me wonder aboot the laser pointer guys... As they're down there, rooting around to get the pointer next to the model's head, could they not start bumping things to favorable spots?

I'm not going to go through and respond to everything there on a point by point basis, because this is all spiraling into silly land.

The point was simply that adding extra complexity, or extra opportunities to cheat/confuse things/whatever is not necessarily a good thing.

Point out however many problems with the current rules as you like... it won't make adding more problems a good idea.

This is one of the few changes that I don't like from 4th to 5th. I personally thought the line of sight rules for area terrain (size classifications) was a good, workable solution. Oh well, maybe it will be back in 6th edition...

I'm with Ghaz on this.
I preferred 4th edition terrain rules.

The new rules have made things faster, I'll give GW that, but my problems are that they're mixing specific locations and general locations and both are to the detriment of the defender, IMO.

You place a terrain piece that is heavy woods...Literally.... You can NOT see through the trees. They are as densely packed as the 3rd picture that was posted earlier.
You place a unit behind it with half the models sticking out. Only half can be seen.
Now, the SPECIFIC placement rules of the trees says that you cannot see through them. Therefore, you can only see the half of the models NOT behind the trees.
The GENERAL placement rules of the models states that the whole unit can die because you can see half of them. Apparently, when the 50% in front die, the ones behind cover run out blindly to see what all the ruckus is about.

WTF?
Consistency, anyone? Anyone?
Beuller? Beuller?

Now, if I intended it to be heavy woods upon terrain placement and I put my tank behind it, but the terrain piece LOOKS like the second image posted earlier, I'm SOL. You play WYSIWYG on the trees and, lo & behold, they do NOT cover 50% of the front of my Rhino (I'm aware of "house rules," but I'm talking about RAW).

"Pow! Pow!" Dead Rhino.

I can live with the cover rules, but that doesn't mean I'll like them.

Eric

Toreador wrote:We are going back to using plug in trees. You can pop them out and back in as needed, so you always know exactly where they are.

Terrain will need to be modified at most shops. As even our gaming tables started seeing people put out green felt for trees, and grey felt for ruins. No need for the actual terrain, it was just an abstraction anyway.

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

What's odd, is they basically said that woods are area terrain, and block line of sight as an area, just like 4e, but now only to the height of the trees.

Thats my point. Just agree the "average height" is a representative tree or some fixed height. I feel like I am missing something here.

A pre-game consensus on what each terrain piece exactly represents in game terms is all it takes to resolve these problems before they even pop up.

Being reasonable and having forthought should get as much effort as the complaints and arguments do IMHO.

That is how we handle it at my LGS, anything not discussed pre-game is considered literal RAW concerning terrain. If you want to make a case for having woods count one way or whatever it is up to you to discuss it with your opponent BEFORE any models get placed.

A pre-game consensus on what each terrain piece exactly represents in game terms is all it takes to resolve these problems before they even pop up.

This has always been the case, but I think especially so now. To their credit, GW has made many mentions of this in the rules.

To touch back on the primary point, I'm going to have to agree with Phryxis on the irritating inconsistency of TLOS in 5th ed. Why allow the defenders to be abstracted when the shooters cannot be? Seems pointless to me, and it just makes crouching/whatever models less effective.

Sure, I can swap 'em out for other standing models... if I want to spend the money and buy more boxes for that purpose. Which is a little like GW saying "hey, we're going to include a few useless models in every box, and you're going to have to pay for them just the same."

Nuts to that.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm confused. Why can't you just state that all trees in this patch of turf are the height of X tree or 3 inches or such? Am I missing something?

What's odd, is they basically said that woods are area terrain, and block line of sight as an area, just like 4e, but now only to the height of the trees.

The way I understand it no area terrain blocks LOS unless the terrain model ACTUALLY blocks LOS ( as a real object on the table ). Basically area terrain means a save for anyone being shot at from the other side of it.

Grignard wrote:
The way I understand it no area terrain blocks LOS unless the terrain model ACTUALLY blocks LOS ( as a real object on the table ). Basically area terrain means a save for anyone being shot at from the other side of it.

Saves of course being dependent on the actual placement of the trees (or whatever) within the piece of area terrains................

Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

don_mondo wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

The way I read it if you're shooting through area terrain, the models get a 4+. Otherwise, why are we still defining area terrain at all in 5th?

Grignard wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

jfrazell wrote:Why? Absent trees physically blocking LOS, anything in/behind get a standard 4+ cover save correct?

Ummmm, no. If a unit is behind the cover, the models have to be between two features of the area terrain to qualify for a cover save. Shooting through terrain does not automatically grant a cover save.

The way I read it if you're shooting through area terrain, the models get a 4+. Otherwise, why are we still defining area terrain at all in 5th?

Ummmmm, no again . See previous statement. Now go to the main rulebook and look at the cover save rules (I'd give you the page number but I'm at work) and pay special attention to the picture, the one showing three models, note that the model to the side (behind terrain but not between the two trees) does not qualify for a cover save. Models IN area terrain get a save regardles of their postion relative to the terrain features (I'll just use trees from now on) but models BEHIND the terrain must be between the trees to qualify.

Edit: Home now, rulebook available. Page 22.................................

Alright, that is clear now, I didn't see the part that says "between two features".

Which means that same piece of terrain, offers almost no cover when viewed at 90 degrees. Since the two trees would line up.



So what happens when you have a shrub and a tree? Do you assume the height of the terrain slopes from one to the other?

DaisukeAramecha wrote:To touch back on the primary point, I'm going to have to agree with Phryxis on the irritating inconsistency of TLOS in 5th ed. Why allow the defenders to be abstracted when the shooters cannot be? Seems pointless to me, and it just makes crouching/whatever models less effective.

Sure, I can swap 'em out for other standing models... if I want to spend the money and buy more boxes for that purpose. Which is a little like GW saying "hey, we're going to include a few useless models in every box, and you're going to have to pay for them just the same."

Nuts to that.

One important thing to remember is that the firing player gets to move his models and then fire with them while the opposing models sit there and can't react. So again, the firing player has the full ability to place his models in the positions he needs them to be in order to get a quality LOS. Since only 50% of his unit needs to actually be in cover it shouldn't be a problem 95% of the time to keep the oddly posed models slightly outside of cover in order to give them a good LOS.

Now, if you're dealing with Heavy weapons, obviously you don't have the opportunity to move before firing which gives your opponent a chance to move his models out of LOS of some of your firing models (which IMO is the whole point of the 'heavy' restriction).

If only a single model from the firing unit was needed to draw LOS I think the balance swings to hard towards the firer. The firer can then choose to keep only a single model out of LOS during his turn to draw LOS and then when the opposing turn rolls around the first enemy unit that fires at the unit he pulls the one model in LOS and denies all further enemy shooting that round from being able to target the unit.

All in all I believe using abstraction for the targets and true placement of the firing models is a fair compromise because of the way the turn system works (one player moves and then fires).

coredump wrote:
So what happens when you have a shrub and a tree? Do you assume the height of the terrain slopes from one to the other?

That is one of the big grey areas of the LOS rules. They explain that you can shoot "over" intervening terrain and units but they don't specify exactly what constitutes this concept of "over". Does the 'top' of the unit slope from one terrain piece/model to another (when they are different heights) or do you draw a horizontal line across the entire unit/piece of area terrain based on the highest point?


I think this is the kind of issue that is likely never to be covered in an official GW FAQ and instead would have to be decided upon between players or covered in a tournament FAQ.

For the crouching model just tell the opposing player "hey for this model, if he gets stuck behind rock can we allow him to stand and shoot?"

I'd bet money on them saying yes.

Just a note: Was at the FLGS today, and was told by a guy there that the GW Kommandos (he is one) have a forum for disseminating rules answers, and on this forum it was said that any shooting over a unit, even if the unit doesn't block LoS to the target unit, would provide a cover save.

Comments?

GW Kommandos...?

Since it is partially blocked LoS that grants a cover save, if a weapon ignores LoS does it also ignore cover saves?

Phryxis wrote:Just a note: Was at the FLGS today, and was told by a guy there that the GW Kommandos (he is one) have a forum for disseminating rules answers, and on this forum it was said that any shooting over a unit, even if the unit doesn't block LoS to the target unit, would provide a cover save.

Comments?

Never heard of GW Kommandos. That answer sounds like a Rulesboyz type answer, though, in that it clearly contradicts the rules in the book which say that if you can draw a line of sight over something (including units) and you can see the target unit clearly, then there is no cover save. Hence, a monolith or a Daemon Prince is likely to be able to actually "see" over infantry models and see further units clearly.

Alternately, if you shoot "through" the unit, as in, a model of the same height (figuratively speaking) shooting between models in a unit (similar to terrain features) to hit a further unit, even if the target models can be clearly seen, does grant a cover save.

The point is, shooting from a height is supposed to be a benefit, being able to overlook cover-providing terrain would be one of those benefits.

insaniak wrote:GW Kommandos...?

Replacement for the Outrider program.

That answer sounds like a Rulesboyz type answer, though, in that it clearly contradicts the rules in the book

I agree, but I think it's interesting that the rules are just as readily confused as always, and GW has programs in place contributing to that (as always).

Personally, I think GW's rules are always short on examples, and particularly in the LoS section, where some nice photographic demonstrations would have been well worth having.

Agreed. And GW should know better bow that they are following "RAW". The rulebook itself isn't "that" confusing, even concerning LOS.

Yes, they could have included more photo examples. The one on pg 22 as pointed out earlier, showing "between terrain features" is a good example of a good example :-)

(edited for really bad grammar late at night)

Ghaz wrote:This is one of the few changes that I don't like from 4th to 5th. I personally thought the line of sight rules for area terrain (size classifications) was a good, workable solution. Oh well, maybe it will be back in 6th edition...

I agree with Ghaz.... but READ THIS CAREFULLY

TOO many people interpreted all terrain to be sizes. You have to realize that half of the people you will play with will be sub average IQ. This is not trying to be insulting... its just a fact of life that if the average IQ is 100 then half the people you meet will be sub 100. This means that it is alot harder for some people to grasp hard concepts! and... well lets be honest it may not be hard for us to understand that the 4th ed rules with sizes only applied to area terrain and close combat... but when you only make a brief mention of the fact true los is used except in these circumstances you will lose alot of the people who only retain 10% of what they read.

I liked the sizes for area... BUT in truth if this is a model game people need to get used to the fact True LOS has always and will always exist!

end

phew...

If you don't like the new revision of TLOS then seriously, stop whining and go to another game

frgsinwntr wrote:You have to realize that half of the people you will play with will be sub average IQ. This is not trying to be insulting... its just a fact of life that if the average IQ is 100 then half the people you meet will be sub 100. This means that it is alot harder for some people to grasp hard concepts! and... well lets be honest it may not be hard for us to understand that the 4th ed rules with sizes only applied to area terrain and close combat... but when you only make a brief mention of the fact true los is used except in these circumstances you will lose alot of the people who only retain 10% of what they read.

I liked the sizes for area... BUT in truth if this is a model game people need to get used to the fact True LOS has always and will always exist!

end

phew...

If you don't like the new revision of TLOS then seriously, stop whining and go to another game

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

2) "If you don't like it, quit whining and go to another game" is just insulting and unnecessary. I can have a legitimate complaint and still play a game, and not all complaints are "whining".

"Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

A bell curve doesn't necessarilty change it. Still holds true in most large sample sets, with sufficiently granular data.

There are ways to set up the sample set so that it's not true, but generally speaking, it's a sound, if somewhat tautological argument.

Generally the only counter to your argument would be the existance of a small number of extremely stupid people, with the rest clustered around the average. However, since the lower limit of IQ is fixed, and the upper limit isn't, it's much more likely to have a few edge conditions on the high side.

So, in actual fact, most people you meet are indeed below average precisely BECAUSE of the way a bell curve behaves in this situation.

Another TLoS question: The rules say that wings, banners, etc. don't count for the purposes of establishing LoS to the target.

What they don't say (as far as I can tell), is that those items can't block LoS to models that need 50% coverage, such as vehicles and MCs.

So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

Or, in a more reasonable scenario, my Hive Tyrant is built from a Carnifex and has pretty huge wings. He could probably be positioned to nicely screen a Dakkafex or two, and yet his wings aren't targettable.

True or false?

DaisukeAramecha wrote:1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Let's take a sampling of numbers:

1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6.

If you graphed these numbers against how often they occur in the sample, you would get a (rough) bell curve, if you average these numbers out you get 3.5, meaning exactly half of them are below average.

The bell curve only affects how common the degree to which something is below average is, you will still in most situations have approximately 50% of things being below average.

Phryxis wrote:So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

No.

If you can't draw a LOS to the model's body, and all that you can see is the banner, then the rulebook says that the model is not visible.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.


Here's where it gets interesting, though: If you deploy that same model in the open, there's nothing in the rules that says that the banner doesn't block LOS. The model (or parts thereof) are only considered not visible if you can't see the model's body.


We've always played around here though that parts of a model that aren't a valid target for LOS don't block LOS, as that just makes more sense to to the mob I generally game with.

Drunkspleen wrote:

DaisukeAramecha wrote:1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Let's take a sampling of numbers:

1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6.

If you graphed these numbers against how often they occur in the sample, you would get a (rough) bell curve, if you average these numbers out you get 3.5, meaning exactly half of them are below average.

The bell curve only affects how common the degree to which something is below average is, you will still in most situations have approximately 50% of things being below average.

Let's take another sampling of numbers

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5

The average of these numbers of 3.
There are 10 numbers.
Only 4 of them are below average. This is less than half.

Phryxis wrote: Hence, a monolith or a Daemon Prince is likely to be able to actually "see" over infantry models and see further units clearly.

Alternately, if you shoot "through" the unit, as in, a model of the same height (figuratively speaking) shooting between models in a unit (similar to terrain features) to hit a further unit, even if the target models can be clearly seen, does grant a cover save.

The point is, shooting from a height is supposed to be a benefit, being able to overlook cover-providing terrain would be one of those benefits.

But This assumes that the value of height is paid for in the points. What is to keep players from converting vehicles to have weapons on tall poles or mega bases that elevate the model? Who will be the first battlewagon with a kill canon mounted on a 12" tower? What about Ork lootas who wear a backpack that have the weapon 3 inches above the ork's head? I have seen some GT armies where every model is on a 2" tall base. None of this was an issue in the size class and abstract LOS of 4th.

I don't mind True LOS as long as vehicle mountings and handheld weapons have some rules of what is expected from a model. If I see roof-mounted lascannons on a land-raider then there is a problem.

DaisukeAramecha wrote:

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

2) "If you don't like it, quit whining and go to another game" is just insulting and unnecessary. I can have a legitimate complaint and still play a game, and not all complaints are "whining".

1) a bell curve by definition has half the people below average. Hence its shape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Note the table that has the US general data... half the people hang around the 90-110 range... well half of that half (25% of the population) will be under 100 and the other will be over.

THEREFORE half the people you meet are below the average.

Now I don't think you have a very good grasp of what IQ is because you called it insulting. The lower the IQ the longer it takes for you to learn something. Thats all it means. It doesn't mean you are dumb, it doesn't mean you are stupid, it simply means that people with lower IQs need more time and training to become "experts" at something. Think of it this way. Some people are naturally fast runners. I may not be, but IF I work harder at it then someone who is a natural at running I can be faster then them.

2) Stop Whining

Problems can be solved;

My post on new 5E LOS, please read.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215480.page

Yes, terrain pieces are at fault, not the rules, but consistancy is a must.

Please help.

insaniak wrote:

Phryxis wrote:So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

No.

If you can't draw a LOS to the model's body, and all that you can see is the banner, then the rulebook says that the model is not visible.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.

Um... huh?

I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'. And there is nothing in the rules that lets you shoot things you can't see.

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Does anyone else find it funny and ironic that he got this wrong..??

Let's take another sampling of numbers

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5

The average of these numbers of 3.
There are 10 numbers.
Only 4 of them are below average. This is less than half.

You are right, but since that is not even close to being a Bell Curve, it doesn't really apply.

Since 40K players are a self-selecting sample it's highly unlikely that they represent a sufficient cross-section of the general population to generate good statical results representative of the entire population.

Since the game requires a lot of reading and use of fairly complex rules, it will not appeal to stupid people. The average IQ of players is probably higher than the average of the general population.

DaisukeAramecha wrote:
I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Obviously you have 0 understanding of a bell curve... With a bell curve EXACTLY 1/2 of the data is below average while the other 1/2 is above... That's why its shaped like a bell...

Red_Lives wrote:

DaisukeAramecha wrote:
I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Obviously you have 0 understanding of a bell curve... With a bell curve EXACTLY 1/2 of the data is below average while the other 1/2 is above... That's why its shaped like a bell...

You are making the dangerous assumption that nobody is exactly average. In which case they would be neither above or below average - making it impossible for half to be either.

AAAAAARGH!

Can I please be a part of the lower-IQ-group, because I don't see the point of this (for want of a better word) "discussion".

A plot of IQ of the general population will not be a standard bell-curve. It will most likely (I'm guessing here, but I suspect I'm correct) be skewed to the right (there's a considerable higher number of idiots out there then there are mental giants). So really in any general sample of people you have a decent chance of there being more idiots then geniuses (which really, don't we already know this? Look at the guys which normally play at your store - if you don't see any idiots, that means you're the idiot probably...).

But let's give table-top players the benefit of the doubt and say that it's unlikely they are representative of the general population being at heart we're nerds and geeks, so in all likelihood, more then half of us are above the median IQ of the general population.

We've been playing TLOS in all cases - if you have a tree on one end and a shrub on the other and you're shooting from a hill, can you see over the tree if you're shooting over it? Can you see over the shrub if you're shooting over it? If there's any obscurement, they get cover. If not, then no cover.

If a TMC can draw a line from the "gun" to the base of a model without touching an intervening unit, no cover. Otherwise cover. It really makes it very simple IMHO.

Even those outliers on the far left of the IQ line can understand it...

Modquisition Mode on
***OK guys lets get back to topic of the thread. This IQ discussion, while interesting, could get snarky. I suggest you take it to the OTT.

Modquisition Mode off

coredump wrote:I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'.

You need to determine whether or not anything is in the way.
The rules very clearly state that the model is not visible if you can't draw a LOS to its body.
If the model is not visible, it can't be blocking LOS.

The giant flag thing providing cover, but not being allowable to target when behind cover, actually kind of makes sense. If you lob a shot at a huge flag, your bolt/plasma ball/las beam/splinter goes right through it, making a little hole. The flagbearer is unharmed. Out in the open, his giant flag obscures whatever is behind him, giving any shot a 50/50 chance of missing.

The places where this doesn't make as much sense is with targets behind the flag being shot at by elevated gunners that would normally be able to see them but not the bearer, or blast templates that one would assume would go straight through the flag and not be affected at all by not being able to see its target exactly.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.

Where is this in the rules, though? I agree with your conclusion if it's true, but I see nothing to say that it's true.

We've always played around here though that parts of a model that aren't a valid target for LOS don't block LOS, as that just makes more sense to to the mob I generally game with.

But this would be a house rule, right?

It's interesting to me how you and your gaming group object to (and change) such different parts of the TLoS rules than I would. Makes one wonder how much individual communities speak "dialects" of 40k.

People are approaching some of these issues from a highly theoretical viewpoint.

It really can't often happen that one MC kind of model can be completely obscured from view by surrounding models. There are too many ways to poke a laser beam through little gaps from different angles.

Perhaps that is why Samurai generals used to command from inside a wall of screens -- being invisible meant they couldn't be targetted!

Phryxis wrote:Where is this in the rules, though?

It's not. But since the rules don't give a rules-specific meaning to the word 'visible' it doesn't need to be.

The rules say that the model is not visible. We use the dictionary meaning of 'visible' (since no specific meaning is given in the rules) which tells us that this means the model can not be seen.

If the model can not be seen, then parts of the model can not be blocking LOS. It's simply impossible for something that's invisible to block you view... if it were doing that, it wouldn't be invisible.

But this would be a house rule, right?

Yes, of course. That's why I said that it's the way we play it, rather than the way the rules say to play it.

insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'.

You need to determine whether or not anything is in the way.
The rules very clearly state that the model is not visible if you can't draw a LOS to its body.
If the model is not visible, it can't be blocking LOS.

The rules don't say that.

The rules ask if you can see the target, it does not mention 'determining if anything is in the way'.
If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. There is nothing in the rules about checking to see if intervening units are 'invisible'

Being visible is only determined if you are trying to target that model.

Even the fluff logic falls apart. If you can see the head of the HT, then his wings totally hide the ravener, if you can't see the head, then the ravener is a viable target....

Interesting decision to say 'since I can't shoot the HT main body with this model/unit, its wings don't block LOS to other models from this model/unit'... I would not have made that leap away from RAW personally.

I think this is a unique and rare situation though on the table... and interesting situations will generate interesting solutions I suppose!

If the model can not be seen, then parts of the model can not be blocking LOS.

Well, what constitutes the model? The rules spell oot pretty clearly that when it comes to establishing LoS, only a subset of the model is actually relevant, specifically "the body." So, really it doesn't say that the model can't be seen, it says that the model's body can't be seen, and thus the model can't be chosen as a target.

The rules don't really determine if you can see, they determine if you can choose the target for shooting.

I'd have to go read the rules again, with your points in mind, but from the half dozen times I've already read them, I think there's no basis in RAW for what you're saying here.

After all, they call these rules "true line of sight." It appears that in this case, you're not playing true line of sight, but instead pretending parts of the model aren't as they appear, in order to make sense of the rules and prevent ootcomes you don't think are legitimate.

Sorta like I'd suggest we do with crouching models, and you said it was a bad idea...

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I feel like "I told ya so." I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims, and various people with less maturity than you questioned my manhood. Now you're being forced to come up with house rules, and very questionable rules interpretations to make them palatable in some cases, which is really the same reason I was objecting to them in the first place.

If people are doing stuff in local games like your examples with the wings, that's where you walk around the table and give them several good slaps upside the head, then find a new opponent.

If you want to do tournament play, only play in tournaments where you know the guy running it in smart enough to do the same thing.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I feel like "I told ya so." I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims, and various people with less maturity than you questioned my manhood. Now you're being forced to come up with house rules, and very questionable rules interpretations to make them palatable in some cases, which is really the same reason I was objecting to them in the first place.

I completely agree with you that banners, wings, etc. can and do block line of sight to other models, even though they may not be used to target the actual model that possesses them.

But I think you're grossly overstating the impact of such a rule.

Have you played a game yet with the new rules (honest question)? Because the amount of times actual issues arise from the new LOS rules once players wrap their heads around the idea and accept what it means is pretty low with my game experience.


Yes, players can abuse the rules through modeling if other players allow them to (remember, the rules don't specifically allow conversions), but what has really changed in this regard from previous editions? The answer is: not much. Players could gain an advantage through modeling in previous editions and they still can.


You might argue that this new edition should fix these "problems" but like I've said many times, you really have to make a choice: Either you start throwing LOS abstractions into the game which starts pulling out the meaning of 3D models and 3D terrain or you stick with the 3D models and the 3D terrain and you accept the issues that arise with it.

Clearly you're for a more 2D approach but I do believe the right choice was made for this new edition. These rules highlight the fact that we're playing with 3D models on 3D terrain that we've worked so hard to create. It emphasizes the difference of this type of game as opposed to a simple boardgame like Axis & Allies.

The terrain and the models themselves are part of the game and how they interact with each other *matters*, which is how it should be IMHO.

FWIW I have rarely seen in a GW GT much model abuse.

Indy GT, lots of it. Less shame I guess.

Locally, there's a in the northern part of the state and another in the southern part of the state that use modeling to their advantage.

Sadly, there are also a couple that cheat in various ways, both north and south.

Thankfully, they are like bears. They lose a game, can't handle the epeen blow when they lose, and hibernate.

I've seen alot of very questionable modeling in my time (the list is endless) but the truth is--I haven't yet experienced a game where I was affected by it.

Steamroller the idiot with the 'flak tower' tanks and the 'tall as a blade of grass' wraithlord, and don't forget to berate them for their clever-yet-not "conversion" while you do so; and eventually...they stop doing it.

I think my favorite was the Deceiver head on a 20mm base. That was sooo funny. Especially when we explained the rules to him and shot it anyway despite the corked up oversized 'scarabs' in front of his Deceiver head. Haven't seen that guy since that day.

Oh and yak, your rule #1 is still in your sig. It's lame for so many reasons. When are you going to get rid of it?

coredump wrote:The rules ask if you can see the target, it does not mention 'determining if anything is in the way'.

Really?

So how do you tell if a model is in cover, then?

Phryxis wrote: So, really it doesn't say that the model can't be seen, it says that the model's body can't be seen, and thus the model can't be chosen as a target.

Nope, sorry. As I already pointed it, it says that if the model's body can not be seen, the model is not visible.

I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims,

If you took it as 'scoffing' then I apologise, since that was never the intention.

I never disagreed with their being inconsistencies. The disagreement was simply over whether or not they were as much of a problem as you were claiming.

Now you're being forced to come up with house rules,

No I'm not.

We choose to use a house rule in this situation because we prefer to play a certain way. The rules are perfectly functional as is in this situation, and in actual practice the situation comes up very, very rarely.

Really?

So how do you tell if a model is in cover, then?

Because either you can see all/part/or none of the model. That is usually because something is in the way... but that is secondary really. There is nothing in the rules to make you do any consideration of what that item is. (Except for if it is part of the shooting/firing units.)

coredump wrote:Because either you can see all/part/or none of the model. That is usually because something is in the way...

Right. And if that thing in the way is considered by the rules to be not visible, then it's not actually in the way.

There is nothing in the rules to make you do any consideration of what that item is.

Of course there is. Models get a cover save from Area Terrain, regardless of whether or not the terrain is physically obscuring them. To get that cover save, you have to look at what is actually in the path of the LOS, and apply the rules that tell you how that obstruction affects LOS.

Same thing here. Something is in the way of the LOS. The rules tell you how that obstruction works within the LOS rules: if its body is not visible, the model is not visible. It is therefore ignored as an obstruction.

You are reading way too much into that. The rules do not call out for you to determine if something is visible unless you are shooting at it.
And the entire section it is detailed in is to determine if it is visible to be shot at, which is very different than being unable to be seen, and very different to not being able to block LoS to a different model.

t I think you're grossly overstating the impact of such a rule.

I don't mean to imply that this is a game breaking issue, or that it will be a problem without being willfully exploited... However, if this was such an uncommon ocurrance, I don't think insaniak and his crew would have already come up with a ruling that they follow. Clearly it's happening...

It's not my intent to rehash the whole "these rules are good, these rules are bad" discussion. These are the rules we have, they'll be fine... I'm just responding to the fact that people were acting like I was way off base in my complaints, and then going off themselves and "fixing" things they had issue with.

As I already pointed it, it says that if the model's body can not be seen, the model is not visible.

It does say this. It lays oot how to determine LoS, and then says that if LoS doesn't exist, then the model isn't visible.

I think it's interesting (and most likely unintentional) that the rules are written this way. Your argument is a good one, but ultimately I think it's very thinly supported in the rules. It's almost like you're creating a loophole to tie off another loophole. It's clever, but I don't think the RAW really support it unequivocally.

Some fairly stupid sanity checks can be tried. For example, it says the unit isn't visible. It doesn't give any qualifiers, such as "to the firing unit." So, you could use a similar argument to say that if one enemy unit couldn't trace LoS to the target, then it's not visible, period. And thus another enemy unit, with a wide open shot, could no longer take that shot, since the unit isn't visible.

Ultimately I think the rules are pretty explicit aboot what can be excluded from blocking LoS (as coredump has said). The implication of a rule isn't a rule, but I think the implication here is very strong that you don't exclude models simply because their bodies are oot of LoS.

I think it's rather funny, really. GW loves to write wordy, ill considered rules, with sloppy language. Now you're using their sloppy use of the word "visible" to actually fix other problems in their rules for them. Model customer, it'd seem.

Phryxis wrote:However, if this was such an uncommon ocurrance, I don't think insaniak and his crew would have already come up with a ruling that they follow.

'Already'?



We've been using that house rule since 2nd edition. It's not something that was suddenly added in 5th.

The times when it's actually been called into play are negligible.

It doesn't give any qualifiers, such as "to the firing unit." So, you could use a similar argument to say that if one enemy unit couldn't trace LoS to the target, then it's not visible, period.

You could, if you want to complete ignore context. LOS is only relevant to the unit in question at the time.

Now you're using their sloppy use of the word "visible" to actually fix other problems in their rules for them.

In your opinion. In mine, I'm using the fact that they clearly spell out that the model is not visible in a given situation to mean that the model is not visible in that given situation.

In mine, I'm using the fact that they clearly spell out that the model is not visible in a given situation to mean that the model is not visible in that given situation.

Well, let's get yak to work pulling his FAQing strings.

I'd be interested to hear what they say...

Perhaps a better example that's less ridiculous might be proposed:

"A squad of Marines are located behind a solid building, and a single Obliterator attempts to fire on them. All the models are completely hidden by the building, except for two. One is the Sergeant, who has a back banner. Another is a Tactical Marine who is behind the Sergeant. The Sergeant's body is not in LoS for the Obliterator, however his back banner is visible. The Tactical Marine is entirely obscured by the back banner, but were the banner invisible, the Obliterator would have LoS to the Marine's head."

I'd like to hear how they rule.

If I understand you, you believe that GW intentionally authored the rules to allow for the interpretation you've made. I.e. the Marine behind the back banner would be a valid target for shooting (and thus his whole squad could be killed, in theory).

I tend to think that GW did not intentionally author the rules to account for the situation in question, and your ability to make them apply is a happy coincidence.

I think this is the case because of how they write all their other rules. They have a tendency to put any point, no matter how obvious, in parentheses with an exclamation point, and they often put an "obviously" or "clearly" in there as well. That's why I say they're wordy. Example: "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they were not there)."

I really think they should have done a global find and replace on the rules for "clearly" and "obviously" and removed them all. But I digress...

I realize that's arguing intent, not RAW, but I'm just putting it oot there. I also think that they would answer the FAQ question above by saying that the squad is not in LoS.

That's my guess, we'll see if I'm correct.

Phryxis wrote: I also think that they would answer the FAQ question above by saying that the squad is not in LoS.

I'd be quite surprised if they were to rule that there is no LOS because a model is obscured by part of another model in the same squad, particularly given the focus of the new rulebook on working out a 'common sense' ruling when the rules fall short.

I'd be quite surprised if they were to rule that there is no LOS because a model is obscured by part of another model in the same squad

Good point, might want to ask the one I posed, and one where the model behind the banner is in a different squad.

You're expecting different answers?

Or answers at all?

In more than 15 years of playing 40K, I can't actually recall a single occasion where a model that is out of sight has completely obscured a model I'm trying to shoot.

You'll get an occasional situation (I could probably count on one hand the times it's actually happened in my own games) where a model out of sight might be partially obscuring a distant target... and if the LOS rules telling you that such a model is not visible isn't enough for you, the rules actually tell you what to do when the cover save is in doubt.

Frankly, I can only see this making it into a GW FAQ if the guy writing them has a serious amount of free time on his hands.

insaniak wrote:
In more than 15 years of playing 40K, I can't actually recall a single occasion where a model that is out of sight has completely obscured a model I'm trying to shoot.

Tell that to my crawling space marine with an 8"x10" standard that touches the table top.

Yeah honestly, except for possibly winged beasts hiding behind a rock, I can't think of an example either. If you can't see them, and there is a question, just remove the dude from the board then do LOS.