Okay.

True Line of Sight: your model can only shoot at what it can only see. This is done by looking through the back of the model's head.

Okay.

Fish of Fury. It's the tactic where your Fire Warriors shoot through the devilfish in 4th ed, but now in 5th Fire warriors can't do that because the miniatures head's are too high to see under the Devilfish.
But, one or two models in a squad are 'kneeling' and thus CAN see under the devilfish.

That is ridiculous.

If some models can kneel, why can't all of them? Why can't all models go prone and stand up when necessary for purposes of shooting?

Look at the model of the Pathfinder with a Railrifle that's proning flat on the ground. If he were to go behind a sandbag line, he couldn't shoot because he can't see over it!!!

I believe that the 'model' is a snapshot of some point in the battle, and that the soldiers have legs and function as such to actively take cover and look over various terrain. I will continue to use FoF regardless of the models in friendly games. I just feel the TLOS rule is so dumb

Convert them so that they are all on ladders to see over it or alternatively lie them all down in the prone shooting position...

Phototoxin wrote:Convert them so that they are all on ladders to see over it or alternatively lie them all down in the prone shooting position...

I don't know about you but I don't want to sacrifice my army's look just for that and make them all look like tools.

its better than the alternative...which is abstraction, which lead to things like "you cant shoot my daemon prince becaues this 3" high wall is blocking your line of sight"

Lightcavalier wrote:its better than the alternative...which is abstraction, which lead to things like "you cant shoot my daemon prince becaues this 3" high wall is blocking your line of sight"

Except that there's no reason for that to be the only alternative.

What's wrong with "can any part of this model see any part of that model" combined with the currently fine cover rules?

I dont really disagree with that idea, conceptually I really like it....but i somehow think it would lead to even more arguments than TLOS already does

Rented Tritium wrote:What's wrong with "can any part of this model see any part of that model" combined with the currently fine cover rules?

It doesn't address the problem of kneeling/prine models not being able to see over low obstacles when standing models can.

And it has exactly the same potential for abuse through 'creative' modelling as the current system...

The current system with a provision that the model can draw LOS from any height up to the height of the standing model would go a long way towards fixing things... but the current system really works just fine in the vast majority of situations, and has the virtue of being relatively simple.

GW tried an 'abstraction' in 4th edition called area terrain. The game designers decided to remove those rules in 5th edition.

Area terrain is still in the game


its just not the same thing as the stupidity that was 4th ed area terrain

Area terrain was a good rule in 4th edition. The only problem was that too many players tried to apply it to situations where it did not apply, ie all of the time.

The point with TLOS is that, if say you have a Firewarrior kneeling down, he can't see certain things, but also certain things can't see him. Ex, if he was standing against a low wall, he could get shot at with 4+ cover, but if he was kneeling he couldn't be shot at all. The sacrifice works both ways.

Kneeling your guys down is not MfA

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Kneeling your guys down is not MfA

Actually, it potentially is. Some armies benefit more than others by being harder to shoot.

The most commonly floated example of this is the idea of modelling a horde of termagants prone. The negative impact of being prone (harder to draw LOS from the unit) is negated by the fact that they don't shoot in the first place. So you get a big cover bonus, with the only downside being that your army looks ridiculous.

40K's LOS rules are a long way from being perfect... they rely rather heavily on players agreeing to not be silly about the whole thing. The more abstract idea of using size categories to denote LOS blocking works much better in a competitive environment. GW simply chose to stick with true LOS because it's more engaging for the players... despite all of it's flaws, getting that model's eye view of the 'action' connects you with the game in a way that standing over the table and saying 'this guy has a bigger base than that guy, so blocks his LOS' never will.

YMMV, obviously.

Well, you're right about going prone being silly.

Also, I understand your point with the termagants.

I mean, I guess you'll just have to be the judge of how nice your opponent is being about it, whether he's MfA or just M. Now that I think about it, it won't work in a tournament.

Guardsman Marbo quite enjoys TLOS.



Because he's right below you.

insaniak wrote:

Sam__theRelentless wrote:Kneeling your guys down is not MfA

Actually, it potentially is. Some armies benefit more than others by being harder to shoot.

The most commonly floated example of this is the idea of modelling a horde of termagants prone. The negative impact of being prone (harder to draw LOS from the unit) is negated by the fact that they don't shoot in the first place. So you get a big cover bonus, with the only downside being that your army looks ridiculous.

Hormagaunts, but otherwise...yea.

A friend had a number of them glued 'sliding' because their ankles always break.
The ones he has have been that way since before the TLOS made them even more LUDICROUS, but they are pretty funny.

kirsanth wrote:Hormagaunts, but otherwise...yea.

Yeah, that...

Had a vague moment, obviously.

The ones he has have been that way since before the TLOS made them even more LUDICROUS, but they are pretty funny.

'Before TLOS'...?

Was he using them in some other game...?

insaniak wrote:

kirsanth wrote:The ones he has have been that way since before the TLOS made them even more LUDICROUS, but they are pretty funny.

'Before TLOS'...?

Was he using them in some other game...?

Ak!

Touché. . .I was thinking "5e TLOS" and left out the "5e".

Fair enough...

Yeah, lets not bring back 4th ed Terrain. Terrain Levels were a nightmare. My dudes in that bastion couldn't see the dudes behind that forest(even though I could clearly see them under TLOS) because both were Lvl3 terrain features.

at least with TLOS, any repositioning of models will cut both ways. you can't see me, but I can't see you either(barring models with no guns to shoot who don't really care)

4th edition used TLOS just like 5th edition does and 3rd edition did. It sounds like you made the same mistake so many players did and treated everything as area terrain when you should have only been using it for abstract terrain features such as forests, etc.

Moar - you do realise FoF only worked in 4th because skimmers were appaerntly not there, and never blocked LOS?

Thats an ugly abstraction. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

Put your skimmers on the tall flight base and you should be able to draw LOS to models close up.

moarmoarmoar wrote:Okay.

True Line of Sight: your model can only shoot at what it can only see. This is done by looking through the back of the model's head.

Okay.

Fish of Fury. It's the tactic where your Fire Warriors shoot through the devilfish in 4th ed, but now in 5th Fire warriors can't do that because the miniatures head's are too high to see under the Devilfish.
But, one or two models in a squad are 'kneeling' and thus CAN see under the devilfish.

That is ridiculous.

But that fact that the skimmer apparently was transparent or invisible was fine!?!

This is just sour grapes. You liked one abstraction, but hate the other abstraction. *shakes head*

Try looking at the game from a broader perspective than just your own army.

"Try looking at the game from a broader perspective than just your own army."

In which we discover why Tau and Nids players are so whiny.

And yet if a Trygon is in a crater which is 'area terrain' he gets a cover save despite being the size of a building. I thought 3rd edition was fine for LoS stuff.

Phototoxin wrote:And yet if a Trygon is in a crater which is 'area terrain' he gets a cover save despite being the size of a building. I thought 3rd edition was fine for LoS stuff.

No he doesnt. reread the MC rules and you'll see why.

insaniak wrote:40K's LOS rules are a long way from being perfect... they rely rather heavily on players agreeing to not be silly about the whole thing.

I agree. The game tends to fall apart when people get too far into the minute details of the system. It isn't perfect and so is open to abuse.

insaniak wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:What's wrong with "can any part of this model see any part of that model" combined with the currently fine cover rules?

It doesn't address the problem of kneeling/prine models not being able to see over low obstacles when standing models can.

And it has exactly the same potential for abuse through 'creative' modelling as the current system...

The current system with a provision that the model can draw LOS from any height up to the height of the standing model would go a long way towards fixing things... but the current system really works just fine in the vast majority of situations, and has the virtue of being relatively simple.

Well in any event, my point was that those aren't the only two options. I like your idea of a provision.

I think that GW could solve this soooo easily. first of all, have vehicles and infantry use the exact same rules for cover. if you are in the cover, you get a cover save. infantry get a 4+ cover save, vehicles and monstrous creatures get a 5+ cover save. If the unit is completely obscured no one gets to shoot at it.

done.

You know what's really annoying about TLoS?

The way it screws over scenic bases.

Fafnir wrote:You know what's really annoying about TLoS?

The way it screws over scenic bases.

Page 3 called. It said to check that whole 'scenic bases are opponent permission only' thing out and give it a call back.

So really, page 3 is the one that screws scenic bases, not TLOS. Get it right.

Also, you know what's really annoying about TLoS? These threads.

No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.



I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

I think he was referring to the fact that you're at a disadvantage when on a scenic base as you won't get cover as easily as otherwise.



Nice base though!

Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I think he was referring to the fact that you're at a disadvantage when on a scenic base as you won't get cover as easily as otherwise.



Nice base though!

I've had issues where I didn't get cover, and I've had people complain about my bases. It goes both ways.

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Any change in the rules can generate debates after 2 years, you can never satisfy everyone.
And honestly, Fish of Fury was stupid.

Just put your Devilfish on the tallest flight stands and call it a day. You'll be able to see your opponent, but in return they will be able to see you

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

What, the true LOS rules that have been in the game for years, and it was 4th that really screwed the pooch with idiotic area terrain and skimmer rules?

The only army that the removal of 4th ed area terrain rules really messed up was Tau JSJ annoyance army, and good riddance to it.

pdawg517 wrote:If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

The problem is the alternative - an attach IC or the HW bearing trooper being the "only thing seen" this ended up being abused and thus the 1 equals all in peril rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

TLOS is fine and dandy when you talk 20 or so models per side but invariably it falls apart with 100+ models per side. I don't want to get into rehashing this so lets just agree to disagree. I will still play with everyone using the pseado TLOS rules that seem to prevail. I will not say I am happy with it but I am not saying burn every book and never play 40 k again either.

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

DAaddict wrote:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Anything that generates topics >2 years after a rules "enhancement" was introduced is a poor enhancement. TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

No need to rehash old arguements but here is one vote in agreement that TLOS is ludicrous.

Except... TLOS has been the norm since Rogue Trader, and 4th is the only edition to ever deviate from model's eye view?

TLOS is fine and dandy when you talk 20 or so models per side but invariably it falls apart with 100+ models per side. I don't want to get into rehashing this so lets just agree to disagree. I will still play with everyone using the pseado TLOS rules that seem to prevail. I will not say I am happy with it but I am not saying burn every book and never play 40 k again either.

TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

It was a big change for a lot of players, who used area terrain exclusively (or erroneously applied the area terrain LOS to everything in the game)... that's where a lot of the complaints come from: People were playing it wrong last edition, and think that TLOS is a 'change' as a result.

Alright -

1 . TLOS means anything that can see can target.
2 . Members of the unit involved do not block.

Situation: 30 orks with shootas and big shootas intermixed with two other 30 ork mobs want to fire at a squad of marines that is also intermixed with 2 other squads of marines. Now you will get no argument from me that some of the 30 orks can see the marines to be targeted. Therefore you will get no argument that all of the marines are legal casualties. However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

NM. Not getting into it.

pdawg517 wrote:No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.

I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

My only issue with this solution is it asks for mandatory cheating one way or another which bothers my sense of gaming ethics, either you cheat because you accidentally have portable cover or he cheats by being able to see through it, pretending he has a line of sight when he does not. Personally I prefer playing line of sight honestly so long as players are not abusing scenic elements for cover.

DAaddict wrote:
The problem is the alternative - an attach IC or the HW bearing trooper being the "only thing seen" this ended up being abused and thus the 1 equals all in peril rule.

My personal gripe with this is that LOS should always be a two way street between comparably sized things (i.e. infantry to infantry, vehicle to vehicle, etc...) so I think the abstraction I would prefer to be treating LOS as a unit to unit issue rather then individual models (since most other 40k rules are unit not model based). So a whole unit can be casualties but that same whole unit can shoot back at those same attackers (also fixes the issue with altered weapon placement on modified or different vehicle models which is nice, as you could simply draw LOS from the hull).

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:TLOS killed a lot of armies and I still say if done letter of the law could drag a game to its knees.

This is total nonsense considering that the only things changed are area terrain (which is still abstracted) and models out of LOS being able to be casualties (removing LOS-blocking "sniping").

I presume he means armies that suddenly found themselves inadvertently modeling for advantage, rather then just Tau being unhappy.

sirrah wrote:
TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Uhm...I don't think so, take marines a Tactical squad was 300 points in 2nd ed.

Jack

DAaddict wrote:Alright -

1 . TLOS means anything that can see can target.
2 . Members of the unit involved do not block.

Situation: 30 orks with shootas and big shootas intermixed with two other 30 ork mobs want to fire at a squad of marines that is also intermixed with 2 other squads of marines. Now you will get no argument from me that some of the 30 orks can see the marines to be targeted. Therefore you will get no argument that all of the marines are legal casualties. However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

(edit: Whoops! Messed up completely! Ignore what follows! You're right, you should make me check LOS for each model, but you had to even with the 4th ed. rules, no?)

That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

Emphasis mine.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

DAaddict wrote:...However to follow TLOS to its conclusion, I should be forcing you to check the TLOS of every stupid ork to prove it can see one of the marines to be targeted.

This would drag the game to its knees therefore like most people, we are going to call it even, let the ork unload with all 30 orks in range and deal with the cover saves.

I've been playing Orks since second edition... and I have always checked LOS from each model before shooting.

People try to make out that it's some huge, game-breaking time-sink, but in actual practice even with the biggest unit it takes a few seconds to skim along their heads checking which models have LOS and which don't.

Jackmojo wrote:

sirrah wrote:
TLOS worked fine in 3rd and army sizes haven't particularly changed since then, I don't see what you're getting at (Even a 500pt battle in 2nd regularly had >20 models per side.)

Uhm...I don't think so, take marines a Tactical squad was 300 points in 2nd ed.

Jack

A 20-man mob of Boyz was 240pts (without wargear), I can't remember any codex other than Orks (Marines were silly expensive, though.).

sirrah wrote:That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

That allows the unit to choose the enemy as a target, yes... but you can still only shoot with the individual models that have LOS themselves.

insaniak wrote:

sirrah wrote:That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

That allows the unit to choose the enemy as a target, yes... but you can still only shoot with the individual models that have LOS themselves.

Bugger, really? It doesn't really change much though, checking one model is about as quick as skimming a whole squad.

edit: right, sorry! I was getting confused with only needing to draw LOS to one member of the target in 5th.

pdawg517 wrote:If you are playing with someone who is level headed then you can find cover just as easily. I think it ultimately comes down to how big of an asshat your opponent wants to be and how much they want to complain. As I mentioned I have never ran into issues and have even taken it to a couple tournaments. I think scenic bases generally draw more compliments than complaints!

Thanks for the comment on the base!

The only real issue I have with TLOS is how someone can see 1 model and kill everyone of them. There has to be a compromise between abstraction and TLOS that we haven't found yet!

In this way, I kinda miss 4ths shooting rules. You could only kill models you could see and that were in range.


I think they should put that back into the rules. It would make people more careful with their Sergeants and Special weapons.

Jackmojo wrote:

pdawg517 wrote:No opponent worth playing should complain about scenic bases. I have 3 Stormravens all with scenic bases with low walls and one with a wrecked rhino as pictured.

I never ask permission. I straight out say you can see through it and am very very lenient about LOS issues about firing through it. I have never had anyone complain about it.

My only issue with this solution is it asks for mandatory cheating one way or another which bothers my sense of gaming ethics, either you cheat because you accidentally have portable cover or he cheats by being able to see through it, pretending he has a line of sight when he does not. Personally I prefer playing line of sight honestly so long as players are not abusing scenic elements for cover.

It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

pdawg517 wrote:
It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

That's my point, if you pretend its not there, it is cheating (if well intentioned), the model's eye view is blocked therefore no LOS, hence cheating.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

pdawg517 wrote:
It is not mandatory cheating. My opponent can see through the scenic base. Simple. It is as if it is not there, you just ignore it.

That's my point, if you pretend its not there, it is cheating (if well intentioned), the model's eye view is blocked therefore no LOS, hence cheating.

Jack

No it is not cheating. Actually, the rules tell you to ignore "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models" for LoS purposes. (You can't take your cover with you). P.21

sirrah wrote:


As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

insaniak wrote:

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

This.

But instead we say that the forest gives cover up to its max height. Vehicles become obscured, giving the cover save the forest/area terrain gives you(4+ for forests)

DeathReaper wrote:
No it is not cheating. Actually, the rules tell you to ignore "Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base of their models" for LoS purposes. (You can't take your cover with you). P.21

Sure you ignore them, so I cannot draw a line of sight to the rock your miniature stands on or whatever, but if I go get a models eye view its still in the way, so no LOS can exist through them.

Ignoreing them doesn't make them transparent, and no where do the rules allow or provide for moving them to check line of sight (permissive ruleset).

Jack

DAaddict wrote:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:


As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through. The silly thing is that city scapes are now the terrain of choice. A wall is a wall is a wall. If it doesn't have a window, nothing can see through it. My point it small clumps of natural forests totally block LOS like a wall but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

But if forests are modelled to block LOS then what is the point of it granting a cover save? The 4+ save for shooting through forests is an abstraction, like bolters only shooting 120ft.

Jackmojo wrote:
Sure you ignore them, so I cannot draw a line of sight to the rock your miniature stands on or whatever, but if I go get a models eye view its still in the way, so no LOS can exist through them.

Ignoreing them doesn't make them transparent, and no where do the rules allow or provide for moving them to check line of sight (permissive ruleset).

Jack

Actually, if you ignore them, you pretend they are not there, and check LoS as if they were not there. This may lead to some estimation, but that is okay, since we have something we are told to ignore actually blocking LoS.

you get the models eye view, then, if a scenic rock or other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base are in the way, you do not count them for LoS purposes, since we are told by the rules to ignore them.

In reality we have to do the best we can with LoS that goes through scenic bases, look a little bit above the head and determine what the model can see if the scenic rock or other decorative element were not there.

That's rather my point, if you're imagining a line of sight that is not there in actuality (which is fine play it however you want with your friends) then you're doing something the rules do not allow for, hence cheating (again however well intentioned).

I'm not trying to make a value judgement on how anyone plays the game, I'm just observing that no where do the rules allow you to do what you're suggesting.

Jack

Except it isn't cheating because this is covered in the rules.

they give you explicit permission to abstract when this situation occurs. Ergo, it isn't cheating.

Game rules are always abstraction, and they have to find a good trade off between realism and fun.

My experiences with TLOS are good. I have never had any problems with it. Most opponents I played haven't been bitchy at all, since anybody nitpicking about TLOS will just make you nitpick about it in his turns as well. On the other hand all opponents I played against since I started again in 5th ed are 20 years or older.

Usually situations like the one with the Tau from earlier in this thread are solved like "Well, if the model would kneel down (maybe some of the models in the unit are actually modeled kneeling, e.g. Eldar rangers) it could shoot through below the vehicle, so it's ok with me".

The problem are probably competitive situations without a competent judge.

IMO, TLOS is a necessary addition to the game. It's not used all the time either. I've only really used it a few times, mainly firing over terrain like walls.

insaniak wrote:

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

Well I don't qualify it as lazy either. I would call it prudent as the person does not want to model deadfall and brush only to see some yahoo jam his 30 figs into the terrain piece. Modeling terrain that is going to get wrecked is not a good idea nor is is too good to make "realistic" rubble or forests where you are going to frustrate players with placing their troops.


Why can't we just say -if it is on dark green felt it is forest if it is on lime green felt it is orchard? Because the TLOS zealot will say he can see it no matter what...

I have always read it as Jackmojo states.

You are 100% allowed to have a model "bring cover" for a different unit.

That is what cover saves for intervening units are for.

You are not allowed to claim a cover save from a model's own base, but it is allowed for a DIFFERENT unit to do so. This occurs regularly when the table is not flat, even without scenic bases.
ymmv

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:

sirrah wrote:

DAaddict wrote:


As an eldar who used to play heavy weapons platforms - sorry TLOS screws with it. I have yet to see a forest modeled like a forest where you lose anything more than 6' inside of it (to scale 1") so instead we have forests that are more like well tended orchards with mown grass and neatly lined up trees so that everyone can see through to the other side.

TLOS is both good and bad. Do not blow sunshine up my $#@@@ and tell me tha TLOS is wonderful. I will not say that the sun has fallen from the sky either that we have TLOS.

It is a mixed blessing but I am not gushing like GW that now I get the priviledge of bending over my model and getting the true perspective of what it can see.

Forests aren't supposed to block line of sight, they grant a 4+ cover save.

Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through. The silly thing is that city scapes are now the terrain of choice. A wall is a wall is a wall. If it doesn't have a window, nothing can see through it. My point it small clumps of natural forests totally block LOS like a wall but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

But if forests are modelled to block LOS then what is the point of it granting a cover save? The 4+ save for shooting through forests is an abstraction, like bolters only shooting 120ft.

The point is the death of fire and redeploy armies. (Tau battlesuits, EJB) and the death of the usefulness and the value of indirect fire. (How many whirlwinds have you seen lately?? Also playing E HWP is a total wast of time...) So you will see them still but half of their value ( and half of what you are paying for) is lost with the current rendition of TLOS.

Grey Templar wrote:Except it isn't cheating because this is covered in the rules.

they give you explicit permission to abstract when this situation occurs. Ergo, it isn't cheating.

I guess we'll just have to agree that you read far more into the scenic base guidelines then I do.

I see it as strictly identical to the "banners and wings" LOS rules, i.e. you cannot claim LOS to a model because of them, but they're still there to get in the way.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:I see it as strictly identical to the "banners and wings" LOS rules, i.e. you cannot claim LOS to a model because of them, but they're still there to get in the way.
Jack

That leads to some crazy MFA.

Like building assault marines with extra scenic bits that just happen to cover 50% of your advancing land raiders...

Sure, but if the rules didn't allow for it so called modeling for advantage wouldn't exist.

Again you can achieve the same things with extra large daemon wings, or plenty of oldschool back banners, so its hardly unique.

Jack

DeathReaper wrote:Like building assault marines with extra scenic bits that just happen to cover 50% of your advancing land raiders...

Have you not seen the pirate ship orks?

Or played against a Harpy with vertical wings? (Especially one that is basically a standing, winged Trygon)

Or seen anyone with a large banner claim cover saves for the unit behind it?

insaniak wrote:

DAaddict wrote:... but because of the nature of the game, forests turn into orchards with well tended grounds in between the trees. Forest (orchard) templates 8" thick can be seen through by TLOS.

That's not entirely the fault of the game. The blame there lies far more heavily on the shoulders of people being lazy when crafting their forest terrain pieces. If you make your terrain pieces a little more involved than 3 trees stuck to a piece of cardboard, they can block considerably more LOS.

And in doing so the forests become impossible to game with, because no models can be placed in them. They also become much more difficult to create in the first place, which is a big deal for a lot of people.

This sums up my problem with terrain in 40k, and why I still apply area terrain almost universally. For terrain to be effective at granting TLOS, it needs to be detailed and realistic enough to truly be line of sight blocking. No abstractions, no substitutions. This now puts it directly at odds with the practicality of construction and ease use in an actual game. Just try accurately the chaotic rubble pile of a collapsed building, or a dense tangle of forest undergrowth - then try to make enough to cover a whole table - THEN try standing models up on/in them. It's expensive and exhausting to build and frustrating to play on. Or you do what most players do, and play with inadequate cover, which even further reduces the game down to point-shoot-charge.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Like building assault marines with extra scenic bits that just happen to cover 50% of your advancing land raiders...

Have you not seen the pirate ship orks?

Or played against a Harpy with vertical wings? (Especially one that is basically a standing, winged Trygon)

Or seen anyone with a large banner claim cover saves for the unit behind it?

Banners and wings are specifically exempted. Bad examples.

Ghaz wrote:Area terrain was a good rule in 4th edition. The only problem was that too many players tried to apply it to situations where it did not apply, ie all of the time.

+ 1 to this!

Ghaz was the first person to make me read the rules for it again back in 4th... 95% of people played it wrong

pretre wrote:Banners and wings are specifically exempted. Bad examples.

That is why they are good examples, actually.
I am not talking about TARGETING the wings/banners, I am talking about them blocking LOS to another unit, which they can do. You cannot target THROUGH something that blocks LOS, that is sort of the point of using it.

kirsanth wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Like building assault marines with extra scenic bits that just happen to cover 50% of your advancing land raiders...

Have you not seen the pirate ship orks?

Or played against a Harpy with vertical wings? (Especially one that is basically a standing, winged Trygon)

Or seen anyone with a large banner claim cover saves for the unit behind it?

Never actually seen any of those things.

Either way, if someone tries to let something, that the rules tell us to ignore, affect the game, there is going to be an issue.

You can target through something that the game specifically tells us to ignore.

Specifically "Scenic rocks or other decorative elements that players might have placed on the base... are always ignored from the point of view of determining cover"

So back banners and the like block LoS, but a scenic base the size of a land raider does not block LoS

DeathReaper wrote:Never actually seen any of those things.

Let's try an easy one then: Gargoyles can grant MCs cover saves?

If they were to actually cover 50% of the model? Yes.

If they were on a Land raider sized base and the Scenic base blocked LoS? No.

The rules only tell us to ignore Rocks and decorative elements on the models base. Banners hanging off the back, and Wings block LoS just fine to things behind said model RAW.

I just wanted to add about the whole forests thing:

I have been all around the world, and almost never have I seen a forest where you can't see a good 50-100 feet ahead of you. Forests with 6 foot high underbrush are not exactly common. Sure, a lot of stuff is obscured, that is why the game gives us a 4+ cover save. Unless you're playing on a board that is literally covered with trees, it is hard to imagine not being able to see through the forest.

If forests truly were as you claim, hunting would be impossible. Deer hunters do not sneak up within a few meters of their prey and shoot, they shoot it from a good distance away. You can see through forests just fine, to think otherwise is just silly.

In game terms, not being able to see through the trees would mean you also couldn't see out. At that point, why even use a forest? Just put a giant boulder there, since you can't see through it at all anyway.

40K is a game, and as many have said the rules are abstractions. When your models can see the enemy hiding behind those trees over there, it is a lot smoother and immersive to say that they can trace LOS, as opposed to saying "the rules say you can't see through trees, so ignore what you actually see."

4+ cover for being in a forest makes sense, both ruleswise and when compared to real life.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:And in doing so the forests become impossible to game with, because no models can be placed in them.

It's not an either/or situation. There is a middle ground.

So many forest bases are just a flat base with a couple of trees on it. You can very easily scatter a few smaller terrain features through the trees (rocks, smaller bushes, etc) to help block LOS without making it impossible to place models.

If you want to get carried away, you can also build your forest bases as dense as you want with undergrowth, and just have the individual bushes/trees/whatever magnetised so that you can pull them off to place models... something the rules specifically allow for in this edition.

They also become much more difficult to create in the first place, which is a big deal for a lot of people.

That was more or less my point.

Although gluing 3 trees and a few rocks and bushes to a piece of cardboard really doesn't fit my definition of 'much more difficult' than just gluing three trees to a piece of cardboard...

For terrain to be effective at granting TLOS, it needs to be detailed and realistic enough to truly be line of sight blocking.

Not all terrain on the board is supposed to completely block LOS.

The rulebook recommends a mixture of terrain, some completely blocking LOS and some that just gets in the way a little.

That is what we do at my LGS. Place a piece of felt down to represent trees. If more than one "tree" is placed on the felt it is considered to be thick and block LOS. One tree and it just provides a cover save.

Has anyone here actually made his Guants so they are crawling or Daemon wings so large they span half the table?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Has anyone here actually made his Guants so they are crawling or Daemon wings so large they span half the table?

I've seen at least one army (online, not in person) with crawling gaunts. The Ork Sail Truck also popped up a few years ago. That sort of thing isn't as common as internet discussions would have you believe, as players are generally self-policing over modelling abuse... People who indulge in that sort of thing tend to wind up with nobody wanting to play them.

The 'infamous' kneeling Wraithlord has been presented as an example of the difficiencies of the 40K LOS system since 2nd edition... and in more than 15 years of playing this game, I've personally come across 2 of them. And one of those was purely a display piece.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:That is what we do at my LGS. Place a piece of felt down to represent trees. If more than one "tree" is placed on the felt it is considered to be thick and block LOS. One tree and it just provides a cover save.

Do you have pieces of felt for buildings and hills as well?

pretre wrote:
Also, you know what's really annoying about TLoS? These threads.

A little snarky of a post, but, yeah. Everything you said was true.

I think what everyone... really, almost everyone, fails to grasp is that a game of this level isn't chess. It isn't designed to be an Olympic regulated sport. It's the same as any role playing game or any game that relies very heavily on the fluff - and on constantly updated source-books for income. This game was made for two buddies having a mock up war in the far future who want to create an interesting war story, with some drinks and some laughs. It isn't meant to be played for pink slips by grisly thugs out to win at any cost. The codexes are imbalanced and that will never change. The rules will be simultaneously crippling and yet abusable, and that will never change. If you're playing it the way it was designed to be played, that shouldn't matter. The people who design this game give you the trust, perhaps misplaced, that you won't be a douche.

The TLOS rules can be abused in anything as abstract as models and human opinion. The idea was to quickly ascertain who can shoot, while simultaneously putting the player in the game, with their battlefield, with their soldiers. It's not perfect and it made no intention of being so.

I guess that sounded kind of snarky too. I guess I'm venting at the community at large, there.

pretre wrote:

Boss GreenNutz wrote:That is what we do at my LGS. Place a piece of felt down to represent trees. If more than one "tree" is placed on the felt it is considered to be thick and block LOS. One tree and it just provides a cover save.

Do you have pieces of felt for buildings and hills as well?

I have the good fortune of being the president of a gaming club that has over 150 paid members. We have the priveledge of owning enough terrain to have actual hills and buildings.

diesel7270 wrote:I think what everyone... really, almost everyone, fails to grasp is that a game of this level isn't chess. It isn't designed to be an Olympic regulated sport. It's the same as any role playing game or any game that relies very heavily on the fluff - and on constantly updated source-books for income. This game was made for two buddies having a mock up war in the far future who want to create an interesting war story, with some drinks and some laughs. It isn't meant to be played for pink slips by grisly thugs out to win at any cost. The codexes are imbalanced and that will never change. The rules will be simultaneously crippling and yet abusable, and that will never change. If you're playing it the way it was designed to be played, that shouldn't matter. The people who design this game give you the trust, perhaps misplaced, that you won't be a douche.

The TLOS rules can be abused in anything as abstract as models and human opinion. The idea was to quickly ascertain who can shoot, while simultaneously putting the player in the game, with their battlefield, with their soldiers. It's not perfect and it made no intention of being so.

I guess that sounded kind of snarky too. I guess I'm venting at the community at large, there.

I wouldn't say that was snarky at all.

On the contrary, I agree with everything you said and I wish more people could see things this way.

sirrah wrote:

insaniak wrote:

sirrah wrote:That is not how LOS works, now or ever.

From 5th ed. RB:

In order to select an enemy unit as a target, at least one model in the firing unit must have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit.

That allows the unit to choose the enemy as a target, yes... but you can still only shoot with the individual models that have LOS themselves.

Bugger, really? It doesn't really change much though, checking one model is about as quick as skimming a whole squad.

edit: right, sorry! I was getting confused with only needing to draw LOS to one member of the target in 5th.

Selecting a unit as a target is one thing. One member of a unit must be able to see any one member of another unit.
But, counting up shooters still uses TLOS per model? Ignoring its own unit members, anything that blocks LOS to the target unit still prevents that model from firing?

As for kneeling models, I count kneelers as standing for both shooting and being shot.
There's always one who'll pop his head up when the firing starts.

Skinnereal wrote:
Selecting a unit as a target is one thing. One member of a unit must be able to see any one member of another unit.
But, counting up shooters still uses TLOS per model? Ignoring its own unit members, anything that blocks LOS to the target unit still prevents that model from firing?

Only models that can draw LOS to at least one model in the target unit can fire, so yeah.

lledwey wrote:I just wanted to add about the whole forests thing:

I have been all around the world, and almost never have I seen a forest where you can't see a good 50-100 feet ahead of you. Forests with 6 foot high underbrush are not exactly common. Sure, a lot of stuff is obscured, that is why the game gives us a 4+ cover save. Unless you're playing on a board that is literally covered with trees, it is hard to imagine not being able to see through the forest.

50-100 feet isn't exactly good visability in an age where we have rifles that can kill from miles away. at that distance it is hard to miss, any further and you can't see anything.

Some forests allow you to see a good distance. the question is, could you see an entire Battle tank if it was parked somewhere.

Oak forests are quite difficult to see more then 50-60 feet if they are moderatly dense. If they are completely unmanaged you might be lucky to move 100 feet in 20 minutes much less see that far.

Redwood forests, if they are old growth, can be extremely dense and thats just the trees themselves. there is very little undergrowth.

Lets not forget that the first rule is to have fun.

Our group does not get bent if my 2 FWs that are kneeling in the 12man Squad get to shoot over the wall. Likewise they are able to be targeted/killed in reply.

Another thing, most terrain is not to scale....it is invariably too big and even the larger of the Base Infantry still have the parapet come up to their shoulders or nearly their heads....Try placing Ratlings ANYWHERE on the table behind cover and still let them actually get their guns over the edge.
Relax a bit about TLOS.....and to the OP....place your DF on a tall flying base and shoot under it...

DAaddict wrote:Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through.

No it doesn't.

Firstly, we're talking about small clumps of trees on the table - not forest.

Secondly, forests do not block line of sight except over very long distances. In the kind of forest you'll find in most parts of Europe you can see several hundred yards without difficulty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:50-100 feet isn't exactly good visability in an age where we have rifles that can kill from miles away. at that distance it is hard to miss, any further and you can't see anything.

It's pretty good when your weapons can only just shoot from one end of a tank to the other.

The distances in 40k are abstracted and there is distance compression. within 6", 1"=6 feet. between 6" and 12", 1"= 10 yards. 12"-36", 1"=100 yards. 36"+, 1"=1000 meters.

Something like that anyway.

so the forest area terrain your dudes are standing in could actually be several acres of dense woods and not a small clump of nicely trimmed trees.

Grey Templar wrote:The distances in 40k are abstracted and there is distance compression. within 6", 1"=6 feet. between 6" and 12", 1"= 10 yards. 12"-36", 1"=100 yards. 36"+, 1"=1000 meters.
Something like that anyway.
so the forest area terrain your dudes are standing in could actually be several acres of dense woods and not a small clump of nicely trimmed trees.

According to that the clump of trees is bigger when it's further away?

Yeah, exactly. If you actually believe that the 8 inch wide clump of trees is actually an entire forest spanning acres, then you should have no problem with the rules being as abstract as they are. If you just take it to be a small grove of trees to approximate scale with the models in it, then you can very easily see through it.

50 to 100 feet was also just a random number I threw out there. I'm sure it is much more than that, depending on what kind of forest we are talking about. 4+ cover really is an adequate representation for game purposes. That 4+ means a Vindicare Assassin, a trained sniper who was bred for the specific purpose of being a marksman, trained his entire life for said purpose, and can pick out individual enemies from among hundreds moving around in the middle of a battle, might miss because trees get in the way. You can see through forests, in real life, and in game. Just like in real life though, sometimes it is hard to see because of all the trees and brush. Therefore, 4+ cover save.

I think it would be cool to have a maximum distance that you can see through forests, but for it to make sense it would have to be longer than the width of every piece of forest terrain I've ever seen. Again, you have two options. Either everything is at approximate scale, and they really are just small groves. Or, everything is a giant abstraction, and that 6 foot tall guardsman, inside a piece of forest terrain that is about 8 times longer than he is, is actually in a giant forest. In the latter case, the game board itself is so wildly abstract, that it would be impossible to make the rules even the slightest bit realistic, and so the blanket 4+ cover is fine.

Also, and this is not an attack on anyone in any way, but I'm just curious: where do you get that thing about distance compression? I can see how it might make sense, but did they actually ever say that anywhere, or is that just something the internet decided was right?

Forests can be dense enough where you can not see 50 feet. I have a forest right outside my house that is VERY dense. The max distance you can see is probably 50 at the most. And that is while you are inside it. From the outside, there are tall enough bushes and what-not so you can not even see inside.

EDIT: In fact, looking at it now, 50 feet might be pushing it. From the outside, you can see about 7 or so feet into the forest.
And remember, a big factor in LOS in a forest, even less dense ones, is the absolute mass of green that you will see. With enough shrubs, it looks like a wall of green, even if it is 30 feet away from you.

Keep in mind though that this is in summer. If it were winter, you could see at least 40 feet into it, more than likely even further.

forruner_mercy wrote:EDIT: In fact, looking at it now, 50 feet might be pushing it. From the outside, you can see about 7 or so feet into the forest.

Find an 8-foot-tall friend, and get them to dress up in bright red clothing and go stand in there. That will give you a better idea in 40K terms.

But remember that his arms and legs don't count

insaniak wrote:

forruner_mercy wrote:EDIT: In fact, looking at it now, 50 feet might be pushing it. From the outside, you can see about 7 or so feet into the forest.

Find an 8-foot-tall friend, and get them to dress up in bright red clothing and go stand in there. That will give you a better idea in 40K terms.

That is a good point. That was really more of a response of one always being to see more than 50 feet into a forest (it seemed to be implied in an earlier post; if not, my bad), which is definitely not the case.

Grey Templar wrote:But remember that his arms and legs don't count

Hands and feet, actually. Arms and legs DO count

What defines the Arm from the Hand on a Tyranid creature? more issues...

Grey Templar wrote:What defines the Arm from the Hand on a Tyranid creature? more issues...

The only arms without hands are the scything talons, all of the arms that hold weapons, rending claws (unless modded diferently), and genestealers have clearly defined hands.

Happyjew wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:What defines the Arm from the Hand on a Tyranid creature? more issues...

The only arms without hands are the scything talons, all of the arms that hold weapons, rending claws (unless modded diferently), and genestealers have clearly defined hands.

But how do we know what Tyranid hands look like, eh? For all we know, what we think is their hands could be their noses!

Cue ST6: Undiscovered Country.....

Grey Templar wrote:But remember that his arms and legs don't count

Arms and legs specifically do count.

Why is a general discussion on TLOS in YMDC again?

Scott-S6 wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:But remember that his arms and legs don't count

Arms and legs specifically do count.

already been pointed out.

jmurph wrote:Why is a general discussion on TLOS in YMDC again?

History repeats itself... itself.... itself.....

This happens with meme threads as well

I don't usually complain too much when I'm playing with someone, but sometimes I think TLOS is a little bit ridiculous sometimes. I was at a tournament when I over hear two players arguing (a Necron and a Dark Templar player). The Dark Templar player claims that the Necron Warriors cannot see a squad of units (don't know what units, wasn't really focusing on them) because the objective the Dark Templar unit was sitting on was blocking the units TLOS. I'm not sure how they presented the problem to the judge (perhaps misunderstanding, either the judge agreed, or they didn't ask. Thus the Necron player lost.

They then did a little bit of TheoryHammer and continued the game as though the objective did not block TLOS. The Necron player won. Sometime later, the judge told them that objectives do not block LOS. This pissed off the Necron player. They couldn't change the verdict since that match was long over. The Necron player was pissed, since Necrons hardly win anything in 5ed. The Dark Templar player responded back that his Dark Templars never win anything and that it was his first time winning in a long time with them.

Not sure if there's a moral to the story, but a TLOS story there.

Another story involving myself was that a player claimed that they can shoot my disembarked Howling Banshees from a Wave Serpent because everything is depicted by TLOS and things are measured from the base. So essentially, his units' base can see the bases of my Howling Banshees thus he can shoot at them, I get a cover save, since the Wave Serpent covered about 99% of the models, but a got a few unnecessary casualties. I thought that was stupid. If that really was a battlefield: 1. The Wave Serpent would decent low enough to make sure her cargo is safe, rather than having them jump out and hoping they don't break their ankles. 2. Units wouldn't be spraying bullets to try to get the legs of the unit disembarking from the Wave Serpent. You would kind of focus on the Wave Serpent's twin guns barreling down your necks.

Lets compare 2 transport tanks: a Rhino, and a Wave Serpent. I can't shoot the tactical marines coming from the back of the Rhino but I can get shot hiding behind a Wave Serpent? True, one of them is floating, but I think the odds of hitting someone below a tank that changes vector fields is so astronomically small you might as well say you can't shoot through it.

Now, as I'm writing this, I realized, in actuality, I can be accused of doing the same thing. When a Death Company disembarks from a Stormraven, I would shoot it and even would go so far as to claim that it wouldn't get a cover save because of TLOS. But the Stormraven is a skimmer as well, and they would lower their positions so the passengers can get out safely instead of breaking their necks jumping down.

So, after this post, I'm really confused about TLOS.

Well infantry draw LOS from their "eyes" so the base to base you speak of is quite wrong.

TLOS is a fairly simple thing, if you can see me I can see you wham bam there we go. Third party opinions are sometimes needed but hey they generaly are anyways.

Funny RAW are models disembark from the valk/vendettas base. Assume its the same with the StormRaven

But buddy was wrong (ref your wave serpent-banshee issue)
If his models heads could draw LOS to any part of your model (not base, hands, feet, weapons, banners) then he could shoot at them.

SO, they didnt agree before hand whether objectives block LOS, and thats the fault of TLOS?

No, thats players who made a mistake. Simple as that

Your second argument is someone fundamentally misunderstanding the LOS rules, and that things are drawn from the "eyes" of models, and must be drawn to specific parts of the model - not the base. Again, very clearly written, and apparently you dont know the rules you're criticising particularly well.

You;re confused because you need to properly read the rules.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Funny RAW are models disembark from the valk/vendettas base. Assume its the same with the StormRaven

Why is that funny?

The Valk/Vendettas/StormRaven would surely fly low and slow to let the troops off, since they are all VTOL aircraft.

So I would be able to shoot an unit disembarked behind a Stormraven without letting them have a cover save from it?

If they are not actually blocked then they dont get a cover save. Same as ever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If they are not actually blocked then they dont get a cover save. Same as ever.

Exactly correct, If they are not actually obscured by anything you do not get a cover save, since you are not in cover from the point of view of the firing models.

Thought so, just wanted to confirm, thanks a lot.

DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Funny RAW are models disembark from the valk/vendettas base. Assume its the same with the StormRaven

Why is that funny?

The Valk/Vendettas/StormRaven would surely fly low and slow to let the troops off, since they are all VTOL aircraft.

I prefer to think of grav harnesses, or my IG like to Free Rapelle out.

It's funny to me because it is. Clean cut and dry

Or even the fact that you're shooting while the Stormraven is taking off again, because you wouldn't have wanted to risk its guns earlier....

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Well infantry draw LOS from their "eyes" so the base to base you speak of is quite wrong.

And what about units that do not have eyes, i.e. wratihguard/wraithlords. Since TLOS is drawn from eyes, these models would never get to shoot...

Happyjew wrote:And what about units that do not have eyes, i.e. wratihguard/wraithlords. Since TLOS is drawn from eyes, these models would never get to shoot...

That is technically correct, yes.

In practice, most players draw LOS from the model's head and call it close enough.

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through.

No it doesn't.

Firstly, we're talking about small clumps of trees on the table - not forest.

Secondly, forests do not block line of sight except over very long distances. In the kind of forest you'll find in most parts of Europe you can see several hundred yards without difficulty.
My bad in the USA, forests tend to be impossible to see through within 30' at the most. So - i know foolish me- assuming that 24" rifle ranges are simulating modern rifles with at least 1000' ranges, I thought that a 3" forest should be considered blocking terrain.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:50-100 feet isn't exactly good visability in an age where we have rifles that can kill from miles away. at that distance it is hard to miss, any further and you can't see anything.

It's pretty good when your weapons can only just shoot from one end of a tank to the other.

In the USA, we have real forests

Scott-S6 wrote:

DAaddict wrote:Walk out your door - assuming you have natural forests about. Just see how far in you can see. There is underbrush and overgrowth that darn near makes a forest impossible to see through.

No it doesn't.

Firstly, we're talking about small clumps of trees on the table - not forest.

Secondly, forests do not block line of sight except over very long distances. In the kind of forest you'll find in most parts of Europe you can see several hundred yards without difficulty.
My bad in the USA, forests tend to be impossible to see through within 30' at the most. So - i know foolish me- assuming that 24" rifle ranges are simulating modern rifles with at least 1000' ranges, I thought that a 3" forest should be considered blocking terrain.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:50-100 feet isn't exactly good visability in an age where we have rifles that can kill from miles away. at that distance it is hard to miss, any further and you can't see anything.

It's pretty good when your weapons can only just shoot from one end of a tank to the other.

The core issue seems to be your view that it is a tactical game versus my view that it is an operational game. I assume that there are vagaries in the distance and thus the size of forests. I am viewing a 6"x6" forest as representing something around 250000 square feet (500'x500') while you are viewing it as a 50'x50' tree stand. I guess I can accept that but then the ranges and/or movement rates become ludicrous.

My bad in the USA, forests tend to be impossible to see through within 30' at the most. So - i know foolish me- assuming that 24" rifle ranges are simulating modern rifles with at least 1000' ranges, I thought that a 3" forest should be considered blocking terrain. ]

Not completely accurate. Forests vary - the National Forest near here has some pretty good visibility ranges in most places. The treelines along the highway to my parents house likewise have a pretty decent viewing distance.

Central TX.

Well, this is another debate. RAI, draw from halfway up their face. Srsly guise, this thread is long gone.

rigeld2 wrote:

My bad in the USA, forests tend to be impossible to see through within 30' at the most. So - i know foolish me- assuming that 24" rifle ranges are simulating modern rifles with at least 1000' ranges, I thought that a 3" forest should be considered blocking terrain. ]

Not completely accurate. Forests vary - the National Forest near here has some pretty good visibility ranges in most places. The treelines along the highway to my parents house likewise have a pretty decent viewing distance.

Central TX.

Of course, that is in Texas. a fairly arid landscape that isn't condusive to large dense forests, although I hear the scrub can be fiendishly thick.

Trees planted along a road certaintly won't block LoS, but that is an artificial situation.

Either way, the premise that the model/dood will be "actively trying to take cover" takes care of that.