Obviously if you have purchased the metal IG sniper models, or the old metal Tau Rail Rifle pathfinders, one of each is modeled by GW as being prone.

Say you placed this squad behind an ADL, will the guy who is prone not be able to fire his gun?

RAW, no
HIWPI yes

If you can trace LOS from his eyes to the target, he has LOS. If not, then he doesn't.

So RAW in the BRB dictate that the sniper cannot get up for the duration of the battle and thus cannot see past the ADL? (his eyes arent any higher than his gun)



For fairness sake if he can shoot, he can be shot at as well.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So RAW in the BRB dictate that the sniper cannot get up for the duration of the battle and thus cannot see past the ADL? (his eyes arent any higher than his gun).

The rules don't 'dictate' that, no. They simply don't provide any mechanism for treating the model as being in any pose other than it is actually in.

True Line of Sight, not hard.

RAW is clear.

HIWPI
I'd allow you shooting with him pretending hes standing when i can pretend hes standing when i shoot at him too.

I agree with the others, RAW, you wouldn't be able to shoot, but you'd also get better cover than the standing models. However, I'd allow you to use it as a normal model, so long as I can treat it as such and shoot back at it.

A friend I have has a Fire Warrior model that's kneeling; I used the kneeling legs in the Devestator box. Since there are similar models standing right next to those two, we both allow each other to treat those models as having the same height as the majority of the models in the unit.
I would use the same discretion with the models pictured above.
Although, with the snipers: one is kneeling, one prone, and one standing. If the kneeling one can't see, then I would say only the standing one CAN see, since the average height of the three models is too short.

And if my opponent had a unit where the average height was LOWER than the terrain, but had models that could see, I would allow him to shoot with those few models, but not with the rest.

Now, when it comes to Ratlings, where ALL the models are short...then no, you can't pretend they are taller than the models.

Raw: true LoS. If it can't see over the barrier then it can't shoot.

HIWPI: See raw.

Each model has its own positives and negatives. If you want that model to see over the barrier then use one that does.

Did they get rid of the rule they had about lying down models? It used to be if the model is kneeling or lying you where to treat it as standing for shooting/getting shot at? I am far away from my rule book but i know it was in the 5th edition rule book.

That has never been a rule in Warhammer 40K.

I am 100% certain it was in 4th or 5th edition. Among the first pages. Has a small box about kneeling or prone models.

Maybe it was labelled modelling for advantage or something along those lines...

 Sir Arun wrote:
Obviously if you have purchased the metal IG sniper models, or the old metal Tau Rail Rifle pathfinders, one of each is modeled by GW as being prone.

Say you placed this squad behind an ADL, will the guy who is prone not be able to fire his gun?

Yes you can fire it, but don't expect to get away with saying "He cannot be shot at because he cannot be seen"

 Swastakowey wrote:
I am 100% certain it was in 4th or 5th edition. Among the first pages. Has a small box about kneeling or prone models.

Maybe it was labelled modelling for advantage or something along those lines...

Definitely never in 5th. I don't have a 4th edition rulebook.

Hmmm i remember it so clearly. My friend has the old rule books, ill look through them and see but maybe it was in 4th. Google is of no help.

Since most of the boxes that contain these models don't give you enough materials to NOT use them and still have a full unit, I'm not going to screw my opponent and demand that they use strict TLOS. I've never seen anyone try and claim that. Seems kind of up there with saying that Wraithguard can't shoot at all because they have no eyes.

However, just to be clear: RAW is that they cannot, in fact, shoot over an ADL.

That being said, I've never seen anyone in real life claim that it should be played that way.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Since most of the boxes that contain these models don't give you enough materials to NOT use them and still have a full unit, I'm not going to screw my opponent and demand that they use strict TLOS.

That's a slightly peculiar way to look at it.

Is it similarly screwing your opponent if he is trying to shoot over an ADL with Gretchin or Ratlings, because they had no choice in those models being a little too short...?


Posing matters. It always has. It's not even remotely in the same league as the models without eyes issue. And for what it's worth, in 20 years I think I have had a grand total of one opponent try to treat a kneeling model as if it were standing up.

That is true, I also remember reading that, if not in a rule book it was in a white dwarf magazine/update, I think it was for 5th though because 4th edition didn't use true line of sight they just measured it base to base.

I do know for a fact I read that about a models positioning wouldn't penalize or grant advantages.

Anyways anyone who doesn't let you should that model in a game that is supposed to be for fun and relaxation is a derp and only acts that way because he can't control anything else in his life.

Seriously people need to be more cool about stuff and stop being tight, what's the point? Who honestly benefits from being that type of player or even person for that matter?

Reading these threads and posts is comical, gosh I wish I had something better to do with my life lol.

All this said, I have the metal Pathfinder team myself. Since I've started playing, those models are almost always in a terrain feature from the start of a game, for obvious reasons. It has always been cleared that I could prop the model by resting his gun sticking out a window or over a ledge or what have you to indicate his firing position, within reason of course. This way the models gun was about the height of the other models and was used as the reference for LOS.

We were talking once about having a stack of infantry bases as tall as your average model painted neon red to use as a proxy model whenever LOS issues came up. The idea being the 'Proxy Stack Cylinder' would indicate the area the model occupies while moving around in his/her spot. If LOS was potentially there, you would momentarily swap out the model for the proxy, then look for LOS to it, then swap back and continue. Though never implemented it did get considered as an argument ender.

Dat Guy wrote:
That is true, I also remember reading that, if not in a rule book it was in a white dwarf magazine/update, I think it was for 5th though because 4th edition didn't use true line of sight they just measured it base to base.

I do know for a fact I read that about a models positioning wouldn't penalize or grant advantages.

Anyways anyone who doesn't let you should that model in a game that is supposed to be for fun and relaxation is a derp and only acts that way because he can't control anything else in his life.

Seriously people need to be more cool about stuff and stop being tight, what's the point? Who honestly benefits from being that type of player or even person for that matter?

Reading these threads and posts is comical, gosh I wish I had something better to do with my life lol.

I agree, i mean seriously a lot of players really need to step back and look at themselves haha. Is it really that big of a deal that you have to say the pathfinder cant use his legs? If he cant stand to shoot, why he can move like normal etc etc. Kind of embarrassing when you think about it... i imagine it puts so many people off seeing two guys arguing over weither or not a model can shoot because its lying down or not. Just gotta kick back and enjoy the game a bit.

Dat Guy wrote:... because 4th edition didn't use true line of sight they just measured it base to base.

This was a common misunderstanding, and not actually true. 4th edition used true LOS just like every other edition of 40K so far has. It also had a 'size category' system which was used exclusively when area terrain or close combats were involved.

Anyways anyone who doesn't let you should that model in a game that is supposed to be for fun and relaxation is a derp and only acts that way because he can't control anything else in his life.

Because the guy resorting to name-calling over a game of toy soldiers is clearly doing a better job of holding his gak together?

Swastakowey wrote:I agree, i mean seriously a lot of players really need to step back and look at themselves haha. Is it really that big of a deal that you have to say the pathfinder cant use his legs? If he cant stand to shoot, why he can move like normal etc etc. Kind of embarrassing when you think about it... i imagine it puts so many people off seeing two guys arguing over weither or not a model can shoot because its lying down or not. Just gotta kick back and enjoy the game a bit.

There's this bizarre idea that prefering to follow the rules of the game means that someone is playing the game for something other than fun. I have no idea where it comes from.

Personally, I prefer to use the fixed position of the models simply because it is easier than pretending that the model is standing up. It's not me being uptight about the rules, or trying to ruin the other player's fun. If someone would really prefer to play them as standing up, chances are I'll happily go along with it... but by default, I'll play the game the way the rules say to play it where possible, particularly in a pick up game.

Don't confuse an argument over how the rules actually work with how people play the game. A large part of the point of discussions like this one is to establish how the rules actually work so that people can make an informed decision... so when you do come across someone who is playing differently to yourself, you know why.

So let's leave the ascribing sinister motives at the door, and stick to talking about the toy soldiers, hmm?

Its a simple fix, use the standing model thats probably right next to the lying down guy for LoS... Are you telling me for every single model and shot you look through the models eyes? No. Generally its common sense if they can shoot or not. Same goes for the one lying down model. Its such a simple fix, if the rest of the standing models can hit so can the lying down guy.

If the whole unit where lying down just make him put a standing model in there, bam, easy, done. No need to argue.

And i know that following the rules is be fun, but to a point. If you have to devate about a lying down model shooting or not then to me its clear your just trying to get every edge you can to win. to the point where its rediculious.

When i come across someone who plays differently a quick 30 second descussion or a roll off fixes it every time. But why not just think and say, it has legs, it can stand, its the same hight as the guy next to it, it can shoot what the guy next to it can shoot.

Can you tell me why it cant be that simple and easy?

 insaniak wrote:
Don't confuse an argument over how the rules actually work with how people play the game.

I think as it often seems to be this particular rules question hits the imaginary grey area where we have to ask if the rules actually work. The question has been answered by the book, however the models are not designed to a general and standard blueprint prescribed in the book anyway. It will be up to you from here and your fellow players to decide on a ruling.

At this point the argument starts (has already) stepped away from RAW, and into HIWPI. Which is not the purpose of this sub forum strangely. Or at least wasn't last time I got yelled at by the administrators for going that way LOL XD Unless that has changed? Or my memory fails me?

The truly amazing thing is that you get games like CB's Infinity which do have the "If the model isn't standing upright, substitute a regular model of the same type when determining line of sight" rules, you end up with just as many complaints about the logistics of switching the models out.

"Hell is other people" -- Sartre

 Swastakowey wrote:
Its a simple fix, use the standing model thats probably right next to the lying down guy for LoS...

Yes, that's the easy solution... so long as there are standing models in the unit.

I didn't say it was difficult, just that using the actual model is easier.

Are you telling me for every single model and shot you look through the models eyes?

Yes, I check LOS for each and every model. Because that's what the rules say to do.

If the whole unit where lying down just make him put a standing model in there, bam, easy, done. No need to argue.

You know what else leads to a lack of arguments? Following the rules...

If you have to devate about a lying down model shooting or not then to me its clear your just trying to get every edge you can to win. to the point where its rediculious.

Ah yes, the old 'If you're not playing my way, you're just a nasty powergamer' ploy.

The problem is, that argument works both ways. I can as easily say that if you need to break the rules and pretend that your prone model is standing up, then it's clear that you're just trying to get every edge you can to win...

It takes two to argue.

Can you tell me why it cant be that simple and easy?

It certainly can, so long as you and your opponent are happy to play that way. It's simply not what the rules say to do.

There are any number of rules in this game that don't function particularly close to 'reality'. Why can a squadmate not pick up a fallen trooper's meltagun? Why can tanks only fire all of their weapons when they are not moving? Why does having a bush in the way make a model's armour non-functional?

It's a game, not a simulation. Yes, there are rules that result in situations that seem a little screwy by 'real-world' logic. You can most certainly go ahead and change those rules to suit yourself if your opponent agrees. Some of us simply don't see the need to do so, when playing the rule as written is easier and quicker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
At this point the argument starts (has already) stepped away from RAW, and into HIWPI. Which is not the purpose of this sub forum strangely. Or at least wasn't last time I got yelled at by the administrators for going that way LOL XD Unless that has changed? Or my memory fails me?

HIWPI is perfectly valid for YMDC discussion. We simply ask that posters make it clear when they are presenting a HIWPI interpretation rather than RAW.

@ insaniak I am reading the line of sight section out of 4th no where does it say it uses true line of sight. It is line of sight from model to model and yes height elevation plays into it they have size 1- size 2-size 3 I dunno about if there is 4, but it does measure from the models eye view in most cases except when it comes to some area terrain. For instance on page 20 of the 4th edition rule book it states "it is possible to see up to 6"in area terrain. Models further then 6"in cannot be seen at all, nor can they see out, unless they are taller then the terrain." It further goes on to say "Note that although it is possible to see into Area Terrain, you cannot see through it even if it is less then 6" deep."

So it does not use true line of sight, and my statement about the labels of people was not directed to anyone on here or to any ones posts it was a general statement to people who forget about "The Most Important Rule" page 4 of the 6th edition rule book. Also in my own words people should not be penalized for a model that comes that way and is told to be assembled that way and is the only way to assemble it. That might be the only model he has to use and it might be the only one in his budget.

Now if the model is used in a tournament, there is not much of a debate their unless the T.O.announces that the model is ok for measuring line of sight, in a casual game though which the rule books and codices are published for, these rules are guide lines to give people something to use with the miniatures. There is nothing wrong with that prone model being pm the ground.

I have a better example of Tallarn imperial guard and their auto cannons, they don't have Los over an aegis lol.

Im not doing for realism purposes but to get the game moving without hickups. If i wanted a simulator i wouldnt play this. If my opponent stopped to make apoint of saying the lying down model cant shoot because i didnt want to buy multiple packs just for the standing models and showed me rules etc to prove his point, id be pretty annoyed. Why? Because it adds nothing to the game. Its based entirely on the way the model is posed. It should not affect the game at all.

Im all keen for other players to play how they wish, if both players want to do models as posed its fine, but its a bit silly to expect an opponent suffer at a loss however minor because his model looks a certain way.

And no its not so i can win id argue my point, id argue it because i think it makes a far better game when all the infantry are considered standing. That way its clear and simple. catachans dont wear armour, the person who brought them shouldnt be penalised because he didnt model flak armour onto them all. Same for lying down models.

But as usual i make it very clear im not against it to the point i think nobody should do it, it just shouldnt be considered a normal thing. However if you and your opponent are fine just go ahead and enjoy it. But i just think its a silly way of penalizing/giving an advantage to someone for reasons that are largely out of their control.

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak I am reading the line of sight section out of 4th no where does it say it uses true line of sight. It is line of sight from model to model and yes height elevation plays into it they have size 1- size 2-size 3 I dunno about if there is 4, but it does measure from the models eye view in most cases except when it comes to some area terrain. For instance on page 20 of the 4th edition rule book it states "it is possible to see up to 6"in area terrain. Models further then 6"in cannot be seen at all, nor can they see out, unless they are taller then the terrain." It further goes on to say "Note that although it is possible to see into Area Terrain, you cannot see through it even if it is less then 6" deep."

So it does not use true line of sight, and my statement about the labels of people was not directed to anyone on here or to any ones posts it was a general statement to people who forget about "The Most Important Rule" page 4 of the 6th edition rule book. Also in my own words people should not be penalized for a model that comes that way and is told to be assembled that way and is the only way to assemble it. That might be the only model he has to use and it might be the only one in his budget.

Now if the model is used in a tournament, there is not much of a debate their unless the T.O.announces that the model is ok for measuring line of sight, in a casual game though which the rule books and codices are published for, these rules are guide lines to give people something to use with the miniatures. There is nothing wrong with that prone model being pm the ground.

I have a better example of Tallarn imperial guard and their auto cannons, they don't have Los over an aegis lol.

So it did use True Line of Sight except where Area Terrain was involved, just like Insaniak said. People assumed that the size categories applied all the time in the same magic cylinder style that Warmachine explicitly uses, but that was never the case.

 Sir Arun wrote:
So RAW in the BRB dictate that the sniper cannot get up for the duration of the battle and thus cannot see past the ADL? (his eyes arent any higher than his gun)



For fairness sake if he can shoot, he can be shot at as well.

Plus its not a good idea to try and apply realism to a game of giant space bugs, killer fungus and dudes with hydraulic hands.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm i remember it so clearly. My friend has the old rule books, ill look through them and see but maybe it was in 4th. Google is of no help.

It was 4th, sort of.

In 4th all models were cylinders

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm i remember it so clearly. My friend has the old rule books, ill look through them and see but maybe it was in 4th. Google is of no help.

It was 4th, sort of.

In 4th all models were cylinders

No, they weren't. Magic Cylinders only came into play if Area Terrain or Close Combats were involved. Otherwise it was True Line of Sight.

3rd ed was the age of "blocking twice your height"

No it wasn't, no where does it say in 4th edition they used true line of sight. That was one of the big things about 5th edition is that it introduced that.

Dat Guy wrote:@ insaniak I am reading the line of sight section out of 4th no where does it say it uses true line of sight. It is line of sight from model to model and yes height elevation plays into it they have size 1- size 2-size 3 I dunno about if there is 4, but it does measure from the models eye view in most cases except when it comes to some area terrain. For instance on page 20 of the 4th edition rule book it states "it is possible to see up to 6"in area terrain. Models further then 6"in cannot be seen at all, nor can they see out, unless they are taller then the terrain." It further goes on to say "Note that although it is possible to see into Area Terrain, you cannot see through it even if it is less then 6" deep."

You're only reading half of the rules. 4th edition included the same 'bend over and look from the model's eye view' mechanic that every other edition has had. The size categories were only relevant for area terrain and close combats. But as I said, this was commonly misunderstood. The LOS rules were by far the most frequently discussed rules around here during 4th edition.

Swastakowey wrote:Im not doing for realism purposes but to get the game moving without hickups. If i wanted a simulator i wouldnt play this. If my opponent stopped to make apoint of saying the lying down model cant shoot because i didnt want to buy multiple packs just for the standing models and showed me rules etc to prove his point, id be pretty annoyed. Why? Because it adds nothing to the game. Its based entirely on the way the model is posed. It should not affect the game at all.

And in a better written game it might not. But posing does have a big impact on the game. It always has... hence the recurrent appearance of crouching Wraithlords in LOS discussions for the last 20 years now.

If you are agreeing to play a game, playing by the actual rules should always be the default, unless those rules are unworkable. By all means ask your opponent if you would rather play differently, but if you're getting annoyed about them not wanting to play by your altered rules, it might be time to stop and remind yourself that it's just a game.


Maybe the problem is that you're looking at it as a penalty rather than simply as a quirk of the game. But it's only a penalty in certain specific conditions. The model being prone or kneeling also has its advantages... like being more able to make use of lower cover that wouldn't help a standing model.

Dat Guy wrote:
No it wasn't, no where does it say in 4th edition they used true line of sight. That was one of the big things about 5th edition is that it introduced that.

It introduced those words, but the mechanic of looking to see what the mini could see is TLoS.

This trip down memory lane about LoS in other editions is great and all, but it doesn't answer the OP's question:

Can a prone model behind an Aegis Defense Line shoot his weapon or not?

RAW- and you have GW to thank for making True Line of Sight AND for making a prone model- no, he can't. Unless there was some huge model that you could draw a line from the model's head that was prone to the model that was looming over the ADL.

Sorry old metal Tau prone Pathfinder with Rail Rifle and various IG Snipers. Just think of the Ratlings who will never get to shoot behind an ADL!.

But hey, on the flip side, they will never get shot at- can't hit what you can't see and all that, right?

Nope, you could not see anyone through an open Window in a ruin if it was area terrain. True line of sight means no matter the situation if you can see it and you have range you can roll dice to hit it, it does use A line of sight but not True line of sight, seeing the models eye level and seeing a target through a forest and your in range but the rules saying you can't see or target anyone through area terrain is not true line of sight.

Dat Guy wrote:
True line of sight means no matter the situation if you can see it and you have range you can roll dice to hit it, ...

That might be what it means to you, but for common usage in the context of GW's games it just means 'draw LOS from the model's eyes to the target'.

The specifics of how that has been applied have varied from edition to edition, but it has always been the core of the LOS rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
But hey, on the flip side, they will never get shot at- can't hit what you can't see and all that, right?

That's not always true. There are a number of situations where a model can be shot at but can not draw LOS to its attacker. Short models shooting under a skimmer, for example.

Not to mention that that definition doesn't even apply to 6th edition, where there are instances where simply being able to see part of a model isn't enough to shoot it (because all you can see is the wing, etc). There are always exceptions, it's just that 4th had more than 6th does.

EDIT:

A sufficiently tall model would be able to shoot the prone sniper behind a defense line as well, by shooting him in the legs. Assuming he's lying with his face crammed right into the line rather than parallel to it.

Thank you bobcatt exactly.

@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

Please tell me you are reading everything and not just skimming because that could be the issue...

I'm sure there is something that in the BRB that says you have to have LOS on a models body, limbs or head. This is in order to prevent players from being penalized for extravagant extra bits, like guns or wings. So if you reverse brain action that action... then yes the prone model can fire as if he were standing. He shouldn't get a bonus to his cover save either. If this came up in tourney play I think anyone would agree to treat the model as if he were standing.

But here is a conundrum. If a player were to build their models with cover in mind and they posed them crouched would it be acceptable to say that the unit would benefit from a better cover save? For example, a crouching Riptide?

edit: or the wraithlord question, haha!

darkcloak wrote:
So if you reverse brain action that action... then yes the prone model can fire as if he were standing. He shouldn't get a bonus to his cover save either.

You're assuming that it works that way. You could just as easily assume that GW wanted to have TLOS give you a tradeoff between modeling a position that gets cover easily but has trouble seeing over obstacles vs. a position that is harder to hide but doesn't risk losing shots because it can't see over something.

If this came up in tourney play I think anyone would agree to treat the model as if he were standing.

That would be a house rule. It might be a popular one, but it's still a house rule.

But here is a conundrum. If a player were to build their models with cover in mind and they posed them crouched would it be acceptable to say that the unit would benefit from a better cover save? For example, a crouching Riptide?

Sure, but MFA is a "player consensus" thing, not something that is found in the actual rules of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:


You're assuming that it works that way. You could just as easily assume that GW wanted to have TLOS give you a tradeoff between modeling a position that gets cover easily but has trouble seeing over obstacles vs. a position that is harder to hide but doesn't risk losing shots because it can't see over something.

But then by that logic some humans are just born lying down and can only ever grow up to be prone IG snipers...

darkcloak wrote:
But then by that logic some humans are just born lying down and can only ever grow up to be prone IG snipers...

Fluff is irrelevant. The game uses abstractions for all kinds of things even though it wouldn't work that way fluff-wise. For example, you (almost) always shoot the closest model, despite the fact that even the worst conscripts can figure out things like "shoot the melta gunner, ignore the random meatshield in front". TLOS works the same way. You can imagine all the fluff you want about what the model could be doing, but in the end you draw LOS to the actual model on the table, however it is posed.

Question...
If you consider the prone model to only being able to shoot, wouldn't you automatically consider it to have gone to ground?

Which would basically...invalidate the ENTIRE model for every game, just by the pose.

I'd consider this the same as adding cover to the base. Since that one is ignored, yet you might liek some for aesthetic reasons, I don't see why this should be different...

That said, I built a kneeling Devastator with a missile launcher just to make the squad a bit more dynamic optic wise. Insisting on that model being unable to shoot strikes me as a bit picklish. RAW, but picklish.
There are many rules which don't apply 100% everytime and aren't hyper accurate.

Thairne wrote:
Question...
If you consider the prone model to only being able to shoot, wouldn't you automatically consider it to have gone to ground?

Theres no rule that states you have to treat prone models as GTG. On the other side there IS a rule that tells you to use TLOS. The rule that you have to lay one model on its side when the Unit is GTG is gone in 6th edition.

So no the model wouldnt be unable to do anything because of its pose but wouldnt be able to shoot over an Aegis. At least RAW. I dont think in friendly games anyone would care about you shooting it. Tournaments may be a different story but thats in the hands of the TO.

True. But it keeps with the spirit.
The same could be said about my "cover"-argument.

So, if you INSIST on playing by the rules, the model couldn't. There are times when insisting on rules is good and necessary, but isn't there even a passage in the BRB that says "Rules can't cover everything, so be nice and play fair!" ?

Edit: Whelp. It actually says "try to find an agreement, if you cannot, roll a dice"

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

So can we all agree on this:

RAW: it cannot see past the ADL (or any cover taller than 0.5"), but your opponent can also not completely destroy the squad with non-blast, non-template weapons as this model cannot be seen by him likewise.

RAI: you and your opponent can agree to make the model stand up and shoot, but then he can see it too, thus being potentially able to wipe out your entire squad with his conventional shooting.

I have to say, RAW is quite clear, as is RAI. Some people may chose to say the model can stand up but I don;t think you should expect to be able to do this.

There are plenty of models that are kneeling down or have thematic bases with the mini stood on something. For me I insist on playing TLoS in all cases. Both for me, as I have a few minis that are kneeling and some that are on thematic bases. My Belial based on the Chaos Terminator Lord comes to mind. It may be with squads you can say "He is the standard" but when you get unique minis/IC's then what do you do? I also have Orks from different eras that are different sizes, and old termies are slightly shorter.

Secondly, the "why can't they stand up" logic makes no sense. Equally, why can minis that are standing not be counted as lieing down or kneeling behind low cover. It's not like they would stand up ignoring the wall in real life.

For me the rules say TLoS so you stick to that and avoid confusion.

Which would, in my case, prevent me from playing games with you, since I would expect to have these problems with other situations and rules too.
E.g. I stuck my HQ on a double layered cork base to pick him up from "base troop" standard, give him something special and make him visually stick out. Only visually, mind you.
Putting me at an disadvantage because of that (not being in cover e.g) rubs me as wrong.

Minis can't do that because the "standard" posture is standing. You therefore elevate a non-standard to the standard. In your version, you'd do the opposite way (besides that is what GTG is for).

Though I've a number of old Ratling minis and Catachan snipers in the prone firing position, I am in agreement with the bulk of posters. RAW, you must have true line of sight to be able to utilize your prone model. Unless you've placed these models on the very edges of the ADL, you are unlikely to draw LOS, and in return, shouldn't have to worry too much about having them shot to pieces either. Can't shoot what you can't see, barring scatter and template weapons, etc.

On the upside, prone models are easily concealed in all manner of area terrain and benefit greatly from cover saves. My 2nd Edition Ratling models can cover camp the entire game without much thought into their placement. So long as their little heads are able to trace LOS, I can still use them. No ADL for them, but stick them in a bush, and shoot down those MCs. Have a laugh, and then sigh as they run away because Ratlings are fluffy, but mostly overshadowed...

You could use prone or small models as a tactical advantage.

Put them behind an ADL so that they are behind it for its whole length.

They can not be shot, and they can not be assaulted because you can't see them, and you can't come within 1" of them. Then put something that you want to give cover to, and protect from being assaulted behind them, like a Riptide or two.

They now have protection from being assaulted, and get 4+ cover.

 mr_bruno wrote:
Can't shoot what you can't see, barring scatter and template weapons, etc.

As a default, Template weapons do not ignore Line of Sight.

Some blast marker weapons do, but not template weapons.

So technically I could pose a Riptide laying down with his gun sticking up in the air and that would totally be RAW legal? Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

By saying that the model cannot shoot because he is prone and has no LOS is pretty much saying that he has gone to ground. You're saying that he cannot shoot because he is laying down, but the only way a model can actually "lie down" is when they go to ground, THUS the model should be treated as having an extravagant pose, which is clearly not meant to be penalized.

As for Modelling For Advantage... Well this is probably the real root of the schism. We have players modelling larger stuff so as to be more compact and thus get better cover, with the excuse that "in real life a battlesuit would duck" but really and truly there is already a mechanic in place for dealing with this, Going To Ground! lol

Doesn't help when GW is making models that technically break their own rules, or that things just seem to be getting larger. Centurions anyone? How the hell does that dive behind a sandbag?

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

darkcloak wrote:
So technically I could pose a Riptide laying down with his gun sticking up in the air and that would totally be RAW legal? Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

For the Riptide, you still measure LoS from the head, not the gun, so it such a position almost everything would have cover against your shots. Also, since a Riptide is only about 6" tall, it can hide behind a fair amount of cover safely. A Wraithknight on the other hand is a little harder to get cover since it is massively tall.

darkcloak wrote:
Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

The rulebook actually tells you to use a mix of different terrain, including some that completely blocks LOS.

The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

GTG has nothing whatsoever to do with how a model is posed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thairne wrote:
Which would, in my case, prevent me from playing games with you, since I would expect to have these problems with other situations and rules too.
E.g. I stuck my HQ on a double layered cork base to pick him up from "base troop" standard, give him something special and make him visually stick out. Only visually, mind you.
Putting me at an disadvantage because of that (not being in cover e.g) rubs me as wrong.

Then don't do it...?

If you alter a model's physical profile in a game that revolves around LOS, then that model will have a different LOS profile. If you want to avoid that, don't alter the model's physical profile. Simple.

Minis can't do that because the "standard" posture is standing.

Page reference, please?

 DeathReaper wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

No need for that. Everyone knows that page numbers are found in the index, thank you.

Anyone interested in reading how the GTG rule actually works can go and get their codex. Not arguing how GTG works though, just using the implied theory of the rule to explain why the prone sniper isn't actually laying down, and thus unable to get a cover bonus. This in turn explains why he can shoot.

Seriously though if any opponent would try to argue this one on the table, either way, I'd just replace the model.

darkcloak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

No need for that. Everyone knows that page numbers are found in the index, thank you.

Anyone interested in reading how the GTG rule actually works can go and get their codex. Not arguing how GTG works though, just using the implied theory of the rule to explain why the prone sniper isn't actually laying down, and thus unable to get a cover bonus. This in turn explains why he can shoot.

Seriously though if any opponent would try to argue this one on the table, either way, I'd just replace the model.

Which is 100% patently wrong.

A Prone Sniper is actually Lying Down, has LOS Limited by any/all terrain both to and from him.

Thius is How TLOS works, This is how 40k works.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

darkcloak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

No need for that. Everyone knows that page numbers are found in the index, thank you.

Anyone interested in reading how the GTG rule actually works can go and get their codex. Not arguing how GTG works though, just using the implied theory of the rule to explain why the prone sniper isn't actually laying down, and thus unable to get a cover bonus. This in turn explains why he can shoot.

Seriously though if any opponent would try to argue this one on the table, either way, I'd just replace the model.

Which is 100% patently wrong.

A Prone Sniper is actually Lying Down, has LOS Limited by any/all terrain both to and from him.

Thius is How TLOS works, This is how 40k works.

Also he said that "Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge" when clearly models that have G2G can shoot...

^ snapshots. It's a hiccup from 5th I assume.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy wrote:
Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

4th edition stil drew actual LOS from the model's eyes. It just abstracted area terrain and close combats. The rest of the time, it was true LOS.

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

What does the age of the model have to do with anything?

This isn't some big conspiracy to get people to buy new models... prone models have always drawn LOS differently to upright models. It's just the model design guys making models that look cool with no regard for how they function on the table.

Not a conspiracy at all, I don't believe in those. Also it applied to your own units and shooting also you had to shoot at closest enemy or take a leadership test to fire at something else.

Well if you look at old school vehicles and ork trucks they are significantly smaller to effect certain things.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

darkcloak wrote:

By saying that the model cannot shoot because he is prone and has no LOS is pretty much saying that he has gone to ground. You're saying that he cannot shoot because he is laying down, but the only way a model can actually "lie down" is when they go to ground, THUS the model should be treated as having an extravagant pose, which is clearly not meant to be penalized.

Whether or not the plastic pieces that we call models are sculpted in a way that resembles a humanoid laying down has nothing to do with the GTG rules in the BRB.

Same issue with all my vostroyan heavy Bolger teams we just treat them as being able to shoot over low level cover as the only thing the can see over is other models bases

So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

Sounds great.

FinnSeer wrote:
So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit. Since the dreadnought kit does include a 24" gun you would be using an illegal model and therefore cheating.

Now, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that conversions are legal, but only if the conversion is "reasonable". Most people will not consider a 24" gun to be a reasonable conversion and will not grant you that exception to the rules, so your MFA dreadnought will never be allowed in a real game. And TBH if you try to use it you'll probably find that nobody wants to play against you at all.

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

I think there should be a rule that hiding behind a wall that isnt higher than 20mm can allow the guys to shoot (and can be shot at) regardless of how they are posed, unless the models themselves are less than the standard 28mm trooper height, but I guess for something like that we need to wait till 7th edition.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I think there should be a rule that hiding behind a wall that isnt higher than 20mm can allow the guys to shoot (and can be shot at) regardless of how they are posed, unless the models themselves are less than the standard 28mm trooper height, but I guess for something like that we need to wait till 7th edition.

Or better... FAQ and errata... Take it over with it GW!

With years of Tau shooting UNDER skimmers for cover... Screw you and your 'My kneeling/prone should have LOS of standing models.'

And as an ork player, I am always on the hunt for Gorts who claim to be shooting over an ADL. I own every got model GW ever made for 40k, not a single one of them can see over a stock ADL without a cinematic base. Not even 'head honcho' which is the tallest gorkamorka grot.

ADL is TrueLOS. If you don't like it, put the prone guy next to the ADL or further back so he can shoot up at an angle. Or retire the model.

You want to shoot under a skimmer and over an ADL all at once. Too bad.

Isnt there a rule in 6th that says friendly units do not block LoS?

There is and has been for a while now a rule that members of your own unit don't block your LoS. I can't think of something army-wide

 Sir Arun wrote:
Isnt there a rule in 6th that says friendly units do not block LoS?

Just your own unit. 4th was where friendly skimmers didn't block own line of sight

Actually, 4th was where all skimmers didn't block LOS, unless they were wrecked or immobilised. Neither did infantry, unless they were in close combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book. Yes in certain situations they measured from the models eye view and if it wasn't area terrain or certain height levels, even if they could draw a line of sight they could still not target and shoot it.

5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range. 4th edition did not have that. If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs and that is not true line of sight.

Its like 5 people to 1 and all 5 people are wrong lol.

Dat Guy wrote:
You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book.

No, Im fairly sure that was mentioned.

Again, the fact that the rulebook didn't call it 'true line of sight' doesn't change the way people have been using that term for the last 15 years or so.

5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range.

Well, except for the situations where that isn't actually true, yes.

Just as every other edition has done. It's just the specifics of how you determine whether or not you can see it that changed.

If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs...

Uh, yes you could...

Dat Guy] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book.

Apart from where I mentioned it. I have added the bold tags to hopefully help you find it.

Dat Guy wrote: Yes in certain situations they measured from the models eye view and if it wasn't area terrain or certain height levels, even if they could draw a line of sight they could still not target and shoot it.

Yes, the exceptions around ICs and shooting at the non-closest models needing a leadership test. That still did not alter that determining IF you coudl see them was dont using the models eye view, which it was. Another rule then stopping you shooting at that model does not alter this use of true line of sight.


Your definition of "true line of sight" is NOT one supported by any edition.

Dat Guy wrote:5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range. 4th edition did not have that. If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs and that is not true line of sight.

I have bolded a bit where you got it wrong - you could indeed shoot between a wriathlord legs, just not if it was in combat. You're erroneously claiming 4th was a magic cylinder edition, which was ONLY true with combat

Dat Guy wrote:Its like 5 people to 1 and all 5 people are wrong lol.

Nope, just the 1 person being wrong. If you disagree further, please hook out your 4th ed rulebook, and post up citations. Your memory, and definition of "true line of sight", is faulty.

Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

Seriously bro? You just like to see me type lol

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

Dat Guy wrote:
Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

If you shoot between a model's legs, you're not shooting through the model. You're shooting through empty air near the model.

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

The LOS rules lay out a number of things that don't count as a part of the model, so don't allow you to target the model even if you can shoot them.

Dat Guy wrote:
Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

Seriously bro? You just like to see me type lol

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

Yes, and as per the 4th ed rulebook, the space occupied by the model counts as the model, not the gap between its legs. So if I draw LoS through the gap between the models legs, I can draw LOS.

Again: you are making a classic 4th edition cock up, namely the "magic cylinder" theory of models. It was a common mistake, as the LOS rules in 4th were amazingly badly written, but it is still a mistake.

I cannot shoot a non-vehicles wings, even though I can draw LOS to them "truly", meaning 5th and 6th do not have full "true" LOS

Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

Dat Guy wrote:
Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

Yes, the base is used for measurement - same in 5th and 6th. However that has no bearing on the Line of Sight, and hasnt done in any edition yet. You are the one who is wrong.

If you modelled a kneeling wraithlord, such that LOS could not be drawn through its legs, then LOS through its legs would not exist. That was true in 4th, and is true in 5th and 6th as well.

I am not "shooting through the base", i am "shooting through the space unoccupied by the model". the model was NOT defined as occupying the entire "cylinder" measured upward from the base (e.g. 60mm based MC model did NOT have a 60mm wide cylinder that blocked LOS)

Again: you are making the "magic cylinder" claim. This was not the rule in 4th. You are making the same mistake thousands did during 4th edition

Thairne wrote:
Which would, in my case, prevent me from playing games with you, since I would expect to have these problems with other situations and rules too.
E.g. I stuck my HQ on a double layered cork base to pick him up from "base troop" standard, give him something special and make him visually stick out. Only visually, mind you.
Putting me at an disadvantage because of that (not being in cover e.g) rubs me as wrong.

Minis can't do that because the "standard" posture is standing. You therefore elevate a non-standard to the standard. In your version, you'd do the opposite way (besides that is what GTG is for).

No, it would prevent you from using a house rule. Nothing wrong with putting him on a higher, scenic, base. As long as you play LoS from that. What you seem to be saying is that when the model is lower you want to raise it up to the LoS but when it is higher you want to lower it to gain cover. That is wrong.

There is no disadvantage by enforcing this. The gain/loss in LoS is balanced by an opposite loss/gain in cover.

There is no standard posture. There is a majority, but no standard. All I am doing is saying that I want to play as per the rules. RAW and RAI. It's quite clear from the rule book how LoS is intended to work. Using an imagined "standard" for the mini means swapping minis around or just guessing.

You can use that house rule if you want, but that is all it is, a house rule. And this is YMDC. Questions about the rules. The rules are quite clear on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dat Guy wrote:
Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

No, it's quite clear. If you can see you can shoot. You can, and always have been, able to shoot between legs, round heads, etc. Equally if the minis arms stick outside the base then you can't shoot through them.

The point of the TLoS rules is that they don't need you to imagine things, just look (Although this falls apart when dealing with flags, wings etc, but that was done because people were abusing it with giant flags shielding large areas and the like).

Ok I can see it now, thank you for explaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Again: you are making the "magic cylinder" claim. This was not the rule in 4th. You are making the same mistake thousands did during 4th edition

That was the rule in 3rd. 4th Edition was often a weird bastard edition because it didn't get quickly adopted, they had done chapter approved 3.5 with the experimental rules in 2003 and some people simply never made the leap. I think a lot of people remember 3rd edition rules as 4th edition.

In 3rd edition, "magic cylinder" was the rule, and that dead space did block LOS as there was no 'cover'. It was LOS or no LOS.

RAW: No.
HIWPI: Sure...but I can shoot and assault him in my turn also.
Judging: I'd give my opponent credit for using models other than bog standard standing guys...especially if he converted/based the model prone without trying to claim MFI advantages.
If my opponent insisted on playing LOS as RAW forcing those models to become ineffective/irrelevant then I would make a TFG note on that.
Of course you could also be TFG when you see he's going to shoot and assault you...go to ground behind the ADL; laying every model on its side to "indicate it has GTG. Then when he tries to assault tell him RAW he has no LOS to the unit (since they are laying sideways below the level of the ADL) and may not assault a unit he cannot see.
Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

dkellyj wrote:
RAW: No.
Of course you could also be TFG when you see he's going to shoot and assault you...go to ground behind the ADL; laying every model on its side to "indicate it has GTG. Then when he tries to assault tell him RAW he has no LOS to the unit (since they are laying sideways below the level of the ADL) and may not assault a unit he cannot see.
Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

You have no permission to lay models down on it's side when unit goes to ground. That would be breaking the rules.
GTG is indicated by placing a suitable marker next to the unit as a reminder (page 18 BRB).

My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

As long as you are not manipulating the models that have not been killed then it is fine to use one that has been previously removed as a casualty for this purpose.

But laying a model down that has been deployed and not removed as a casualty is against the rules.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

In a friendly thats a suitable house rule.

In tournaments if your opponent is fine with it, too. But i'd ask my opponent if i was you.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

That's not what the book says to do, though. They removed the permission to mark the unit by laying models over, presumably precisely to stop the sorts of LOS shenanigans you suggested, which was an issue with the GtG rules last edition.

If someone was complaining about their prone sniper not being able to see over their Aegis Defence Line, I wouldn't implement a house-rule where they count as being able to see over it, I'd say "you should have thought of that before sticking it behind your defence line".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If someone was complaining about their prone sniper not being able to see over their Aegis Defence Line, I wouldn't implement a house-rule where they count as being able to see over it, I'd say "you should have thought of that before sticking it behind your defence line".

Exactly this, just like sticking your standing model behind LOS blocking terrain; you do not get to fire with that model, and you should have thought of that before sticking your model there

dkellyj wrote:

Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

Its really not WAAC, intentionally debilitating or to do with effort.

It's not WAAC because it is just asking to play as both the rules are written and intended. It is asking that you don't start messing about with guesses at the "normal" hight, or swapping minis around mid turn to check. Also, where do you put the standing up mini for measurement?

It is not intentionally debilitating. Prone minis have pluses and minuses in LoS.

There should be no conversions to prone, as you can't do prone and reasonable keep it on a standard base. They have to go on bike bases, and with the exception of 2 minis, no infantry come with them.

 Peregrine wrote:

FinnSeer wrote:
So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit. Since the dreadnought kit does include a 24" gun you would be using an illegal model and therefore cheating.

Now, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that conversions are legal, but only if the conversion is "reasonable". Most people will not consider a 24" gun to be a reasonable conversion and will not grant you that exception to the rules, so your MFA dreadnought will never be allowed in a real game. And TBH if you try to use it you'll probably find that nobody wants to play against you at all.

LOL.

Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

FinnSeer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

FinnSeer wrote:
So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit. Since the dreadnought kit does include a 24" gun you would be using an illegal model and therefore cheating.

Now, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that conversions are legal, but only if the conversion is "reasonable". Most people will not consider a 24" gun to be a reasonable conversion and will not grant you that exception to the rules, so your MFA dreadnought will never be allowed in a real game. And TBH if you try to use it you'll probably find that nobody wants to play against you at all.

LOL.

Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

It does have something that implies that in the first paragraph under Models & Units page 2 to be precise.

The Citadel miniatures used to play the game of Warhammer 40,000...

And b]Cosing Your Army[/b] pg. 108 under Codexes.

...Which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer 40,000 army.

(Extreme emphasis mine)

Using a 24" flexible gun that is not similar in any way to the gun it is representing is most definitely modeling for advantage. Making a gun that is very similar to the weapon it is acceptable to most people because it can't give you an advantage.

Really, I find this whole thread rather silly.

FinnSeer wrote:
Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

There is no rule, and that's the point. You are not allowed to do anything in this game unless you are specifically given permission to do it, and there is no rule granting permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel models to represent your forces. Using a converted or proxy model is like putting your casualties back on the table just because "there's no rule that says I can't".

(And, again, that's RAW. Most people have a house rule that "reasonable" conversions or proxies are allowed, but a 24" gun is not "reasonable" according to the vast majority of players.)

we had situations like this in fifth, where a crouching or kneeling model couldn't see out of the window of a ruin we'd simply assume it could shoot from the window and be shot at in return.

I also don't have a problem with people lying models down when they gtg. I know it left the rules in sixth edition but it is a very convenient way of remembering that a model has gone to ground

xruslanx wrote:
we had situations like this in fifth, where a crouching or kneeling model couldn't see out of the window of a ruin we'd simply assume it could shoot from the window and be shot at in return.

I also don't have a problem with people lying models down when they gtg. I know it left the rules in sixth edition but it is a very convenient way of remembering that a model has gone to ground

I dislike this practice because it messes with the positions/Profile of models; laying your model on the side because it has GtG against my first unit Might mean that my second, cover ignoring, unit no longer has LOS to your unit.

Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner. The models pose is just the pose in that moment. They can stand, go prone, even run and jump just fine. If someone is going to female dog about it that much, I'll stand those flat 'prone' bases at an angle against the ADL, or flush against them and say the model can now certainly see. Or model boxes under my ratling's feet or on the ADL to let them see. Then what can you complain about?

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner.

Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

The models pose is just the pose in that moment.

So why doesn't that apply to every other situation? For example, you can't draw LOS to my model (even though they're half visible over a wall) because they're just posed that way at the moment and could go prone behind the wall and out of LOS.

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

Yeah, playing by the rules of the game is such a WAAC cancer...

 Peregrine wrote:
Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

Except at the same time, there is no rule in the entire BRB that says the entirety of the base of your model must be touching the gameboard at all times.

There is no rule stopping from you taking a model on a bike base (say, the aforementioned prone OOP Pathfinder) and leaning his base in such a way that his head/rifle rests on the sill of a ruin's window.

We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

Yes, it's totally the fault of the players that GW makes models that are not actually appropriate for use in their own games.


Do not confuse people pointing out how the rules work with how people would actually play the game.

Peregrine wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner.

Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

The models pose is just the pose in that moment.

So why doesn't that apply to every other situation? For example, you can't draw LOS to my model (even though they're half visible over a wall) because they're just posed that way at the moment and could go prone behind the wall and out of LOS.

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

Yeah, playing by the rules of the game is such a WAAC cancer...

TLOS is based on what the model could see realistically, so yes I can 'assume' he'd be standing to see his target if he has to, and when troopers are getting their 'cover saves' it's generally because they are hugging that cover like a lover, be it chest high wall, tree, or the edge of trench. It's just a matter of fact. Now if there is a mountain in the way regardless that blocks LOS, or the foot of Titan, or whatever else is on the game board that actually obscures 'true' view.

As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

insaniak wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

Yes, it's totally the fault of the players that GW makes models that are not actually appropriate for use in their own games.


Do not confuse people pointing out how the rules work with how people would actually play the game

I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot. And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes. I wouldn't play that person again.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

It's not even remotely the same logic, because the movement rules don't care what pose the model is in, just about where its base is. The LOS rules though use the physical profile of the model on the table.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

That's the thing, though: it's not 'bending the rules' to use the pose of the model for determining LOS. It's what the rules say quite unequivocally to do.

I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

It is how LOS works, though. And GW have had 5 editions now to correct it, if it's not how they intended it to work.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot.

If you were polite about it, you would probably find that most gamers would be happy to treat your prone model as standing, so long as it works both ways (I wouldn't, but that's just a personal preference, and I would expect to apply the same rule to my own models). Your ratlings, though? If they're too short to see over, then they're too short to see over.

And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes.

Modeling for advantage does tend to get people riled... and not just those who prefer to use the correct LOS rules.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:


I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot. And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes. I wouldn't play that person again.

In response to the bolded, this is in fact exactly how TLOS works. You take the exact position and pose of the models involved when determining line of sight, hence TRUE line of sight, rather than ASSUMED line of sight.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
TLOS is based on what the model could see realistically

No it isn't. TLOS is determined by what the model can actually "see". All you do is use an imaginary laser pointer from the eyes to the target and see how much, if any, of the target model can be hit by that laser. There is absolutely no allowance for drawing LOS based on what you imagine the models doing, or anything else besides the physical objects on the table at that moment.

I can 'assume' he'd be standing to see his target if he has to, and when troopers are getting their 'cover saves' it's generally because they are hugging that cover like a lover, be it chest high wall, tree, or the edge of trench. It's just a matter of fact. Now if there is a mountain in the way regardless that blocks LOS, or the foot of Titan, or whatever else is on the game board that actually obscures 'true' view.

You're talking about abstracted LOS, not TLOS. Abstracted LOS systems do exactly that and determine LOS/cover/etc based on the model's location and some fluff concept of what a generalized model of that size could do. But that's not how it works in 40k.

As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

No, because pose has nothing to do with movement. You're just inventing weird rules that have nothing to do with the ones GW published.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

It's not bending the rules at all. There is nothing ambiguous about TLOS. If there's a prone or kneeling model you draw LOS to it just like any other model. It may have a hard time shooting over barriers, but it might also get cover saves more easily (or even get out of LOS entirely). In fact YOU are the one trying to bend the rules by insisting that you can draw LOS based on what you wish your model was doing instead of doing what the rules tell you to do.

There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way

By that reasoning it's bending RAW to take advantage of a model's pose if you try to shoot at my models behind a wall since you're exploiting the fact that they're modeled standing up instead of crouching behind the wall out of LOS.

And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes.

Yes, because that's textbook MFA. You don't get to modify your fortifications just because it lets you get more of a benefit from them, just like I don't get to modify my ADL to be 12" tall wall that covers the entire length of the table and keeps my entire army safely out of LOS. If your ratlings aren't tall enough to see over an unmodified ADL then put them somewhere else and put a different unit behind the ADL.

Just my two cents but all models are just capturing a single moment in combat. While the sniper is prone in that split brief cross section of time he's been modeled in then it's fine. I bet no one here would have a problem with that prone model running? Even though that would be impossible. As long as he can be treated as standing when being shot at for Los it's fine in my opinion sense in that case the new tactical marine is forever loading his bolter and can never shoot or my grey hunters who have ccw and pistol can't use their bolter because they don't have it modelled all I'm saying is each model is just that a quick snap shot of him during a battle not what he is doing the whole time. If 4 out of 5 guys are standing and one prone they should all be considered standing in my opinion.

Why do people keep making these completely wrong analogies?

Running doesn't depend on the model, shooting doesn't depend on the model, Close Combat doesn't depend on the model. Line of Sight does, it's the rules. Please stop comparing it to things it's nothing like.

For you guys rabidly defending RAWxinthis manner...

I think you are missing the point.

We are playing a game. We are not arguing a case in the Supreme Court.

If I slapped down my army an you started quoting RAW and "you don't have TLOS".

I would pause for a moment., give you a funny look and then pack my whit and leave.

Life is too short. That kind of dogmatic adherence to the rules is crap I put up with at work.

I don't need it in my leisure time.

jamesk1973 wrote:
For you guys rabidly defending RAWxinthis manner...

I think you are missing the point.

No, I think you are. This is not the forum for house rules, that's the next one down. This is the forum for discussing what the rules actually say. I don't think anyone here has said they weren't willing to be somewhat flexible on the issue, but the rules say what they say and you can't expect anyone to adhere to your house rules. If you just expect me to let you use standing LoS from a prone model I'm going to tell you to get bent, and if you pack up and go good riddance. If you discuss it with me first, then I can be flexible. It's important to know what the rules actually say, not what you wish they said.

Good riddance then.

It's threads like these that I pull up on my smart phone and hand to who ever is trying to recruit me into a tournament as I say "No thanks", or hand to new players that are asking questions at the game store with the friendly "Just be warned, you may run into..." In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely. The problem is that the game is a scrapheap of concepts portrayed in the abstract by artist sculpted models and (as this sub-forum states) concrete rules that are in actuality no better written than by a three-year-old ham-fisting a crayon, drawing stick figures, on their parents freshly painted walls.

Please remember newer posters that this sub-forum is strictly for concrete interpretations. RAI is 'permitted' as is HIWPI but as some would remind us they are about as welcome as a flaming brown paper bag full of dog feces on your front porch, so please make sure if it is one of these interpretation styles to denote that in your post. For safety from back lash, you might want to put in a sentence agreeing with whoever wrote the rule interpretation correctly in their reply too. Despite whatever logic you use the book of rules is the law here. And the rules for TLOS are clear enough and take half a page in the BRB(p 8). It may be helpful to read the two insets on that page titled 'Spirit of the Game' and 'Madels Eye View', and as it's not permitted here I recommend you read the insert on p2 of the BRB in your own time. Remember that what you do in your games is up to you and your opponent, just not welcome here. You could always be a TFG and point out that the rules use the words "Eyes" specifically, and they also use "body". So in magical 40k land the only infantry models that can fire are ones that have their own ocular organs sculpted on the model (Guards men, SM Sergeants, Tyranids). Obviously you never would do that of course, but it does highlight what we're working with here, eh?

The rule book says to this question: No, See TLOS
RAI: God only knows, if you really care you can make a Difficult terrain test and move your model on to the terrain feature(ADL in this case) as your base will kinda count as being in the terrain feature he will/should still get cover from the ADL and should have no ADL blocking it's TLOS
HIWPI: Pack up my things and chuckle on my way out the door, as I have 99 problems but a rulesaint one, and I'm obviously not at the right game store

Personally, I'd be fine with letting people count their prone guys as standing when shooting if they let me count my standing guys as prone when being shot at.

You know, I've never seen people who just want to play by the rules get demonised in any other game as much as in WH40k.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely.

Except that it's generally not.

We argue for how the rules actually work here so that people can make informed decisions when they actually play the game.

And a player choosing to stick to RAW on one particular rule, even when it's a rule you personally may think is silly, doesn't mean that they will stick rigidly to RAW in every situation.

RAI is 'permitted' as is HIWPI but as some would remind us they are about as welcome as a flaming brown paper bag full of dog feces on your front porch, ...

This is a gross misrepresentation. There is absolutely no problem around here with presenting how you choose to play the game so long as you are clear what you are doing.

Where people run into issues, as amply demonstrated by this thread, is when they start complaining that those arguing in favour of the actual rules are being absurd for doing so, when the actual rule is clear and functional.


Just to point it out again - The interpretation of LOS being presented as RAW here (ie: use the actual model) is the way LOS has worked in this game in every single edition. This isn't some crazy argument that people are just throwing out there to mess with you. It's a basic principle of the game that has always been there, and likely always will.

If that's not something you're keen on, then feel free to change it in your games, so long as your opponent agrees. But casting aspersions on those who don't see a problem with just playing it the way the rules say to do it, and have always done so? That's not cricket.

What does hiwpi mean?

Stop being reasonable, insaniak, you'll ruin YMDC's reputation.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
What does hiwpi mean?

How I Would Play It

 insaniak wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely.

Except that it's generally not.
And a player choosing to stick to RAW on one particular rule, even when it's a rule you personally may think is silly, doesn't mean that they will stick rigidly to RAW in every situation.

RAI is 'permitted' as is HIWPI but as some would remind us they are about as welcome as a flaming brown paper bag full of dog feces on your front porch, ...

This is a gross misrepresentation. There is absolutely no problem around here with presenting how you choose to play the game so long as you are clear what you are doing.
Where people run into issues, as amply demonstrated by this thread, is when they start complaining that those arguing in favour of the actual rules are being absurd for doing so, when the actual rule is clear and functional.

To the first. In the current case, my argument is supported by any number of previous posts that show many will force the use of TLOS to a 'T'. Awesome pun intended. So yes, while on topic, its "absolute". (See citation below.) There was no intentional implication of other rules situations.
To the second, as demonstrably evident by this thread again, many who presented their HIWPI preference were in fact countered by those who said the rule was a rule and they could fong right off for wanting their HIWPI way. As you helpfully point out in "Where people run into issues..." Case in point: Thread p4, Post by PrinceRaven, seconded by Komissar Kel. Unfortunately message review wont go back much further in 'post reply' screen. But I recall a few others earlier basically shunning the house-rulers. It is not that welcoming of a practice, and it does happen. As the sticky points out this place gets heated, worth noting is that it does in fact go both ways between the casuals and the hardcores.

jamesk1973 wrote:
If I slapped down my army an you started quoting RAW and "you don't have TLOS".

I would pause for a moment., give you a funny look and then pack my whit and leave.

IOW, if your opponent doesn't let you bend the rules and gain an advantage you don't deserve you'll just quit? Do you offer your opponent the same allowance for things like models that "should" be able to duck behind cover and be 100% out of LOS even though the model is clearly visible?

KnuckleWolf wrote:
It may be helpful to read the two insets on that page titled 'Spirit of the Game' and 'Madels Eye View', and as it's not permitted here I recommend you read the insert on p2 of the BRB in your own time.

None of that says anything about "let your opponent draw LOS from a model which clearly doesn't have LOS just because it would be a disadvantage if their model doesn't get to shoot". The "spirit of the game" section is entirely irrelevant, and "model's eye view" refers to being generous in borderline cases of LOS, not cases where LOS is perfectly clear but doesn't give one player the result they want.

You could always be a TFG and point out that the rules use the words "Eyes" specifically, and they also use "body". So in magical 40k land the only infantry models that can fire are ones that have their own ocular organs sculpted on the model (Guards men, SM Sergeants, Tyranids). Obviously you never would do that of course, but it does highlight what we're working with here, eh?

That's not at all the same. Interpreting "eyes" as strictly as possible breaks the game entirely and is so obviously absurd that nobody will ever play it that way. Drawing LOS to a prone model is just playing the game exactly according to RAW and RAI. Whether you like it or not GW deliberately made a game where the exact shape/pose of a model matters.

RAI: God only knows, if you really care you can make a Difficult terrain test and move your model on to the terrain feature(ADL in this case) as your base will kinda count as being in the terrain feature he will/should still get cover from the ADL and should have no ADL blocking it's TLOS

This is incorrect. An ADL is not area terrain and does not give a cover save unless the model is actually obscured. It would be theoretically possible to have both LOS and a cover save depending on the exact situation, but you don't automatically get it just because your model's base is touching the ADL.

House-rules should be agreed on pre-game. My post on page 4 was assuming that there was no pre-game houserule discussion, and I went into the game assuming we were playing 40k by the rules, then someone tried to use abstract LOS.

Closed due to incorrect titling.