For those who use/have faced Drop Pods...
(more specifically, Pod models with disembarking ramps)
I am looking to hear how everyone "categorizes" the disembarking ramps:

Do you consider them part of the vehicle and no enemy model can be within 1" unless assaulting?

If a pod is completely destroyed, do you make the crater left behind the size of the main body or include the ramps as well?

Do the ramps block LOS for troops? Do they block LOS for things bigger than troops?

And if you have any other "rulings" that you have made/use in order to make using drop pods a little more clear, please add them here as well.

This is an attempt to get together some clarification so that I can discuss any problems with opponents before the game.
Thanks for the help.

I've only seen scratch built drop pods, and they have not had the 'open' doors.  I think by the letter of the rules, the doors would count as an 'enemy model', and therefore you could not move within 1" of them.

With regard to LOS, I would play it 'model's eye'.  If you can see the enemy model over, above, past, or under the door, then you can shoot at them.  Same for vehicles. 

For the destroyed result, only the Pen 6 result removes the vehicle.  I would leave a crater the size of the pod base (since very few will have craters that wide in their collections), and otherwise just treat the pod as destroyed (left on table), and acts as difficult terrain (in effect, giving you the same 'footprint' as the model).

Hope that helps, and again, just my .02 cents.  I would also say that any of these could be discussed and agreed to with your opponent before the game.

As with all vehicles, the different parts of the pod block actual model's eye view LOS. Height does not come into consideration as the Pod is neither engaged in CC nor a piece of area terrain.

The crater should be the actual footprint of the entire model. I have not seen it played this strictly in person though. A rough approximation is usually acceptable.

Do you consider them part of the vehicle and no enemy model can be within 1" unless assaulting?

Yes.

 

If a pod is completely destroyed, do you make the crater left behind the size of the main body or include the ramps as well?

Either way.

Do the ramps block LOS for troops?

No.

 

Do they block LOS for things bigger than troops?

No.

i take it your looking at the forge world ones.

this is a transport. think of it as a rhino-as with all vehicles as per the core rules the hull/body constitutes it's base. you would not consider the lowered rear rhino door to be it's base just as you would not on a drop pod.

 

when a pod is detroyed it becomes a piece of size 3 blocking LOS area terrain just like all other vehicles that are destroyed.

when a pod is detroyed it becomes a piece of size 3 blocking LOS area terrain just like all other vehicles that are destroyed.

Except that statement is not backed up by the rules at all. Destroyed vehicles continue to block LOS exactly as they did before they were destroyed; which is that they block LOS based on the actual profile of the model. If you can see an enemy model around or over the vehicle/wreck using a "model's eye view", then you can shoot at it.

Posted By yakface on 05/01/2006 10:05 PM

when a pod is detroyed it becomes a piece of size 3 blocking LOS area terrain just like all other vehicles that are destroyed.

Except that statement is not backed up by the rules at all. Destroyed vehicles continue to block LOS exactly as they did before they were destroyed; which is that they block LOS based on the actual profile of the model. If you can see an enemy model around or over the vehicle/wreck using a "model's eye view", then you can shoot at it.

Actually it doesn't say "blocks based on vehicle's profile" anywhere in the rules either, and 'model's eye view' is a re wording of 'bird's eye view' which is a figure of speech. If you go by the vehicle model definition the hull/main body is the area occupied by the model per page 6, so ramps would not be in the way or block line of sight any more than a banner hanging off the side of a champion model in close combat.

Snoogums,

For the last time. Claiming that Model's eye view is 'just a figure of speech' is simply your opinion and is not backed up by the rules at all.
It is a term defined within the BGB. If you and your gaming group choose to ignore it, fine, that is what we call a house rule. But, don't go around claiming that you house rule is the true state of the rules. It makes you sound ridiculous.

Model's eye view is not defined in the BGB.

Firing from a weapon mount is defined in the BGB, maybe you are confusing the two?

Posted By mughi3 on 05/01/2006 9:59 PM

i take it your looking at the forge world ones.

this is a transport. think of it as a rhino-as with all vehicles as per the core rules the hull/body constitutes it's base. you would not consider the lowered rear rhino door to be it's base just as you would not on a drop pod.

 

when a pod is detroyed it becomes a piece of size 3 blocking LOS area terrain just like all other vehicles that are destroyed.

 

Mughi, can you please just stop posting all together in YMTC? You obviously have no idea what the rules say, and you seem to think there's some sort of prize for being definitively wrong more than anyone else.

There's not. So just stop.

Posted By snooggums on 05/02/2006 9:52 AM

Model's eye view is not defined in the BGB.

Firing from a weapon mount is defined in the BGB, maybe you are confusing the two?

Another person that should not be posting.

BGB, page 20, Line of Site:

"...so players might have to stoop over the table for a models eye view."

So model's eye view is literal? If it is drawn for the model's eyes, then if the model is looking away it cannot see a model behind it to shoot, this would crate a 'facing' rule for models that is not there. This would also make wraithlords unable to shoot because they don't have eyes that I am aware of. Maybe you could come up with some rear view mirror model that would allow a model to look over it's shoulder to shoot maybe.

"Model's eye view" is a figure of speech and talking down to other posters does not make you more correct. You are quoting one line that contradicts the definition of a model, which is size level and base area with a 360 degree view since you are limiting their view to what their eyes can see.

Mughi, can you please just stop posting all together in YMTC? You obviously have no idea what the rules say, and you seem to think there's some sort of prize for being definitively wrong more than anyone else.

There's not. So just stop.

just because the rules don't say what you want them to say  doesn't mean i am going to stop posting. especialy when i have been correct.

you want to know exactly what the rules say?

since your apparently clueless let me show you.

core rulebook p67

"vehicle destroyed! the attack critically damages the vehicle.the vehicle is destroyed and becomes a wreck"

p68

"wrecks- a wrecked vehicle should be marked with some cotton wool smoke and flames and left on the table. it continues to block LOS as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement. it counts as difficult terrain for vehicles with higher frontal armour but as impassable terrain for other vehicles. it provides a 4+ cover save for models on top of it or looking around it"

it is a size 3 blocking LOS piece of  terrain just like any other piece of area terrain that you either have to be in(within 6") to see into or out of, or move around the edge of to see past.

just like i said.

 

 

Snoogums: perhaps if you read the rest of page 20 you'd see that it's very specific on what a models eye view is. Less posting, more reading will make your contributions to the board much more useful.

Mughi, you're hopeless. You post a couple of quotes then a conclusion that doesn't follow from either of them. The part that makes you hopeless is you actually think that what you wrote makes sense. Please, just stop posting. It hurts my brain every time I see you make these non-sensical statements.

 

Posted By mughi3 on 05/02/2006 10:28 AM

"wrecks- a wrecked vehicle should be marked with some cotton wool smoke and flames and left on the table. it continues to block LOS as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement. it counts as difficult terrain for vehicles with higher frontal armour but as impassable terrain for other vehicles. it provides a 4+ cover save for models on top of it or looking around it"

it is a size 3 blocking LOS piece of  terrain just like any other piece of area terrain that you either have to be in(within 6") to see into or out of, or move around the edge of to see past.

just like i said.

 

 

Dude, you just completely contradicted yourself. Nowhere in the Wrecks rule does it state that the wreck is "area terrain". The portion that YOU highlighted tells you explcitly that the vehicle wreck "continues to block LOS as if it were intact".

 

How does it block LOS when it is intact?

Model's eye view.

How does if block LOS "as if it were intact"?

Model's eye view.

 

How do you treat the wreck for movement purposes?

"counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement"

Difficult terrain, not area terrain. Not all difficult terrain is area terrain and vice versa.

 

How do you treat the wreck when figuring cover saves?

"it provides a 4+ cover save for models on top of it or looking around it"

Does this have anything to do with LOS?

Only in reference to cover saves.

Snooggums:<?

 

I'm going to have to say that you are way off on this one.  First, you actually confuse "bird's eye view", which represents a top down view of the playing table from an elevated position, with a "model's eye view", which represents the view from the model's perspective.  "Model's eye view" is about as far away from a re-wording of "bird's eye view" as it can get.  It's essentially the difference between a 1st person and 3rd person point of view.

 

Model's eye view is definitely a term defined within the BGB, as shown on page 20.  And no, we are not referring to the vehicle weapon mount line of sight described on page 64, a mere 44 pages further into the book than the text we are talking about.

 

As for whether you can see past the wrecked Drop-Pod, use the "model's eye view" to see if that is possible.  The "Vehicle Destroyed" damage result simply states that the model becomes a wreck, shown on page 67.  The wreck blocks line of sight just like the intact model, as shown on page 68.  The only two damage results that change the way you treat the Drop-Pod for line of sight are "Vehicle Explodes" and "Vehicle Annihilated", where the model is actually removed and a piece of difficult terrain replaces the model.

 

Mughi:

 

Your final conclusion was incorrect.  You stated that it blocks line of sight like area terrain, even though you correctly quoted the fact that "It continues to block line of sight as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement."  So Mauleed and Loki are correct, and I'm not saying this to join their fan clubs, I'm saying this because they are correct.  Some of the comments may be rude, but it doesn't prevent your argument from being incorrect based upon the information you provided.  If you want to see the difference between wrecks blocking line of sight and area terrain blocking line of sight, compare the entry in the BGB on page 20, where vehicle wreck line of sight considerations are shown, and the entry on page 21, where area terrain line of sight considerations are shown.

 

Suppose you had a vehicle that was 12" long, and it became a wreck.  You move some troops on top of it at the far end of the wreck.  An enemy unit wants to shoot at those troops.  The wreck blocks line of sight just like the intact vehicle, so if the enemy troops can see your troops from a "model's eye view" they can be shot at, even if they are more than 6" from the nearest edge of the vehicle, because the wreck is not area terrain.  The wreck provides cover like area terrain, and it affects infantry movement like difficult terrain and vehicle movement like dangerous or impassible terrain, but it blocks line of sight like a vehicle.  Page 68 does not lead to the conclusion that the wreck becomes area terrain.  It gains attributes of area terrain in addition to its vehicle attributes, but it does not become area terrain.  Page 67 and the two damage results shown above represent the only two cases when the destruction of a vehicle results in area terrain.  So when you say it blocks line of sight "just like any other piece of area terrain" in your final conclusion, that is incorrect.

ok so i got the 6" into part wrong, i admit that-my bad, we always hide on the other side of it or jump into it to get the 4+ cover save. so the 6"  thing never came up. i just always considered a wrecked vehicle more terrain

 

i do get things wrong just like anybody else, but this is a forum for discussion and i do happen to know most of the rules pretty darn well and i am not going to stop posting because some other poster thinks they are smarter than anybody else here

So hopefully you see why we get so frustrated with you. You don't read the rules, yet you post and post incorrectly as if this is some sort of reality TV program where you might get a cameo in a crappy movie because you're "the dumb one".

Posted By mauleed on 05/02/2006 11:51 AM
as if this is some sort of reality TV program where you might get a cameo in a crappy movie because you're" the="" dumb="" one="" .="">

And your the insecure "Loser" who has to make himself feel better by putting others down while everbody else just kinda watches and feels sorry for you.

I would not play Disembarking ramps as part of the model as that would make pods way to big. Probably just need to talk about it with your opponent ahead of time and decide.

Gee, I don't know, they might have been reading that great font of wisdom that is this month's White Dwarf, where in the 'Drop Pod Tactics' article, they talk about them being LOS blocking Level 3 Terrain when destroyed.  :S

And we wonder how these rules-abominations get propagated.

And the real reason that people get jumped on in these threads is that this exact topic gets 'discussed' once a month, the same people quote the same incorrect rules and interpretations, and then refuse to accept that they're wrong (yet again).

You also need a certain amount of thick skin for YMTC.

Posted By Cruentus on 05/02/2006 1:03 PM

Gee, I don't know, they might have been reading that great font of wisdom that is this month's White Dwarf, where in the 'Drop Pod Tactics' article, they talk about them being LOS blocking Level 3 Terrain when destroyed.  :S

And we wonder how these rules-abominations get propagated.

And the real reason that people get jumped on in these threads is that this exact topic gets 'discussed' once a month, the same people quote the same incorrect rules and interpretations, and then refuse to accept that they're wrong (yet again).

You also need a certain amount of thick skin for YMTC.

Really.  That will certainly get cited by some people, and disregarded by others.  So sad, a one line reply on an "official" FAQ thread would answer this with effortless ease.

In the real world, I've seen the LOS / level three argument run both ways.  Used LOS to stick a defiler behind the cover of a Leman Russ, and had tourneys run by GW division level persons consider vehicles as  level three to avoid problems (which I was also ok with).

 

To the actual query - pods act as vehicles for LOS etc.  just as any other rhino/landraider.  Absent a specific statement in the drop pod rules (don't remember there being one) hatches operate just as any other vehicle.

I certainly wasn't looking to start a fight, what I hope comes of this post is that I can come up with the most "appropriately applied rules" for the drop pods I have. My pods will be modeled in the ramp down position, this seems the most appropriate for me (and unfortunately the most difficult to model) given my understanding of how drop pods work in 40k. Of course I appreciate hearing the pros and cons of both sides here, otherwise I would not have posted.
I think what it will come down to is going over the pods and their perceived "characteristics" before the game starts so there are no problems once they make planetfall.

On a real world basis, you can model them with the ramps down (always looking excellent).  However, if you argue LOS is blocked by those hatches - whether correctly or erroneously - you are going to get chewed on as that will most likely create a substantially larger LOS blocking feature.

the dred pod i made out of spare bits doesn't even have doors on it. mainly because i figured they would blow the doors as soon as they landed and i couldn't find anything in my bits box that i felt made a good door.

I have had the chance to play a couple of games now with these pod "ramp rules":

Pod ramps do not block LOS.
Ramps offer cover save where appropriate.
Enemy cannot be within 1" of pod body and ramps unless assaulting.
Ramps do not count as difficult terrain for movement
When pod is destroyed , ramps are included in effects.
When pod explodes, all that is left is crater the size of the main body.

Opponents haven't had any problems with these rules yet. One thing I found was some difficulty in landing pods exactly where I wanted, due to the ramps being down and their overall footprint on the table. It is quite possible to box in the enemy now and make them have to fight their way out of interlocked pods.

Regarding whether or not lowered ramps blocks LOS, I suggest that those of you who cannot figure it out - read Yakface's Warhammer 40,000 rule #1.

Unless your ramps are 30mm thick or more, its not going to be a problem as vehicles block Model's eye view LOS.

If you can see over it, you can see over it.


Ron,
The only problem I see with the way you played it is that you are not allowing models to come within 1" of the ramps, yet you are not representing this area with the crater template. They should really be the same size.

Personally, I'd just ignore the existance of the ramps for gaming purposes and stick with the main body.

Gee, I don't know, they might have been reading that great font of wisdom that is this month's White Dwarf, where in the 'Drop Pod Tactics' article, they talk about them being LOS blocking Level 3 Terrain when destroyed.

And we wonder how these rules-abominations get propagated.

And the real reason that people get jumped on in these threads is that this exact topic gets 'discussed' once a month, the same people quote the same incorrect rules and interpretations, and then refuse to accept that they're wrong (yet again).

You also need a certain amount of thick skin for YMTC.

I couldnt agree more. I know for a fact that the may's WD says just that, and it was the first thing I thought of when Mughi posted.

The lesson here (and most times here on this board) is to check what the actual rule book says, instead of quoting out of white dwarf. Question everything that comes out of our favorite propaganda rag. Its the only way to keep GW on their toes.

As to the original questions:

Simply put, if the model can see over it or through it (lots of space inside that pod), it can draw line of sight.

As far as deployment and movemnt of enemy models within1" of the ramps, thats a tough one. It depends on how literal the game group is. As of right now, there is no official model made by Citadel to represent either of the two drop pods.

Because of that, I would say "No. The ramps do not ninder movement within 1" of the ramps. It only hinders movement within 1" of the general form (the main body, if you will) of the drop pod". There is no official model for us to scrutinze and compare to. So that leaves us being as reasonable as possible when conveying the actual outline of this model.

Simply put, if the model can see over it or through it (lots of space inside that pod), it can draw line of sight.

except the fact that a pod is vehicle that blocks LOS as a vehicle . even though the doors may be down and there may be space inside you still  use the hull/main body of the model as it's base and since the frame/body/hull  of the vehicle is used for LOS blocking purposes you could not shoot through a pod with open doors any more than you could shoot through one with closed doors.

you still use the hull/main body of the model as it's base and since the frame/body/hull of the vehicle is used for LOS blocking purposes you could not shoot through a pod with open doors any more than you could shoot through one with closed doors.

Of course you can. Unless you subscribe to the 'Magic Cylinder' myth, which has no basis in actual rules.

You draw LOS past vehicles using a model's eye view. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It's that simple.

And another reason to keep those hatches up!

I think the "Magic Cylinder" idea is there to maybe streamline playing the game and one solution to get both players to the same understanding regarding vehicles on the tabletop.

Regardless of how you decide to play any rule in this game... its important that both players are playing by the same understanding. Yes, you can actually see through some vehicles and not through others OR you have the "magic cylinder" theory OR any other theory out there... all are acceptable gaming practice I believe.

I think alot of problems arise when two people come to the table to game and don't have the courtesy to come to an understanding of those "few" particularly vague rules out there we all have to deal with BEFORE you get in the situation during the game where your difference in understandings can have a huge impact.

As for the "rules" I use when playing my pod force, I make sure my opponent knows exactly what they are facing before we start playing. Any argumentsl are worked out beforehand and not when I have podded right down next to his soon to be short lived command squad.

That's all good and well, except the "magic cylinder" isn't actually in the rules.

"I think the "Magic Cylinder" idea is there to maybe streamline playing the game and one solution to get both players to the same understanding regarding vehicles on the tabletop."

I can't see what would be more streamlined than looking across the table, and if I can see it, I can shoot it.  No need to discuss exactly how far that 'cylinder' extends (base to banner? base to frag launcher? arms outstretched dread tip to tip?  etc.)

I otherwise agree with your comments about discussing the 'house rules' before the game, so there are no surprises. 

That being said, I used to play the 'magic cylinder', but have since come around after reading YMTC and then closely re-reading the rulebook.  I've been playing a long time, and tend to assume I know how things should work, sometimes without looking closely at the book. 

Both players would have a better understanding regarding all the rules in 40k in general if GW paid 'slightly' more attention to editing and writing clear rules from the start .

 

Posted By insaniak on 05/08/2006 11:40 PM

you still use the hull/main body of the model as it's base and since the frame/body/hull of the vehicle is used for LOS blocking purposes you could not shoot through a pod with open doors any more than you could shoot through one with closed doors.

Of course you can. Unless you subscribe to the 'Magic Cylinder' myth, which has no basis in actual rules.

You draw LOS past vehicles using a model's eye view. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It's that simple.

 

 

quite correct there is no cylinder or magic cylinder rule in the book. there is however rules in the book that tell us other things

1. a model is considered to occupy the area of it's base

2.a model without a base usually vehicles use thier hull/main body instead

3.for LOS you cannot target odly posed models or guns, banners etc... that stick way above or off the base of a model.

4.it is also true that you can as you said draw a LOS PAST or OVER a vehicle model but not THROUGH it.  as stated in the core rulebook p20

as such in a way the magic cylinder does exhist, not a cylinder in shape exactly but you still need to draw LOS past or over the model in question. so no shooting between a dreadnaughts legs or through a drop pod even if the doors are down/open.

all right. Lets do this proper like.

1. a model is considered to occupy the area of it's base

page 6

2.a model without a base usually vehicles use thier hull/main body instead

Again,page 6

3.for LOS you cannot target odly posed models or guns, banners etc... that stick way above or off the base of a model.

Page numbers help infinatly when making a point. Though I am assuming you are refering to the first paragraph of page 21.

4.it is also true that you can as you said draw a LOS PAST or OVER a vehicle model but not THROUGH it. as stated in the core rulebook p20

This is true. You cannot draw LOS through a vehicle. By being strictly RAW, I would have to agree with Mughi. Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

it was relevant to show the difference for modesl with and without bases. as noted on page 20 vehicle and mosterous creatures block LOS through but not over or past. monsterous creatures like wraitlords and vehicles like sentinels and dreadnaughts all have bases. and as the rule applies you would not be able to shoot between the legs on any of them, but rather past or over. hence a quasi magic cylider.

 

This is true. You cannot draw LOS through a vehicle. By being strictly RAW, I would have to agree with Mughi. Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

Yay, rusty spoon time yet again.

Hellfury: the area of the base is simply the area of the base, *not* the area above the base. So all that rule literally says is that the base is considered part of the model, so measurments should be made from the base.

Here is my whack-ass drawing to illustrate my point a bit more:




The green is the "area of the base". The blue is the area *above* the base. The model is only considered to occupy the red and the green, not the blue.

And Mughi:

There is a difference between shooting "through" a vehicle model and shooting in between parts of a vehicle. If I cannot draw LOS through part of a vehicle model, then by the rules I cannot shoot through it. If I *can* draw LOS in between portions of a vehicle, I am not firing "through" the vehicle model, I am firing in between portions of it.

I do not play the game this way, but I do believe it is what the literal rules say.

Why the hell are you pointing that thing at me, Yak?  I think you really misunderstood what I was saying about the magic cylinder. I am not sitting here even slightly defending the magic cylinder. I am simply agreeing with Mughi's very strict interpretation of the LOS rules.  But whatever. Read what you quoted me on again.

Then, you can take that diagram and point it at someone else.

Yak, I've seen it several times, and I will say it again: that is truly an ugly, albeit accurate, schematic.

Actually, the area of the base is its base size (diameter in mm), yakface is using the profile. As per page 7 you cannot use the model's literal height as it could be crouching or kneeling, making the model part also void. The only thing left to use is the height (size level) and the base area (radius in mm or the hull area covering the board) providing the famed magic cylinder. This will be shot down by dakka chumps since:

They suck at geometry and don't know what area is.
They ignore the model guidelines because of one line that is talking bout how you ignore size level 2 models most of the time, but their height (size level 2, you cannot use their literal height) becomes important when in close combat. Since it doesn't say size level 2 in the line, they ignore the lines before it explaining that almost all models are size level 2, then gives rules for the majority of models (size level 2) and gives special rules for other models.

Hey all! Brother Love here! I gots a friend who made some cool grooving transformer type terminators. They got big kicks when they land which he claims blocks LoS. The next turn the termies ditch their kicks. Sounds totally bogus huh?

Snooggums, as misguided as you are, you are tenacious and you consistently make me laugh.

For that, I applaud you.

  

 

Snooggums, that was so horrible I think you gave me cancer.

First, the claim that other suck at geometry and don't know the definition of area is false.  I am graduating with a degree in aeronautical engineering, and I have probably seen an area term in more calculations than you will ever see in your life.  I've worked with CAD programs and have even made parts in a machine shop for class projects, where if you get your geometry wrong, the parts don't work and you fail classes.  I'm not just talking about making a tea cup either, I'm talking about making a wind tunnel for a children's museum.  And now that I've graduated I'm going to work for a company that designs parts for helicopters.  So in other words: shut up and sit down because your opinions about the abilities of others are worthless.

This is from previous discussions which you are refusing to comprehend.

***

Page 20: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight.  A light of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them.  Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.  Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked."

According to this entry, if you can draw line of sight from the model's eye view, you can shoot over vehicles and monsterous creatures. If I place a model on a stack of books, and I can draw line of sight over a monsterous creature based on the model's eye view, I can see past it.

Page 21: "A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other Area Terrain."

Size categories definitely don't stack, but a model on a size 3 terrain piece can count the height of the terrain piece for line of sight with regards to other Area Terrain.  Note this doesn't say all line of sight applications; the model's eye view determines whether you can see over vehicles or monsterous creatures.  Page 21 shows that if a size 2 model is standing on a size 3 terrain piece, it can see over other size 2 terrain pieces.

Say a monsterous creature is 2 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model.  Say a building on the board is 10 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model as well.  There are only 3 size categories, but a building can still be 10 inches tall.  A size 2 model is placed on top of the building, and is trying to draw line of sight over the 2 inch tall, size 3 monsterous creature.  The player uses the model's eye view to see if they can see over it, and he can.

Page 7: "These following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority."

This is still true.  The model on top of the 10" tall building still has to take a target priority test to shoot past the size 3 monsterous creature.  Size 1, 2, and 3 models that can't draw line of sight over or past the size 3 model can't shoot models behind it.  If there is a size 2 model that completely covers another size 2 model, and the model on top of the building wants to shoot at the covered model, he can because size 2 models do not block line of sight for other size 2 models.

I agree that there are only 3 size categories, but when determining line of sight, you do so from "the model's eye view".  Size 3 models do block line of sight, but if you can see over them from a model's eye view, you can shoot past them.

.***

Again, taken from previous posts about line of sight.

***

The only condition for seeing over area terrain is: "Models that are classed as taller than the area terrain can see and be seen over it".

The Basilisk in the OP case was size 3, and was hiding behind size 3 terrain.  The HammerHead was a size 3 vehicle flying high over a size 3 terrain piece.  A model can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other area terrain.  In this case, it doesn't help the HammerHead to use the terrain piece height because it is already classed as size 3.  So in response to the OP's question: yes you got raped.

While it may seem awkward, the current rules allow models to see over other size 3 models if they can see over by the "model's eye view".  Area terrain is totally different, where only "Models that are classed as taller than the Area Terrain can see and be seen over it."  This means that no models can ever see over a size 3 area terrain piece, regardless of the fact that they may be standing on or "flying high" over a 10" tall size 3 terrain piece, because there is no class taller than size 3.  While the terrain may be physically taller than the rest of the size 3 models and terrain on the table, the BGB states that you don't use actual LOS for area terrain, and instead you refer to the size class.

So the net result is that size 3 models can be seen over, but you can't see over size 3 area terrain.

***

The 'dakka chumps' are going to shoot down your 'magical cylinder' idea because it isn't supported by the rules.  You are taking house rules and trying to support them with rules in the book, and you are failing miserably.  The 'dakka chumps' aren't ignoring anything: you are.  You have completely ignored every argument in this thread that is based upon the rules, even the ones that quote the rules.  So I am going to reiterate the important quote in the book that makes your argument about never using a model's point-of-view worthless.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

If we are playing, and I can see past one of your vehicles from a model's eye view, and you don't allow me to shoot past it after I have passed a leadership test because of your 'magical cylinder', then you are cheating.

 

First, the claim that other suck at geometry and don't know the definition of area is false.  I am graduating with a degree in aeronautical engineering, and I have probably seen an area term in more calculations than you will ever see in your life.  I've worked with CAD programs and have even made parts in a machine shop for class projects, where if you get your geometry wrong, the parts don't work and you fail classes.  I'm not just talking about making a tea cup either, I'm talking about making a wind tunnel for a children's museum.  And now that I've graduated I'm going to work for a company that designs parts for helicopters.  So in other words: shut up and sit down because your opinions about the abilities of others are worthless.

I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude. I have no problem  with geometry or spacial relations or reading comprehension even if I don't do them for a living. All of the rules are written for a flat playing surface with abstract heights for models, as is clear to those of us who read more than one line at a time.

Page 21: "A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other Area Terrain."

Size categories definitely don't stack, but a model on a size 3 terrain piece can count the height of the terrain piece for line of sight with regards to other Area Terrain.  Note this doesn't say all line of sight applications; the model's eye view determines whether you can see over vehicles or monsterous creatures.  Page 21 shows that if a size 2 model is standing on a size 3 terrain piece, it can see over other size 2 terrain pieces.

Say a monsterous creature is 2 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model.  Say a building on the board is 10 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model as well.  There are only 3 size categories, but a building can still be 10 inches tall.  A size 2 model is placed on top of the building, and is trying to draw line of sight over the 2 inch tall, size 3 monsterous creature.  The player uses the model's eye view to see if they can see over it, and he can.

That is contradictory. The biggest a building or area terrain can be is Size level 3, you cannot use the literal height, per page 7. The rules are simplified to allow a quick look at the table to determine LOS, if you can't just glance then you lean over the table to see what is in between, nothing more than that. In your example of standing on a size level 3 terrain to shoot over size level 2 you have it corrent, you can use the terrain's height class to shoot over shorter size levels. Having a 10 inch high piece of terrain doesn't make it over size level 3.

Page 20: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight.  A light of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them.  Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.  Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked."

You can see if you can see past the magic cylinder simply by leaning over the talbe and using the figure of speech "model's eye view" by bing low to the table. As page 7 states that you cannot use a model's literal height since it could be standing or kneeling, this cannot be a literal rule, it has to be a figure of speech. I agree completely that you lean over the table, just that you don't use the model's physical height to see over things. This is because page seven, which comes before page 20, states that you cannot use the model's height for LOS. Already established, never countered.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

One line does not override what a model is, which is explained on page 7. If you cannot use the literal height of a model to decide LOS then you cannot look over a size level 3 model because it is always size level 3, since it always blocks LOS. You can lean right on over the table, see the tank is between you and the target and state:

"Since the model's eye view shows the tank between my model and the target, and my model is not a taller size level, I cannot shoot over the tank."

And it does say at some point that you can shoot over vehicles, you can shoot right over bikes to the tank behind. And you would be following the rules, not house rules. Anyone that uses WYSIWYG for LOS is using house rules and not the written rules, since it says you cannot use the height per page 7.

Tacit, if you can't laugh at him, ignore him.

Its simply not worth it. Some people are so convinced of their rightness that they have become incapable of understanding the concept that they might be mistaken. Look at religious fanatics, they suffer from the same problem. The possibility that they might be in error no longer exist for them, and it is therefore impossible to carry out a resonable debate with them.

At this point, all that you can do is to try and prevent others from falling into his logical void and thank the Emperor that he's not in your gaming group.

Posted By blue loki on 05/10/2006 12:42 PM
Tacit, if you can't laugh at him, ignore him.

Its simply not worth it. Some people are so convinced of their rightness that they have become incapable of understanding the concept that they might be mistaken. Look at religious fanatics, they suffer from the same problem. The possibility that they might be in error no longer exist for them, and it is therefore impossible to carry out a resonable debate with them.

At this point, all that you can do is to try and prevent others from falling into his logical void and thank the Emperor that he's not in your gaming group.

Except you are the religious fanatic and I am the voice of reason. You take a single quote out of context and declare the rest of the rules conform to it (model's eye view) instead of taking the line in the context of the surrounding rules. If you can't convince the other person then make derogatory remarks against them and declare them to be misinformed that way newcomers will be tempted to ignore tham and follow the mass or more loudly shouted opinion.

Just like Fox News.

I am with snoogums totally... blue loki is totally full of fertilizer that smells really bad.

Snoogums would be right, if it wasn't for the small problem that Size levels only matter in area terrain and assaults.

I wouldn't compare people who disagree with you on YMDC to religious fanatics.

1) Don't diss fanatics. We make better pizza and (noting your sig) coffee.

2) Arguments on YMDC, especially on Dakka (not that I check any other group rulewise viva la Dakka) tend to get shrill and dogmatic on many sides quite quickly.

 

You all need to learn how to skip over posts by certain posters.  Just don't read 'em; treating them like they don't exist is the easiest way to do it.

That's right, I just insulted EVERYONE.   Even people not on Dakka.  Snap!

Posted By Iorek on 05/10/2006 2:20 PM
You all need to learn how to skip over posts by certain posters.  Just don't read 'em; treating them like they don't exist is the easiest way to do it.

That's right, I just insulted EVERYONE.   Even people not on Dakka.  Snap!

So you're the WMD of snaps now? Takes 'em all out?

Sorry, I just had to add this:

"You take a single quote out of context and declare the rest of the rules conform to it (model's eye view) instead of taking the line in the context of the surrounding rules."

And you're doing the same thing by taking Pg7 out of context to all of the rules in the sections about Line of Sight (Pgs 20-21).

You are failing to account for several truisms that you conveniently ignore, and that have been patiently typed out for you several times:

1) Size categories only apply to AREA TERRAIN and CLOSE COMBATS.  Nothing else.  Everything else is "model's eye view".  See, they can both coexist.

2) Yakface's #1 Rule of Warhammer 40,000: Yes, modeling can be used to your advantage.  So, you may certainly make your wraithlord kneeling, heck, even crawling.  And yes, it will be harder to draw LOS to him, but likewise, it will be harder for him to draw LOS to another model.

Nothing like yet another re-hash of fully-supported rules :-) 

Oh, and btw, I'm with tacit and blue-loki, and everyone else who has posted the correct way to play LOS> 

"I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude."

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/spring%202004/final%20report%20(isr)%20s2004.doc

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/Spring2003/Reports/ISR_S03_Final_Report.doc

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc

Wow... it's easy proving you wrong.  One name appears in all of those reports, and I bet you can figure out who that represents.

"You can see if you can see past the magic cylinder simply by leaning over the talbe and using the figure of speech "model's eye view" by bing low to the table. As page 7 states that you cannot use a model's literal height since it could be standing or kneeling, this cannot be a literal rule, it has to be a figure of speech."

This is entirely supported by the rules.

You've changed my mind. 

The rules explicitly state that you should use the 'magic cylinder' approach designed by snooggums on the dakkadakka.com forums.

The rules also explicitly state that its representation of a model's eye view is a figure of speech.

Please, continue to quote the rules, you make it so much clearer when you add words and intentions that weren't written by Games Workshop employees.

"One line does not override what a model is, which is explained on page 7. If you cannot use the literal height of a model to decide LOS then you cannot look over a size level 3 model because it is always size level 3, since it always blocks LOS."

Circular logic:  when a premise implicitly or explicitly assumes that the conclusion is correct.

"All of the rules are written for a flat playing surface with abstract heights for models, as is clear to those of us who read more than one line at a time."

You're not assuming GW intent at all in that statement.

"You cannot use the literal height, per page 7."

Really? I thought the rules state:

"This does not mean litterally their actual height, as the simple expedient of crouching, kneeling or crawling will render such direct comparisons irrelevant.  Instead there are three broad height bands into which all models fall."

So when you consider the size category of a unit, you don't use the literal height of a model, i.e., a half inch tall model with daemonic stature is still a size three target.

It's nice how your comprehension of a quote in the 'Model Height' section of the rulebook makes the 'Line of Sight' section of the rulebook irrelevant.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 2:53 PM

"I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude."

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/spring%202004/final%20report%20(isr)%20s2004.doc

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc">https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc

Wow... it's easy proving you wrong.  One name appears in all of those reports, and I bet you can figure out who that represents.

That you're not a Ninja? Its not relevant to anything else.

"That you're not a Ninja? Its not relevant to anything else." - jfrazell

"They suck at geometry and don't know what area is." - snooggums

Almost got that one right.  The 'you suck at geometry' argument was used by one of the 'magical cylinder' supporters.  It's relevant as long as 'magical cylinder' supporters continue to doubt our knowledge and understanding.  So far I haven't seen any of you try to prove your intelligence or understanding.  For all I know you could be a monkey throwing feces at a keyboard and are simply lucky enough to form words.

Posted By Cruentus on 05/10/2006 2:27 PM

Sorry, I just had to add this:

"You take a single quote out of context and declare the rest of the rules conform to it (model's eye view) instead of taking the line in the context of the surrounding rules."

And you're doing the same thing by taking Pg7 out of context to all of the rules in the sections about Line of Sight (Pgs 20-21).

You are failing to account for several truisms that you conveniently ignore, and that have been patiently typed out for you several times:

1) Size categories only apply to AREA TERRAIN and CLOSE COMBATS.  Nothing else.  Everything else is "model's eye view".  See, they can both coexist.

 

Actually, it prefaces with most models are size level 2. Since size level 2 models don't block LOS size level would only become important if the size level 2 models are in close combat or you are shooting area terrain. See what I did there was the same thing as pointing out that page 7 comes before page 20-21. You have to follow the previous rules unless explicitly noted as an exception. Since the rules are generally talking about size leve 2 models, then yes, size level only matters when size level 2 models are in combat, or there is area terrain. Luckily, page 20 explains that size level 3 models always block LOS (at size level 3 per page 7). It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that you use the models profile to determine LOS instead of size level. "Bird's eye view" does not specify that at that time you will be using WYSIWYG instead of the listed size levels and area lsted at the beginning of the book.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 2:53 PM

"I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude."

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/spring%202004/final%20report%20(isr)%20s2004.doc

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc">https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc

Wow... it's easy proving you wrong.  One name appears in all of those reports, and I bet you can figure out who that represents.

I assumed a false identity of course.

 "Luckily, page 20 explains that size level 3 models always block LOS (at size level 3 per page 7)"

Really? I thought that page 20 stated:

"However, the following models do block a unit's line of sight if they are in the way:

• All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous 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. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.  Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked.
• Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through and up to the height of the participating models. This is where the model's height matter (see page 7).  If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked.

So from those two cases, you draw the following conclusion: 'magical cylinder'.

Nice.

I assumed a false identity of course. - snooggums

Sounds a lot like the rest of your arguments.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 3:31 PM

"That you're not a Ninja? Its not relevant to anything else." - jfrazell

" For all I know you could be a monkey throwing feces at a keyboard and are simply lucky enough to form words.

 

 

Arggh! You've found me out!!!
That explains why they don't invite me to the meetings any more...

Arggh?  Please tell me you are a pirate monkey.

Avast ye scurvy dog!

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 3:45 PM

 "Luckily, page 20 explains that size level 3 models always block LOS (at size level 3 per page 7)"

Really? I thought that page 20 stated:

"However, the following models do block a unit's line of sight if they are in the way:

• All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous 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. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.  Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked.
• Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through and up to the height of the participating models. This is where the model's height matter (see page 7).  If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked.

So from those two cases, you draw the following conclusion: 'magical cylinder'.

Nice.

You just bolded the wrong part of the line instead of this:

All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. 

Since you can't use the model's literal height (page 7) you have to use the model's size level (3). This is the exception to the general rule which most models don't block line of sight because most models are size level 2 (page 7). The second bullet applys to regular models since the size level 3 model's would already be blocking LOS per their size level as per the first bullet.

I really find it hard to believe that you would rather resort to insults than actually question your preconceived notion that the modelling of a model has any bearing on the rules other than the size of its base(hull) when the rules never say to take literal dimensions above the base into account. It actually says the opposite, things that stick past the base don't count (page 6) and banners and other high objects don't count (page 7). The only properties a model is given is it's size level and base area, and a circular base would cause the magical cylinder.

Why can't we use the model's eye view for line of sight?  Oh, that's right, because that's what you say the rules are intended to mean.

A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them - RAW

Notice how your argument contradicts the rules?  Right there in text, it permits me to see over vehicles and monsterous creatures.  You say that's impossible.

"I really find it hard to believe that you would rather resort to insults than actually question your preconceived notion that the modelling of a model has any bearing on the rules other than the size of its base(hull) when the rules never say to take literal dimensions above the base into account" - snooggums

Notice how you were the one to imply that our understanding sucked before I started making fun of you?  That's not insulting at all. 

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 4:24 PM

Why can't we use the model's eye view for line of sight?  Oh, that's right, because that's what you say the rules are intended to mean.

No, because the rules never list the model's profile as being an option for drawing LOS. You can use height to see over terrain, but the only height that matters is the size level (page 7). You are falling back to one line taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the rules.

Look at all the LOS pictures the book cintains, they all have arrows extending from the base and explain that things block or don't block based on their size level. Why should a figure of speech that doesn't contradict the other rules be used literally in a way that does contradict the rest of the rules? Oh, that's right, because that's what you say the rules are intended to mean. 

Posted By jfrazell on 05/10/2006 2:23 PM

Posted By Iorek on 05/10/2006 2:20 PM
You all need to learn how to skip over posts by certain posters.  Just don't read 'em; treating them like they don't exist is the easiest way to do it.

That's right, I just insulted EVERYONE.   Even people not on Dakka.  Snap!

So you're the WMD of snaps now? Takes 'em all out?

That's right.  When I say Snap, everyone winces.

"No, because the rules never list the model's profile as being an option for drawing LOS."

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

"You can use height to see over terrain, but the only height that matters is the size level (page 7). You are falling back to one line taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the rules."

You mean like quoting one line on page 7, and ignoring the rules on page 20?

"Look at all the LOS pictures the book cintains, they all have arrows extending from the base and explain that things block or don't block based on their size level"

Good thing it shows an example of a model in an elevated position, or a model that is actually tall enough to see over a Chimera.  The Chaos Marines can't see past terrain, too bad we are talking about seeing over models.  So the examples in the pictures prove nothing.

"Why should a figure of speech that doesn't contradict the other rules be used literally in a way that does contradict the rest of the rules? Oh, that's right, because that's what you say the rules are intended to mean."

Maybe because it isn't a figure of speech?  That's your assumption, that a model's eye view is a figure of speech.  You have no evidence to support that assumption.  I'm actually taking the literal translation of the rules, you are implying that the text is figurative.  And some how that means that I'm the one implying intent, and you aren't?  Good call on that one.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 4:28 PM

A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them - RAW

Notice how your argument contradicts the rules?  Right there in text, it permits me to see over vehicles and monsterous creatures.  You say that's impossible.

"I really find it hard to believe that you would rather resort to insults than actually question your preconceived notion that the modelling of a model has any bearing on the rules other than the size of its base(hull) when the rules never say to take literal dimensions above the base into account" - snooggums

Notice how you were the one to imply that our understanding sucked before I started making fun of you?  That's not insulting at all. 

Unfortunately they didn't give you a way to follow through since the largest terrain piece is size level 3. This was noted in a WD article that suggested using a house rule for size leve 4 elevated terrain to see over monstrous creatures and vehicles which actually supports my view. Of course I find this to be a pretty apparent place to have a house rule, just like wounding with Ordinance since that is also impossible by the rules.

And I did not start the insults actually, mauleed started with "Another person that should not be posting." which is basically what gets posted anytime anyone does not agree with the most vocally insulting posters. Shortly after people start in with "OMG it's so obvious that LOS works different ways at different times OMG retards" instead of having something consistent. As it is apparent that we are not agreeing I don't see how further posts would actually help.

Tacit...give it up. Ignore the troll. When someone's got such a ridiculously poor grasp of logic, reading comprehension, and critical thinking, there's absolutely nothing you can do.

By the way...where are you at now that you graduated from Purdue?

"Unfortunately they didn't give you a way to follow through since the largest terrain piece is size level 3. This was noted in a WD article that suggested using a house rule for size leve 4 elevated terrain to see over monstrous creatures and vehicles which actually supports my view. Of course I find this to be a pretty apparent place to have a house rule, just like wounding with Ordinance since that is also impossible by the rules."

Quoting WD?  That's a reliable source for rules.

"And I did not start the insults actually, mauleed started with "Another person that should not be posting." which is basically what gets posted anytime anyone does not agree with the most vocally insulting posters. Shortly after people start in with "OMG it's so obvious that LOS works different ways at different times OMG retards" instead of having something consistent. As it is apparent that we are not agreeing I don't see how further posts would actually help."

So Mauleed insults you, and that gives you the right to insult everyone else?  I was defending myself specifically against your comments.  You took it upon yourself to insult anyone who disagrees with you, just like Mauleed.

The LOS is not consistent.  You can tell that because there are separate rules for LOS with models and LOS with terrain.

I don't care if you agree.  I know you never will.  Stop posting and I'll just consider that as proof that you can't support your position under scrutiny.

I just hope that people will continue to post here and see how LOS works according to the rules as written, and not implement some 'magical cylinder' house rule.

No, because the rules never list the model's profile as being an option for drawing LOS. You can use height to see over terrain, but the only height that matters is the size level (page 7). You are falling back to one line taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the rules.

You, sir, are a hypocrite. You ignore whole passages of the rules and keep falling back to one single sentence on page 7, which by the way doesn't conflict with the model's eye view interpretation at all. Your argument, on the other hand, not only contradicts several sentences on multiple pages but requires house rules for it to even make sense.

As an example, what about terrain such as hills that don't have a size classification. The rulebook clearly states they are not only allowed, but typically are the majority of terrain. How, then, does one determine LOS with such terrain pieces? It is very easy using the models eye view. It is immpossible if only size categories matter for all LOS.

This is a clear indication that size level is not the only thing relating to LOS. Infact, it is yet another portion of the rules that is in conflict with the magic circle. It also refutes your argument that the rules are designed to work in purely 2 dimensions.

By the way...where are you at now that you graduated from Purdue?

Same place.  Butler International is located in West-Lafayette.  My family lives in the suburbs of Chicago, so I go to the Chicago Battle Bunker frequently.

Posted By winterman on 05/10/2006 4:47 PM

No, because the rules never list the model's profile as being an option for drawing LOS. You can use height to see over terrain, but the only height that matters is the size level (page 7). You are falling back to one line taken out of context and ignoring the rest of the rules.

You, sir, are a hypocrite. You ignore whole passages of the rules and keep falling back to one single sentence on page 7, which by the way doesn't conflict with the model's eye view interpretation at all. Your argument, on the other hand, not only contradicts several sentences on multiple pages but requires house rules for it to even make sense.

As an example, what about terrain such as hills that don't have a size classification. The rulebook clearly states they are not only allowed, but typically are the majority of terrain. How, then, does one determine LOS with such terrain pieces? It is very easy using the models eye view. It is immpossible if only size categories matter for all LOS.

This is a clear indication that size level is not the only thing relating to LOS. Infact, it is yet another portion of the rules that is in conflict with the magic circle. It also refutes your argument that the rules are designed to work in purely 2 dimensions.

Think of the rules like a pyramid, all following rules are based on the previous rules. A rule on page 1 is what you base all following rules on, unless they are an exception to the previous rule, and are clearly noted as such. Since a model has two physical properties, a size level and an area determined by it's base, all the folowing rules must use that to work. Since page seven says that you cannot use a model's height, and only the size level can be used, all following rules that don't specify an exception must follow this convention. For "bird's eye view" you can lean over the table to see of something is in the way wether it be literal, or just to easily see if something is between A and B when it is not clear from above. However, should you use the properties of a base and height and ignore the literal modelling the rules still work, if you try to use the literal modelling you are now contradicting the definition of a model.

For hills and area terrain, there is the literal reading, but reading comprehension does actually take into account a little bit of intent, there is no helping it unless they have a grid of options. The terrain section says that usually WYSIWYG, which I agree, something modelled like a hill is obviously a hill and is a solid object. Something lodelled like a broken wall is a broken wall, things behind it obviously will get cover. The reason it says that area terrain has to use some different conventions is because when you lean over the table (model's eye view again) you may not actually see a piece of area terrain blocking the model so you use these conventions instead. When it is saying that WYSISWYG it is (intent) referring to solid physical occupation of space. A hill is exactly where it is, a wall is where it is. Area terrain is a scattering of objects a model can gete through but is modelled so it is easy to move and fight in. A good example of this is a forest piece with a flat base area and moveable trees. When you lean over to make your model's eye view you may not see a tree in the way even though the model is standing on the base area. The picture with the models in the pylon area is n example of this, sure you can lean over and see the models themselves, but since they are 6" in the area terrain they can't be seen.

You state:

As an example, what about terrain such as hills that don't have a size classification. The rulebook clearly states they are not only allowed, but typically are the majority of terrain. How, then, does one determine LOS with such terrain pieces? It is very easy using the models eye view. It is immpossible if only size categories matter for all LOS

Well, you give a hill a size level. This would have to be a house rule as it is not plainly stated, but also the only way to use a piece of terrain's height for shooting over close combat of size level 2 models. A hill blocks LOS WYSIWYG because it is obviously solid, however to draw LOS over it you would have to be taller than the hill, so you could have a size level 2 hill that a tank could be behind and still get shot. This would work the same as shooting over size level 2 area terrain as far as models behind it. You are correct that it is very easy using the model's eye view, unfortunatly the literal looking for LOS is way easier to fall into than following those darn size levels that are explained in the book so most people just try to find a way to justify that and ignore the first 7 pages of the book.

There is also a lone on page 21 that uses the term 'body' for targetting, but since a 'body' has not been defined other than another word for hull, you can't suddenly use it literally either. I'm suprised someone hasn't brought that up yet actually.

"You, sir, are a hypocrite" - winterman

"Think of the rules like a pyramid..." - snooggums

Life is like a rose.

Man... talking like that makes me feel like I'm always right, and could never possibly be a hypocrite.

I tried to follow your reasoning, but then you mentioned "bird's eye view", and I couldn't find that in the rulebook.  Further evidence that you are implying intent and not actually looking at the rules as written.  Then I tried to read the rest of the passage, and saw that you were implying intent throughout the rest of it.

"there is a the literal reading, but reading comprehension does actually take into account a little bit of intent..."

LoL...  another intent argument.  Please, keep going, it's becoming entertaining.

"unfortunatly the literal looking for LOS is way easier to fall into than following those darn size levels that are explained in the book so most people just try to find a way to justify that and ignore the first 7 pages of the book."

The first 7 pages of the book support your argument?  That's a new one.  I thought it was this single quote:

"This does not mean literally their actual height, as the simple epedient of crouching, kneeling or crawling will render such comparisons irrelevant."

Notice how in that quote they are talking about how kneeling makes for irrelevant comparisons, and not line of sight?  No where does it say you do not use the model's eye view for line of sight.  You are taking one quote on page 7 that refers to model size category, and then are ignoring all of the rules listed on pages 20 and 21 that actually discuss the rules for line of sight and shooting.

Also, I thought an argument was that the 'magical cylinder' stream-lined gameplay.  Now you are saying that the literal translation of the line of sight rules on pages 20 and 21 are easier to use.  Interesting...

"There is also a lone on page 21 that uses the term 'body' for targetting, but since a 'body' has not been defined other than another word for hull, you can't suddenly use it literally either. I'm suprised someone hasn't brought that up yet actually."

Nice slippery slope argument.  It most definitely supports the belief that there is a 'magical cylinder' around each model on the board.

Think of the rules like a pyramid, all following rules are based on the previous rules.

Works for me. That does, of course, mean that the LOS rules, which come after page 7, are based on the rule given at the end of page 7 that the Size categories only apply when drawing a LOS through area terrain or close combats.


Snoogums, try, just for a moment, to forget about how you think the rules should work, and try reading what is actually inthe rulebook.

Yes, using the Sizes for all LOS would streamline the game. Yes, it removes certain problems associated with creative modelling. That doesn't in the slightest change the way the rules actually work. If you choose to use the Magic Cylinder because you prefer it, that's fine. Just please, stop pretending that it is in any way supported by the rules.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 5:41 PM

The first 7 pages of the book support your argument?  That's a new one.  I thought it was this single quote:

"This does not mean literally their actual height, as the simple epedient of crouching, kneeling or crawling will render such comparisons irrelevant."

Notice how in that quote they are talking about how kneeling makes for irrelevant comparisons, and not line of sight?  No where does it say you do not use the model's eye view for line of sight.  You are taking one quote on page 7 that refers to model size category, and then are ignoring all of the rules listed on pages 20 and 21 that actually discuss the rules for line of sight and shooting.

Also, I thought an argument was that the 'magical cylinder' stream-lined gameplay.  Now you are saying that the literal translation of the line of sight rules on pages 20 and 21 are easier to use.  Interesting...

I said that the magic cylinder does speed up gameplay, but literal sight is easier to understand, and quicker to pick up (comprehend). I did not say that playing was faster with literal.
Also, page 7 matters for LOS since the LOS rules are used to shoot models. Models are explained on page 6 and 7. I'm not ignoring the rules on 20 and 21, I am saying you have to use pages 6 and 7 to use the rules on page 20 and 21. You got a pretty jood job for a mental cripple. See, I can fling insults too wheee!

Posted By insaniak on 05/10/2006 6:13 PM

Think of the rules like a pyramid, all following rules are based on the previous rules.

Works for me. That does, of course, mean that the LOS rules, which come after page 7, are based on the rule given at the end of page 7 that the Size categories only apply when drawing a LOS through area terrain or close combats.


Snoogums, try, just for a moment, to forget about how you think the rules should work, and try reading what is actually inthe rulebook.

Yes, using the Sizes for all LOS would streamline the game. Yes, it removes certain problems associated with creative modelling. That doesn't in the slightest change the way the rules actually work. If you choose to use the Magic Cylinder because you prefer it, that's fine. Just please, stop pretending that it is in any way supported by the rules.

Actually it preceeds that quote immediately with "most models are size level 2". Since most models are size level 2, then their size levels only become important when those size level 2 models are in close combat or you shoot through area terrain. Since most models are size level 2, it explains how to deal with non-size level 2 models on page 20. It is supported by the rules, stop acting like a single line out of the rulebook exists in a vaccuum.

Page 7 does matter for LOS, it even says on page 20 when it matters:

"Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through and up to the height of the participating models. This is where the model's height matter (see page 7).  If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked."

I've accounted for page 7 in my interpretation of the rules.  You have not accounted for page 20, where it states:

"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous 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. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.  Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked."

The literal interpretation apparently is not easier to understand because you are failing to do so.  You are implying that the literal interpretation of the rules is incorrect.  Saying so is arguing intent, which accomplishes nothing.  You cannot prove anything beyond the literal interpretation of the rules.  Arguing intent is the last refuge of the unsupported position.

 

"It is supported by the rules" - snooggums on his 'magical cylinder' theory.

"Stop acting like a single line out of the rulebook exists in a vaccuum." - snooggums on his 'magical cylinder' theory.

You mean like the singe line on page 7 you keep refering to?

"See, I can fling insults too wheee!"

Hmm... sounds suspiciously like flinging feces at a keyboard, my position that you are a monkey with good luck stands undisputed.

No no there can only be one pirate monkey on at any time.  I have seniority.

No no there can only be one pirate monkey on at any time. I have seniority.

Sure, but every self-respecting senior pirate monkey needs a lackey. Why waste time flinging your own poo when you can delegate, and thus have more free time for saying 'Aargh!'

Posted By insaniak on 05/10/2006 6:57 PM

No no there can only be one pirate monkey on at any time. I have seniority.

Sure, but every self-respecting senior pirate monkey needs a lackey. Why waste time flinging your own poo when you can delegate, and thus have more free time for saying 'Aargh!'

A good multitaksing pirate can just say Arrrrgh! while flinging the poo. It also makes it more likely that they are facing you when the poo hits.

A good multitaksing pirate can just say Arrrrgh! while flinging the poo.

Silly idea... then your mouth's open to potential splashback.

Posted By insaniak on 05/10/2006 7:45 PM

A good multitaksing pirate can just say Arrrrgh! while flinging the poo.

Silly idea... then your mouth's open to potential splashback.

What kind of poo are you throwing that generates splashback?  There should only be one solid hit, followed by deformation of the poo to enter all openings in the clothes and face.  It shouldn't seperate, though; you need to eat more cheese.

I think both sides have made their points numerous times and the insults alone are enough to warrant a lockdown here.