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

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.