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.

Hey guys, i dont fully understand how line of sight is drawn, and it tends to me a discussion quite often.


There are two sections, one for units with bases, and another for those that dont have bases. I understand that if you have no base, you just take the closest point of your model, to their model. Most models i have that dont have bases are vehicles, so they dont have a "head" i can draw LoS from, so it just ends up being any given point on my model i draw LoS from.


How ever, when you have a base, you dont draw it FROM your base do you? when drawing line of sight. Im also curious because some people and i believe tournement organizers throw realism in, and say your "face" would have to see the enemy otherwise they cant see. meaning if i could draw line of sight from my left arm, that wouldnt be okay. But others say it IS okay. Like: "Can you see the enemy on the other side of that wall even if you grab a long stick that would stick over that COULD see your enemy? No you cant see him, so you cant shoot". Some says that and it makes sense, but i dont think its written any where that the "face" must be able to see the enemy.

I dont understand whether its one way or the other. Lets talk the custodian biker boys. They have these very long thin lances. Are Custodian players allowed to draw line of sight based on that lance sticking up double as high as their regular body. Like hey, i want to put grots on top of my ork vehicles, but if that makes my vehicles easier to hit then its a mighty stupid idea. But i guess if they can shoot my vehicle because of the grot on my top, surely i can also draw LoS from that same grot as well. I often meet people that say you can shoot X unit if something sticks out, but that unit if it has a base, cant shoot back because its "head" might not be able to see. that doesnt make any sense to me.

Are ork boy bosses with warbanners allowed to draw line of sight from the top of their banner?

Vice versa, am i able to shoot a boy with a banner because i can just see the top of his banner?

Competitively it would always be stupid to make your bodies fancy and good looking by putting boss poles and grots on top of your vehicles, because you accidentially make your own unit harder to hide behind walls because they stick up. So how does it work?

Line of sight (LOS), is from any part of your model, to any part of your opponents model. If you can see their model from yours, it is 'in' LOS. (Some players/TOs may house rule that banner poles and such do not count however.)

Bases are used for measurement, you measure from your base (or hull if no base) to their base (or hull if no base); bases do not need to be able to 'see' each other.

This is a bit of a murky area in the rules.

Simply put, yes if any part of your model can see any part of theirs then it can be shot at. The very tip of the Custodian can be poking out of cover and they can be shot at.

Now with your Grots, yes you're right in that they'll change the LoS, and any units that can draw LoS to the Grots can now be seen by the vehicle. Some particular RAW-purists will claim this is Modelling for Advantage, but in my opinion at least, it's less of an advantage as it affects both parties.

So to sum up, yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, you can shoot at a Warboss if you can only see the tip of his banner.

LOS is from any part of the model, including the base. Yes, the custodes bikers can draw LOS from the tip of the lance. But so can you, if you see the tip, you can shoot them.

I see. so its only really the puritans that would say you cant draw LoS from a weapon or a banner, because is not the head.

I see, thanks guys

Beardedragon wrote:
I see. so its only really the puritans that would say you cant draw LoS from a weapon or a banner, because is not the head.

I see, thanks guys

In previous editions, for shooting you had to draw line of sight from the weapon. That doesn't apply now,.

Basically, LOS is from any part of the model to any part of the model.

If even a single atom, a single ℓₚ² of your model has an unobstructed line to another model, you have LOS.

Range is measured from the closest two points, Base to Base (replacing Base with Hull where appropriate, where Hull is defined as "Any part of a model that does not have a base.")

You measure from base to base if both have bases is what i heard when Going for distance. You only measure from the model itself if its LoS.

Beardedragon wrote:
You measure from base to base og both have bases is what i heard. You only measure from the model itself if its LoS.

You measure ranges B2B. LOS is Model to Model.

 Valkyrie wrote:
So to sum up, yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, you can shoot at a Warboss if you can only see the tip of his banner.

No more ridiculous than say Orks, Tyranids, Grav weapons, anti-grav engines on landspeeders, Psykers, Plasma weapons, etc...

Do not try to bring realism into a fantasy/sci-fi setting, it never ends well.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

If you are going by what is "ridiculous as it sounds" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is "ridiculous as it sounds", as most of it can not really happen.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
So to sum up, yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, you can shoot at a Warboss if you can only see the tip of his banner.

No more ridiculous than say Orks, Tyranids, Grav weapons, anti-grav engines on landspeeders, Psykers, Plasma weapons, etc...

Do not try to bring realism into a fantasy/sci-fi setting, it never ends well.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

If you are going by what is "ridiculous as it sounds" compared to the real world, then over 90% of the game is "ridiculous as it sounds", as most of it can not really happen.

Except bringing a shooty army vs a non shooty army and the shooty army all have large poles or banners to shoot over walls is a large advantage the non shooty army cant capitalize on. Because the rules allow you to shoot from the top of the banner you put on all your shooty guys

Beardedragon wrote:
Except bringing a shooty army vs a non shooty army and the shooty army all have large poles or banners to shoot over walls is a large advantage the non shooty army cant capitalize on. Because the rules allow you to shoot from the top of the banner you put on all your shooty guys

I do not understand what your point is.

If you add extra stuff to models purely to gain an advantage that is called Modelling for Advantage (MFA), and would probably be disallowed at tournaments.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Except bringing a shooty army vs a non shooty army and the shooty army all have large poles or banners to shoot over walls is a large advantage the non shooty army cant capitalize on. Because the rules allow you to shoot from the top of the banner you put on all your shooty guys

I do not understand what your point is.

If you add extra stuff to models purely to gain an advantage that is called Modelling for Advantage (MFA), and would probably be disallowed at tournaments.

Except banners all come with ork boyz etc so its a regular accessory. So if i went for an ork shooty army i would gain an advantage, but its within my modelling capability to do this as my box comes with said items and the folder shows me thats where they are meant to go.

Though i guess the redeeming factor here would then be there isnt a banner for every boy. But there is a banner for every Mega Nob so you could do this. Wanna go for melee Mega Nobz? Dont bring them with banners.

Wanna go for ranged Mega Nobz? Put banners on all of them which you are allowed to do, and you can now shoot over walls. Mega Nobz are terrible shooting units but maybe after the codex they wont be.

Beardedragon wrote:
Except banners all come with ork boyz etc so its a regular accessory. So if i went for an ork shooty army i would gain an advantage, but its within my modelling capability to do this as my box comes with said items and the folder shows me thats where they are meant to go.

Though i guess the redeeming factor here would then be there isnt a banner for every boy. But there is a banner for every Mega Nob so you could do this. Wanna go for melee Mega Nobz? Dont bring them with banners.

Wanna go for ranged Mega Nobz? Put banners on all of them which you are allowed to do, and you can now shoot over walls. Mega Nobz are terrible shooting units but maybe after the codex they wont be.

If they come with it, then it is not extra stuff.

And if you can shoot out, they can shoot in.

The Ork Boyz box comes with two bosspoles in the kit for use with the Nob. There are not enough in the kit to outfit all 11 models.

 Ghaz wrote:
The Ork Boyz box comes with two bosspoles in the kit for use with the Nob. There are not enough in the kit to outfit all 11 models.

But there are enough poles for Mega Nobz in case the codex comes up with a better ranged version of them. It was also just an example, maybe other races like eldar have similar things.

Nobz are just that, nobz. They're not Ork Boyz and cost a good bit more than boyz.

 Ghaz wrote:
Nobz are just that, nobz. They're not Ork Boyz and cost a good bit more than boyz.

Regardless i feel like they should exclude "accessory" items as something you can shoot from infantry models at least.

I dont know, i guess nothing really needs to change. The rules do, surprisingly work.



All in all i have my answer thanks to you guys.

I learned the LoS rules the hard way, by losing an entire unit of Kroot I thought I had hidden behind a wall because they looked like this to the opponent.



I had already played many games with friends at home, but in this scenario I was at a store and playing against a guy who frequents tournaments, so I got a crash course in how brutal knowing the rules really well can be. I didn't like it at the time, and wouldn't do this in friendly games, but those are the rules, and now I know to be more careful. This is one area that you really have to suspend disbelief.

That's harsh man. I understand why the rule is there and agree that it has to be 'any part of the model', much like the off-side rule in the Premier league now that had VAR has been intorduced
but
It's a bit silly that the whole squad can be targeted. Just that model should be able to be shot at. After all, if a model from the shooting unit can't see it can't shoot, why doesn't that rule apply too the target?

Because that would enable the firing player to snipe out certain models.

It is what it is folks. The LOS rules are super clear now. Play accordingly. That’s how tactics develop.

 PaddyMick wrote:
It's a bit silly that the whole squad can be targeted.

Do not try to bring realism into a fantasy/sci-fi setting, it never ends well.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical. It is a rules system, an abstract system used to play a game by those rules.

If you are going by what is silly, then over 90% of the game is silly, as most of it can not really happen.

Just that model should be able to be shot at. After all, if a model from the shooting unit can't see it can't shoot, why doesn't that rule apply too the target?

The rules are there to play a game. the whole squad is able to be killed because the rules say they can.

Why should "Just that model should be able to be shot at."? It might be a game balance thing that a shooting unit can potentially can kill the whole squad that is "behind" that wall in the above pic. Also sniping is prevented.

We all know what the rules say, if you do not want your unit to be targeted, hide them better.

Hang on a minute. My point was that there is one rule for models doing the firing: must be able to draw LOS to a unit, and another rule for units being targeted: must be able to draw LOS to a model. Nothing to do with realism, just silly rules, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I am saying is, a model can target a whole unit with one model in LOS, but a whole unit with only one model that can see cant target a single model. It's inconsistent.

 PaddyMick wrote:
Hang on a minute. My point was that there is one rule for models doing the firing: must be able to draw LOS to a unit, and another rule for units being targeted: must be able to draw LOS to a model. Nothing to do with realism, just silly rules, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I am saying is, a model can target a whole unit with one model in LOS, but a whole unit with only one model that can see cant target a single model. It's inconsistent.

If you have it where casualties can only come from the models "visible", then you get Rhino Sniping again, which is even more silly.

Fair enough, i get there will be other considerations... but, in the example given above, those guys behind the wall can be targeted, but can't fire back. Dont seem right.

 PaddyMick wrote:
Fair enough, i get there will be other considerations... but, in the example given above, those guys behind the wall can be targeted, but can't fire back. Dont seem right.

Agreed, its silly that the entire unit can be shot at, but only one model can shoot. I know its to simplify and speed up the game, but its still silly. Why dont the rules say that the entire unit can shoot in the same way as they can be targeted ? Only one model needs LOS, and every model can shoot.

 PaddyMick wrote:
Fair enough, i get there will be other considerations... but, in the example given above, those guys behind the wall can be targeted, but can't fire back. Dont seem right.

Yea, it is just a game, the rules need to make certain provisions that "Dont seem right" in the real world because of balance issues.

 p5freak wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:
Fair enough, i get there will be other considerations... but, in the example given above, those guys behind the wall can be targeted, but can't fire back. Dont seem right.

Agreed, its silly that the entire unit can be shot at, but only one model can shoot. I know its to simplify and speed up the game, but its still silly. Why dont the rules say that the entire unit can shoot in the same way as they can be targeted ? Only one model needs LOS, and every model can shoot.

Because it's two separate concerns:

- In the editions where only the models that you could see could be killed, the result was manipulating line of sight to kill specific models. Making it optional--"I can see that model over there, did you want to save it by killing off other models in the unit?"--would make the rules for resolving attacks more complicated.

- If only one model in the unit needs line of sight to fire, then you can use a Bolter marine walking around a corner to allow a las cannon marine to fire through walls.

That leads to two different assumptions:
- When you get shot, you're replaced by a different model in the unit.
- When you shoot, you don't switch places with someone else in the unit.

 solkan wrote:


- If only one model in the unit needs line of sight to fire, then you can use a Bolter marine walking around a corner to allow a las cannon marine to fire through walls.

Yes. The las cannon marine can also be killed through walls by enemy fire. So it would only be fair if he can shoot through walls.

 p5freak wrote:

 solkan wrote:


- If only one model in the unit needs line of sight to fire, then you can use a Bolter marine walking around a corner to allow a las cannon marine to fire through walls.

Yes. The las cannon marine can also be killed through walls by enemy fire. So it would only be fair if he can shoot through walls.

Agreed, it does seem unfair, and it's the sort of thing that can ruin someone's fun playing the game...