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.

Hi all,

I got into a pretty heated debate about this the other day.. I am a bit ashamed about getting so heated instead of just trying to make the best of what was otherwise a fun game, but I'd like to get some confirmation that I was at least justified.

I tried to shoot at a dreadnaught who was trying to hide behind a rhino.  Part of the dread was clearly in view over the other model.  My opponent (and two other players) argued vehemently that since both vehicles are Size 3, one cannot be seen over the other, regardless of the shape of the actual model.

I argued that they were confusing the rules for LOS with area terrain.  If a vehicle was behind a patch of area terrain which was visibly shorter than the model on the field, but had been classified as Size 3 terrain prior to the game, my opponent would be correct.  However, this is not stated for vehciles blocking LOS, and in fact the key phrase seems to be on p. 20: "All vehicles... block line of sight.  A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models..." (emphasis added).

Would anyone disagree with my interpretation?

As a second issue, my opponent (and his friends) were also arguing that all terrain (not just area) gets size categories, which is clearly not the case.  Some interesting points came up as we debated it though...  it would seem that if one were to model a Wraithlord crawling on its hands and knees, one could still shoot at it even if it was completely obscured from the shooter's view by Size 2 area terrain in front of it.  However, this modeling would allow you to hide behind a small rock that would otherwise provide only a cover save for most Wraithlords.

Does that interpretation sound correct as well?

Thanks!

 

Check this out
www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/tpage/1/view/Topic/postid/103057/Default.aspx

Thanks Frenrick, that was an interesting thread to look at.  It seems most people would play it my way... I tend to lean towards "magic cylinder light" over "'friendly' model's eye view," but in the example I gave, the difference is more or less irreIevant, as the rhino is pretty much just a big rectangular box.

I am still interested, however, in a few opinions on whether or not that is the "correct" rules interpretation, not just how people play it (as pointed out several times in the thread).

Thanks.

 

You use true LOS for anything not area terrain or close combats.

I have yet to actually play against anyone who plays by the actual rules for it though.

The 'correct' way to play it is to use true LOS. If you can draw a LOS over the rhino to the model behind it, you have LOS.

Sizes, as explained on page 7 and page 20 of the rulebook, only apply when Area Terrain or a close combat is involved.

The easiest what to end the size category debate is to play (borrow if you don't own any) Necrons and use their interperetation. Once they realize how stupid it is that they can't shoot your Monlith past your Tomb Spyder, (Or their own Rhino), the debate should be over.

Posted By insaniak on 03/13/2007 6:06 PM
The 'correct' way to play it is to use true LOS. If you can draw a LOS over the rhino to the model behind it, you have LOS.

Sizes, as explained on page 7 and page 20 of the rulebook, only apply when Area Terrain or a close combat is involved.

Unfortunately Insaniak is wrong.  Actually more than wrong.  He goes so far as to quote the pages to prove his point here, only to find when you actually read them (which judging by the frequencies of these threads, no one does!) that he either didn't FINISH readin the rules or else is bluffing texas hold em style.  For your reading pleasure.  In addition, check the FAQ which has one more useful tidbit for you to know on this subject:

"...This does NOT mean literally their actual height as the simple expedient of crouching kneeling or crawling will render such direct comparions IRRELEVANT.  Instead there are three bands into which all MODELS fall.  These categories are ALSO used to define the height of some terrain features.  The following three categories are the ONLY ones that are important in the shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority"
 
It's only SEVEN pages into the ruleboook!   I know you're all going to pore very carefully over your rulebooks tonight  There's a test on Monday.

Posted By swize1 on 03/13/2007 6:00 PM

Thanks Frenrick, that was an interesting thread to look at.  It seems most people would play it my way... I tend to lean towards "magic cylinder light" over "'friendly' model's eye view," but in the example I gave, the difference is more or less irreIevant, as the rhino is pretty much just a big rectangular box.

I am still interested, however, in a few opinions on whether or not that is the "correct" rules interpretation, not just how people play it (as pointed out several times in the thread).

Thanks.

 

FIRST RULE:  Don't beleive me uless the rules seem to agree with me.  Ask people where specifically that is and research it yourself.  It will avoid arguments and of course get you the actual answer you are looking for.  Page 7...ALL of page 7.

Some Old school players would rather die than make the game simpler nor admit when they are wrong.  I blew my top recently when I shouldn't have about a Psyker ruling but I am willing to admit that I seem to be wrong (though it is my strong hope they will fix it).  Some gamers want it to be true so bad in the heat of a game they can taste it and as some in these kinds of threads will prove, they'll even conveniently ignore the text they don't like.  Some do it on accident, out of old habit.  Others do it intentionally.  Who can really say?

The reality is, NO ONE spends the kind of time it takes to design terrain that actually fits the needs of a 28mm scale game with bases that need to stay standing up!  AND assuming they gave up some creative license to do such a thing (and I will safely  assume there are those mightily dedicated types who actually do, dotting the world here and there) the folks at Games Workshop are not cooperating.  The GW guys have (wisely) decided not to limit the creative process on these model building by adhering stringently to "Literal LOS".  Further, should you decide to get as creative as Golden Daemon winners are wont to be, then you will find such slavishness to "true LOS" to be a major annoyance.

In addition, older models would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage (See the rhino vs. new Rhino comparison for a good example).  Do you really want to win because someone had the shorter model?  Is that actually testing your generalship?  Nope.  We all wanna' win, but come on.  Some people, who have played for years, aren't made of money.  They can't just replace all eight of their Immolators tomorrow, just to avoid this kind of chicanery.

So I for one am glad to see this implemented, in writing, in the rules, black and white and plain as day.  If you and I have differing opinions will differ.  IN those instances, rely on the rules and it will makr future games more enjoyable.

Posted By insaniak on 03/13/2007 6:06 PM
The 'correct' way to play it is to use true LOS. If you can draw a LOS over the rhino to the model behind it, you have LOS.

Sizes, as explained on page 7 and page 20 of the rulebook, only apply when Area Terrain or a close combat is involved.

Page 20 tells you that it is still restricted by the "choosing a target" rules.
Page 20 refers to "Taller" as in bigger size category.  It tells you to go to a models eye view because LOS is drawn from bases to model body

It also specifies that the only time model height matters is when seeing past a melee.  Outside of that...No LOS by model size.

It goes on to say that models CLASSED as taller than the terrain in front of them can be seen (see page 7 again).

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
Page 7...ALL of page 7.

When looking for the rules for LOS, you would be far better off reading the LOs section, which is on page 20.

But if you insist on including page 7, you would notice that it actualy mentions that the Sizes only apply in certain situations (ie: when drawing LOS through certain terrain features or close combats...)


 

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
Some Old school players would rather die than make the game simpler nor admit when they are wrong.  I blew my top recently when I shouldn't have about a Psyker ruling but I am willing to admit that I seem to be wrong (though it is my strong hope they will fix it).  Some gamers want it to be true so bad in the heat of a game they can taste it and as some in these kinds of threads will prove, they'll even conveniently ignore the text they don't like.  Some do it on accident, out of old habit.  Others do it intentionally.  Who can really say?

Hyperbole, anyone?

It's nothing to do with how we want the rules to be, but simply a case of reading the rules as a whole, rather than just picking out the parts that suit how we choose to play.


 - Page 7 states that the Sizes become relevant when drawgin LOS through certain terrain features or close combats.
 - Page 20 (the actual LOS rules) states that you use true LOs except when drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or a close combat
 - The Terrain article published in White Dwarf (and written by one of the Games Devs... Andy Hoare?) stated that the Sizes only applied to Area Terrain, although you could add them to other terrain if you and your opponent prefer to play that way.
 - And the rulebook FAQ states that you use true LOS for all terrain other than Area Terrain.

I honestly don't see how anyone could still think that the rules actually support the magic cylinder.

Yes, it's a simpler (in some ways) way to play, and I can see how some players might prefer it. But it is not the way the rules actually work.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
In addition, older models would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage (See the rhino vs. new Rhino comparison for a good example). 

Extreme? Hardly.

There's not that large a difference between an old and new rhino.

New vs Old Obliterators, you might have a point. But GW aren't generally in the habit of writing the rules to account for superceded models. They write the rules for the models they currently produce.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
Page 20 tells you that it is still restricted by the "choosing a target" rules.
Page 20 refers to "Taller" as in bigger size category.  It tells you to go to a models eye view because LOS is drawn from bases to model body

Some wonderfully selective reading there.

I have no idea what you think 'Choosing a Target' has to do with Size Categories.
Page 20 does indeed refer to 'taller' size categories... in the part that tells you to use Sizes when drawing LOS past a close combat. (ie: one of the times it actually tells you to use Sizes)

How is drawing LOS from the model's base a 'model's eye view'? Unless your models are all glued to their bases upside down...?

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
Outside of that...No LOS by model size.

Exactly. The Sizes only apply when drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or a close combat.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
It goes on to say that models CLASSED as taller than the terrain in front of them can be seen (see page 7 again).

...in the section referring to LOS and Area Terrain. So yes, of course it tells you to use Size classes there, because Area Terrain and close combat are the two situations where the Sizes are used...

In addition, older models would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage (See the rhino vs. new Rhino comparison for a good example).  Do you really want to win because someone had the shorter model?  Is that actually testing your generalship?  Nope.  We all wanna' win, but come on.  Some people, who have played for years, aren't made of money.  They can't just replace all eight of their Immolators tomorrow, just to avoid this kind of chicanery.

Well, this is getting a bit off topic, but I can't agree with you here... I, for one, would prefer to have the older, smaller rhinos... I could care less what they can see over, and would be thrilled that they are easier to hide.

But since we disagree here, I would certainly agree that the standardized rule that you propose would eliminate this issue.  But the consensus (thus far) seems to be that this is not the case.

Nice to have Insaniak on my side..

 

Posted By insaniak on 03/13/2007 7:13 PM

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 6:57 PM
Page 7...ALL of page 7.

When looking for the rules for LOS, you would be far better off reading the LOs section, which is on page 20.

Response:  No.  You'd be far better understanding the level rules SO THAT the LOS rules would be clear to you.  The text, in italics states that it applies to ALL models.  So that part is out of the way.  Vehicles are models.  The second part is terrain and close combat.  On page 7...again:

"BE AWARE though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, those heights will become relevant (again refering to the Size classes).  The rule of thumb:  so long as you're a greater size category  than anything in the way, then you have line of sight.  Seems pretty simple.

Further page 7 unequivocabally states directly that this is for all models and points out that vehicles (and therefore walkers) are Size 3.  hmm...

After which, page 20 explains that unless it is area terrain (and not all people play buildings that way, so gaps in walls may count which is why they are pointing it out, as it says) you must get down to the models eye view to see if there is a line through what you and your opponent agrees is NOT Area Terrain.  This whole argument is irrelevant when its JUST terrain and not Area terrain. But even then, buildings are level 3...  and so if the Dreadnaught is behind a part of the building that doesn't allow a field eye view then you can't fire just because you can (literally) see him OVER the building.

Even when you have melee blocking you it says the models height matters...and refers you RIGHT BACK TO PAGE 7 for an explanation of this.  Remember those size categories?  Well the writers apparently felt the need to remind you of what they meant there just in case you forgot (selectively or by simple human error).

Page 21 repeats the theme:  "models that are classed as taller than the Area Terrain can see and be seen over it (not shockingly, this is what page 7 advised you of already).  It further advises you to use higher terrain to stand on in order to "count" it (see FAQ online for what they mean.  In essence, you are considered to be the height class you are standing on).  So a man on a level 1 hill gets no height advantage (again see FAQ) and cannot see a person behind level 1 Area or other terrain.  But if he stands on level two and is looking at someone behind level 1 cover...He's got the target dead to rights regardless of the Terrain type.

It's nothing to do with how we want the rules to be, but simply a case of reading the rules as a whole, rather than just picking out the parts that suit how we choose to play.

Response:  mmmm.... noo...I think it is.  But I have laid my reasons out and have provided all the relevant passages.  It's not unclear in any way and as it says (not me) it applies to all models.

 - The Terrain article published in White Dwarf (and written by one of the Games Devs... Andy Hoare?) stated that the Sizes only applied to Area Terrain, although you could add them to other terrain if you and your opponent prefer to play that way.

Response:  This is true.  Like I said.  IF your opponent does not class something as area terrain, THEN of course you can fire and ignore the height of terrain  insofar as, you still need to be able to see the target  through the rubble...or else... the target needs to be classed as a larger size than you've agreed the rubble is in which case there was never really an issue anyways.

 - And the rulebook FAQ states that you use true LOS for all terrain other than Area Terrain.

Answer:  Not exactly.  True of terrain, not of models.  Both are Size 3, so one cannot see over the tank to the Dreadnaught...which was I think the original issue (and one that comes up way too often).  That example is why we bothered to engage in this lively debate.


Yes, it's a simpler (in some ways) way to play, and I can see how some players might prefer it. But it is not the way the rules actually work.

Response:  and that my friend is where we differ (on some points).  I never heard of this "cylinder", but there you have it.

One other point.  if you don't think theres a big difference between the height of the new and old phino...umm....  I don't know what to tell you.  Maybe standing closer would help.  I suggest no more than 18 inches.

Likewise, the Orkz and their trucks...level 3.  Why?  because they are vehicles and page 7 makes no bones about what that means.  While the MODEL is stylistically shorter, it is not game mechanically shorter.  Good thing for those Boyz, lemme tell ya'.  Many's the time I wanted to punch an ork in the mouth for getting saucy with those stupid flamer thingees of theirs.  Thats creative license though.  Gotta love it.

Posted By swize1 on 03/13/2007 8:04 PM

In addition, older models would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage (See the rhino vs. new Rhino comparison for a good example).  Do you really want to win because someone had the shorter model?  Is that actually testing your generalship?  Nope.  We all wanna' win, but come on.  Some people, who have played for years, aren't made of money.  They can't just replace all eight of their Immolators tomorrow, just to avoid this kind of chicanery.

Well, this is getting a bit off topic, but I can't agree with you here... I, for one, would prefer to have the older, smaller rhinos... I could care less what they can see over, and would be thrilled that they are easier to hide.

But since we disagree here, I would certainly agree that the standardized rule that you propose would eliminate this issue.  But the consensus (thus far) seems to be that this is not the case.

Nice to have Insaniak on my side..

 

I understand that you might LIKE it to be shorter...  But that just isn't mechanically the case...which is the whole point of all this.  I think you probably owe that opponent an apology, and my reasons are documented further.  All I can hope is you guys can play again and agree on a solution, but this is pretty basic stuff.  If you are going to demand that an ork Dreadnaught can't hide behind their trucks...well...  I foresee trouble at tournaments anyways.

Somebody pass me the rusty spoons.

Page 7:
"Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant".

In other words, in all other situations, those heights are irrelevant. This is further stated in the LOS rules on page 20, which state to use a true, model's eye view LOS, unless: "The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past area terrain, or an ongoing close combat."

As a vehicle is neither area terrain nor an ongoing close combat, it doesn't qualify.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
 No.  You'd be far better understanding the level rules SO THAT the LOS rules would be clear to you.  The text, in italics states that it applies to ALL models. 

Well of course it applies to all models.

What you're missing though is that Page 7 is not the LOS section.

Page 7 tells you what the Size categories are, and how they work.
Page 20 tells you when to use them.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
 "BE AWARE though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, those heights will become relevant (again refering to the Size classes)

Exactly. They become relevant when dealing with Area Terrain or close combats.

Which means that at all other times, they are not relevant.

If they were always in use, they couldn't become relevant at certain times...

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
Further page 7 unequivocabally states directly that this is for all models and points out that vehicles (and therefore walkers) are Size 3.  hmm..

Yes... and page 20 tells you when to use the Sizes, and when to use true LOS.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
Even when you have melee blocking you it says the models height matters...and refers you RIGHT BACK TO PAGE 7 for an explanation of this.  Remember those size categories?  Well the writers apparently felt the need to remind you of what they meant there just in case you forgot (selectively or by simple human error).

Er... yes... because, once again, close combat and Area Terrain are the two situations where the Size Categories become relevant, remember?

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
Page 21 repeats the theme:

Of course it does. Because page 21 is dealing with Area Terrain, and because, once again, close combat and Area Terrain are the two situations where the Size Categories become relevant.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/13/2007 8:45 PM
Likewise, the Orkz and their trucks...level 3.  Why?  because they are vehicles

Nobody is disputing that vehicles are all size 3.

You're simply missing the fact that the Sizes are only relevant when the LOS involves Area Terrain or a close combat.

You've even quoted the specific rules that say this.

My eyeballs are sore. I think I overdid it with the rusty spoons...

BYE

Actually it was written by Pete Haines and is found in US White Dwarf #308 (Sept. '05). The article in question is "Getting The Most From Terrain" and is on pages 90-95. Here is a quote from page 94 of the article that's relevant to the discussion:


Sorry Jancoran, but that more than definitively proves that you are wrong.

I understand that you might LIKE it to be shorter...  But that just isn't mechanically the case...which is the whole point of all this.  I think you probably owe that opponent an apology, and my reasons are documented further.  All I can hope is you guys can play again and agree on a solution, but this is pretty basic stuff.  If you are going to demand that an ork Dreadnaught can't hide behind their trucks...well...  I foresee trouble at tournaments anyways.

I'm sorry Jacoran... what do you undertand the line "all vehicles... block line of sight.  A line of sight can still be drawn OVER such models" (p. 20) to mean?

Jancoran-please read the numerous threads on this very topic. Better yet, don't post on this topic. You are clearly mistaken on your interpretations and despite other individuals trying to point this out to you, you'd rather argue your point despite the rules clearly in print contradict your conclusions.

I know this is waaaaay OT, but wtf does "rusty spoons" mean?

Old, old, Dakka in-joke. After an oft-repeated topic came up again, somebody once posted, "I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than read another series of posts on 'x'."

LOL YMDC is just a collection of rusty spoons till new material hits the market.

And that poster was me.

So whenever a YMDC topic comes up that's been done to death (LOS and Siren vs GK's being the two biggest), it's said to be a 'Rusty Spoon' affair.

BYE

Posted By Centurian99 on 03/14/2007 5:14 AM

I know this is waaaaay OT, but wtf does "rusty spoons" mean?

Old, old, Dakka in-joke. After an oft-repeated topic came up again, somebody once posted, "I'd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spoon than read another series of posts on 'x'."

...which I assume is also a reference to the Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie:

"Why a spoon, cousin?  Why not a knife, or a sword?"

Sheriff (Alan Rickman):  "Because it will hurt more, you nitwit."

(Or some such...)

Well atleast Jancooran is laying out his arguments in a coherent manner which is more than I could manage.

Man, I actually kind of enjoy it when this topic comes up.

The number of posts go up faster than a brush fire in Southern California. Look away for a couple of hours, and there are three pages of posts

Sal.

Me too, Saldiven. My favourite discussion of Area Terrain and Line of Sight was the big one about Dark Eldar vehicle wrecks.

So without reading the entire thread what was the (factual) conclusion?

Posted By insaniak
The 'correct' way to play it is to use true LOS. If you can draw a LOS over the rhino to the model behind it, you have LOS.

Sizes, as explained on page 7 and page 20 of the rulebook, only apply when Area Terrain or a close combat is involved.

Oh no I understand what it is saying.  In fact if you look, they even gave you some nice photos.  Did you bother to read how they refer to the size categories there?  I did!