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.

******Conclusions I have drawn from this thread*******

I think I may have found that "magic cylinder lite" is actually completely supported by the rules.

Firstly Magic cylinder lite:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/103057.page

Secondly:
The "break no rule" fact:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/6158.page

So after reading those posts you can make a few statements.

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

You would be breaking a rule by not allowing me to shoot over or past "vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery".

Secondly:
The Wrecks rules on page 68 says: "[A Wreck] continues to block line of sight as if it were intact but counts as difficult terrain for infantry movement. . .it provides a 4+ Cover save for models on top of it or looking around it."

So wrecks are not area terrain, they are simply "difficult terrain for infantry movement". You would be breaking a rule calling it area terrain, since this is a specific rule for vehicle wrecks.

Thirdly:
We have determined “This rule is intended to ensure that players don't get penalized for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, spectacularly posed models, etc”, I think is fairly clear that only trivial portions and bits sticking out for dramatic effect are ignored." This definitely concludes that arms, legs etc are not "banners, blades...bits sticking out for dramatic effect"


So I think these combine to validate "magic cylinder lite" conclusively. Excuse me while I go redesign my defilers (thankfully unpainted) and remove the ridiculously huge legs and arms and make it somewhat near the size of a dreadnought.

********end of conclusions***********

***********The original post*************
I'm making a new topic of this because I have another question about it. The following comes from the shooting at spikes on defilers thread.

Imriel wrote:"Obviously a unit can't draw a bead on their target if there is a hill, a building, or some other large object in the way that stops them. In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not , so a player might have to stoop over the table for a model' eye view. This is the best way to determine whether or not a line of sight exists. The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain (see page 21, line of Sight & Area Terrain), or an assault combat - this is dealt with later(20, BGB)"


"Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a toe or antenna or some other minor part. In these cases, the line of sight is considered blocked. Line of sight must be traced to the body of the target model. This rule is intended to ensure that players don't get penalized for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, spectacularly posed models, etc (21, BGB)."

You were right to play by true line of sight, and as the building blocked line of sight to the body of your defiler, your opponent couldn't shoot it.

It's completely obvious then that shooting at spikes is not permitted. However the sentence "Line of sight must be traced to the body of the target model." is what bothers me. If you go by a strict interpretation of this rule it means that heads, legs and arms cannot even be shot at. But the former sentence seems to imply that legs and arms do count. But if you read the part about how the models on the battlefield are really dynamically moving and shooting from behind cover etc. (I think that description is on the same page?). Then the strict ruling would seem to make the most sense. This then means a contradiction between the implied interpretation and the strict interpretation, requiring a roll off whenever this comes up.

The question that would seem to clear up this fog of implication would be:

Is there any talk in the rulebook about where you draw sight from the model wanting to shoot? I seem to hazily remember something about measuring from the gun barrel when determining range (then you could model on an extra long barrel get more range) but I also seem to have another foggy memory of needing to draw los from the center of your model to the target. If it's from the barrel it doesnt make sense that you couldn't shoot back at something that shot you, but if it was the center of the model from the shooter to the body of the target then the above strict interpretation does seem to make the most sense. But if this question were answered one way or the other I don't think it would require a roll off.

The vehicle rules in the rulebook state that you measure range from the hull and LOS from the weapon mount.

Which only leaves the issue of what counts as 'hull' and what counts as extra bits, just as we have for LOS.

The rulebook FAQ for some unknown reason ruled that this supposedly created issues and so changed measurement to the weapon instead of the hull.

Which does indeed allow you to model longer barrels for extra range, and results in all sorts of sitations where you can shoot at something that can't shoot back.

insaniak wrote:The vehicle rules in the rulebook state that you measure range from the hull and LOS from the weapon mount.

Which only leaves the issue of what counts as 'hull' and what counts as extra bits, just as we have for LOS.

The rulebook FAQ for some unknown reason ruled that this supposedly created issues and so changed measurement to the weapon instead of the hull.

Which does indeed allow you to model longer barrels for extra range, and results in all sorts of situations where you can shoot at something that can't shoot back.

Dammit the actual rules are making this even more messy than it was when I started. This means you could do slowed things like having mobile turrets that stick way up in the air and poke over terrain and then draw los from that to your target. And then move it to wherever gives you the most advantage each movement phase. The faq making this kind of rule is terrible.

vvvvv

It's even worse in the case of say, Tau Broadswords that have movable turrets that extend beyond the edge of the model. Completly ignoring the FAQ ruling is the only logical way to intrepret this.

insaniak wrote:The vehicle rules in the rulebook state that you measure range from the hull and LOS from the weapon mount.

Which only leaves the issue of what counts as 'hull' and what counts as extra bits, just as we have for LOS.

The rulebook FAQ for some unknown reason ruled that this supposedly created issues and so changed measurement to the weapon instead of the hull.

Which does indeed allow you to model longer barrels for extra range, and results in all sorts of sitations where you can shoot at something that can't shoot back.

Doesn't this create a weird situation with Basilisks?

You need to draw line of sight to the body (e.g. Chimera hull) to shoot at it. On the other hand, you draw line of sight from the Earthshaker cannon, which probably extends well over any intervening terrain, etc.

It has long been my contention that the Defiler is only as large as the central hull, and that legs / barrels / whatever don't matter. It would be equally valid to mount a battlecannon on a Dreadnought and call that a Defiler. Also, the vertical Defiler robots are especially clever.

In the spirit of fair play, if I can see you, you can see me. If I can shoot at you, you can shoot at me. Very simple.

By the rules, you take LOS to the weapon mount (i.e. where it attaches to the hull), not the furthest extremity. So long barrels confer no advantage in range, nor disadvantage in being targeted. It means that you can't use a corner of a tank to shoot at something - the weapon itself would have to be part of the LOS.

Note that LOS is not the same as range. The barrel itself is irrelevant. If it's a foot-long barrel, that's fine, but that's just for show. You should still be measuring range from the hull.

So to clarify: the firing line takes LOS from where the weapon attaches, but range is measured along that line from the hull.

"Weapon mount" refers to where the weapon attaches to the tank, not the end of the barrel.

You could have a 2' barrel on it, but you still only draw LOS from where it attaches to the tank.




Eric

JohnHwangDD wrote:It has long been my contention that the Defiler is only as large as the central hull, and that legs / barrels / whatever don't matter. It would be equally valid to mount a battlecannon on a Dreadnought and call that a Defiler. Also, the vertical Defiler robots are especially clever.

In the spirit of fair play, if I can see you, you can see me. If I can shoot at you, you can shoot at me. Very simple.

By the rules, you take LOS to the weapon mount (i.e. where it attaches to the hull), not the furthest extremity. So long barrels confer no advantage in range, nor disadvantage in being targeted. It means that you can't use a corner of a tank to shoot at something - the weapon itself would have to be part of the LOS.

Note that LOS is not the same as range. The barrel itself is irrelevant. If it's a foot-long barrel, that's fine, but that's just for show. You should still be measuring range from the hull.

So to clarify: the firing line takes LOS from where the weapon attaches, but range is measured along that line from the hull.

Objectively I agree with you entirely and want to play this way. But people HATE defilers and will do anything they can and quote every rule possible to blow them up. It's too bad that every other ordinance toting model in the game is modeled so well, and then they go and make the defiler occupy more los area than a land raider.

MagickalMemories wrote:You could have a 2' barrel on it, but you still only draw LOS from where it attaches to the tank.

But as per the FAQ, that 2' long barrel does give you a range advantage.

So your Predator with a 2' long Autocannon can find itself able to shoot at an opposing stock Predator which would be out of range for returning fire...

>>It's completely obvious then that shooting at spikes is not permitted. However the sentence "Line of sight must be traced to the body of the target model." is what bothers me. If you go by a strict interpretation of this rule it means that heads, legs and arms cannot even be shot at.

I don't know about American English but in British English the body of a human includes the limbs and head as well as the torso. There is a criminal offence of "grievious bodily harm" which means breaking someone's bones. You don't get charged differently if the bones are in the foot or the chest.

Kilkrazy wrote:>>It's completely obvious then that shooting at spikes is not permitted. However the sentence "Line of sight must be traced to the body of the target model." is what bothers me. If you go by a strict interpretation of this rule it means that heads, legs and arms cannot even be shot at.

I don't know about American English but in British English the body of a human includes the limbs and head as well as the torso. There is a criminal offence of "grievious bodily harm" which means breaking someone's bones. You don't get charged differently if the bones are in the foot or the chest.

Bodily in that context is, I think, a legal term, and does not mean the same thing necessarily. There exist legal dictionaries that have to define the terms in a legal context for clarity when dealing with law spesifically.

I think you have to take into account that the rule is talking about body even in the context of a tank body. And who is to say which parts of the tank body are the limbs? The legal definition doesnt fit the games definition, it's another contradiction in a long list.

insaniak wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:You could have a 2' barrel on it, but you still only draw LOS from where it attaches to the tank.

But as per the FAQ, that 2' long barrel does give you a range advantage.

So your Predator with a 2' long Autocannon can find itself able to shoot at an opposing stock Predator which would be out of range for returning fire...

If GW wants to change the rules, that's fine. If someone wants to play that way, I have no problem making models with telescoping barrels.

But really, I'd simply rather pack up and not play them.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But really, I'd simply rather pack up and not play them.

I'd rather have rules that either didn't allow this sort of silliness, or at least kept it consistent.

If range is measured from the muzzle of the weapon, then it should also be fine to measure range to the vehicle to the muzzle of the weapon.

I'm just quite confuzzled as to what issues they thought they were solving with this FAQ, and how they overlooked the fact that it creates more issues than it resolves.

Nothing to see here. I appear to be replying to my own posts now... Must be time for more coffee.

insaniak wrote:
If range is measured from the muzzle of the weapon, then it should also be fine to measure range to the vehicle to the muzzle of the weapon.

Agreed. What I insist on, which I suppose is my version of house rules, is that you measure from where you deploy. So when you deploy your Pred you're lining the chasis up with the deployment zone, > 24" from your opponent. You measure range to and from your Pred (or your hammer head or your whatever from the front of the chassis). LOS is measured from sponsons/turrets but range is measured from the chasis. It's just easier, it also lines up w/ firing arcs.

I also use 1" styrofoam hills. One layer is Size 1, two layers is Size 2, three layers is Size 3. Vehicles are Size 3, Infantry are (I believe) Size 2. Same size blocks LOS, one size less is hull down, infantry within 1" get a 5+. When lining up close combat standing in front of the plateau/strata/whatever-it's called counts as base-to-base, which I suppose makes charges a little easier (maybe save an inch). Which is why you're not supposed to stand around on hills :p. Note that by this I believe we also say that Rhinos are not infinite cylinders blocking LOS to everything behind eg Monoliths altho it would be at least hull down.

The 'inistence' comes from past arguments involving D-Cannons which we don't have to get into. . Basically it links range to deployment which paralells infantry. We also had some third ed issues involving Wraithlords and extra long bright lances which I believe have long since been cleared up in the official rules at least once if not twice. Same as infantry, measure from the base which is also how you deploy.

It doesn't help that I have little patience and need such minuitae explained to me ad-nauseum .

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:But really, I'd simply rather pack up and not play them.

I'd rather have rules that either didn't allow this sort of silliness, or at least kept it consistent.

I'm just quite confuzzled as to what issues they thought they were solving with this FAQ, and how they overlooked the fact that it creates more issues than it resolves.

GW has a history of FAQ'ing things up into a royal mess when the underlying rules are perfectly clear and good.

IMO, I think that yes with vehicles its to the hull. With walkers, to the base, the only time i have a problem is with Chaos defilers. PPl say that only the "Hull" of it counts, NOT the legs. I think this is BS personally. This makes a defiler smaller than the size of a sentinel, but can out perform a basilisk (ALMOST). The reason its an issue is cause it does not come with a base, even though its a walker. I think a circular area should be established for a defiler or the legs should count. The legs are a MAJOR part of the walker in that case. If one gets blown off it makes sense the thing is immobilised or destroyed. Are YOUR legs not part of YOUR body. Its not the same at shooting at an antenna or tip of a barrel of a tank or the wings of a daemon prince, I think its different. They try to argue this just so other ordinance like my bassy cant hit it unless it deviates less than 1". So now the defiler is a MUCh smaller target. Nobody likes to play it that way so I usually just agree that the legs do not count even though I hate to.

smart_alex wrote:IMO, I think that yes with vehicles its to the hull. With walkers, to the base, the only time i have a problem is with Chaos defilers. PPl say that only the "Hull" of it counts, NOT the legs. I think this is BS personally. This makes a defiler smaller than the size of a sentinel, but can out perform a basilisk (ALMOST). The reason its an issue is cause it does not come with a base, even though its a walker. I think a circular area should be established for a defiler or the legs should count. The legs are a MAJOR part of the walker in that case. If one gets blown off it makes sense the thing is immobilised or destroyed. Are YOUR legs not part of YOUR body. Its not the same at shooting at an antenna or tip of a barrel of a tank or the wings of a daemon prince, I think its different. They try to argue this just so other ordinance like my bassy cant hit it unless it deviates less than 1". So now the defiler is a MUCh smaller target. Nobody likes to play it that way so I usually just agree that the legs do not count even though I hate to.

By my logic, Defilers deploy at the legs and can use their legs to determine assault range, and therefore the legs count as part of the chassis and are used for measuring. Further convincing, you can always compare the legs to tracks on a tank.

smart_alex wrote:I think a circular area should be established for a defiler or the legs should count. The legs are a MAJOR part of the walker in that case. If one gets blown off it makes sense the thing is immobilised or destroyed.

Compared with a 2-legged Dreadnought, if either leg is destroyed, the Dreadnought falls over. If a 2-track Tank throws one, it's stuck. But a Defiler?

A Defiler has 4 legs and 2 arms that can be used like legs to support its weight. To stand it only needs 3 legs, and even then, it can still move (ever see a 3-legged dog?). So if it loses a leg, or two, it'll be fine. If you were to pull a couple legs off a bug, it still moves OK. And that's assuming the leg is blown off entirely. If it's only partly blown off, just shortened, then there's much less impact yet again. So based on "Fluff", I'd say that there is an equally strong (if not stronger) argument that Defilers legs don't matter too much for damage.

Tacobake wrote:By my logic, Defilers deploy at the legs and can use their legs to determine assault range, and therefore the legs count as part of the chassis and are used for measuring.

Further convincing, you can always compare the legs to tracks on a tank.

If the legs don't count, they don't count. If they do, they do. The point is that the player needs to be consistent. Saying that legs can count, and then concluding that they would count proves nothing. You could make the same argument with the barrel of a Basilisk and draw the same conclusion.

See above. Unless that tank has multiple sets of tracks in parallel, if it loses a track, it's stuck. A walker with multiple sets of legs can be mobile even if it loses one or two legs.

Taco bake wrote:By my logic, Defilers deploy at the legs and can use their legs to determine assault range, and therefore the legs count as part of the chassis and are used for measuring. Further convincing, you can always compare the legs to tracks on a tank.

Dammit this dredges up even more stuff. There is so much contradiction in the rulebook you basically need to write up how you interpret things and then present it to your opponent before the game starts. Or meet with tournament organizers and get clarity beforehand. I think that is really the only way to decide things in advance.

As for your argument that you can target a defilers legs, you can take a normal dread, put a battle cannon on top of it, and call it a defiler. So treating it the same size as a dreadnought is probably pretty kosher imo, and a good argument for only being able to target the central chassis. I really want to ditch the defilers legs and central chassis and give it a different locomotion system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:A Defiler has 4 legs and 2 arms that can be used like legs to support its weight. To stand it only needs 3 legs, and even then, it can still move (ever see a 3-legged dog?). So if it loses a leg, or two, it'll be fine. If you were to pull a couple legs off a bug, it still moves OK. And that's assuming the leg is blown off entirely. If it's only partly blown off, just shortened, then there's much less impact yet again. So based on "Fluff", I'd say that there is an equally strong (if not stronger) argument that Defilers legs don't matter too much for damage.

See above. Unless that tank has multiple sets of tracks in parallel, if it loses a track, it's stuck. A walker with multiple sets of legs can be mobile even if it loses one or two legs.

This is an area where the 3e rules were way better than the current ones, ofc smaller stuff like bikes also used vehicle rules where they don't anymore. That was probably the only part of the 3e rules that were really cool.

I've gone full circle on this one, but the way I see it now... if you measure movement, shooting range, and assault range/contact from a certain point on a model, then that point should be the same for LOS.


For a Defiler, if you want to say that if it assaults, you only have to measure the distance from the front legs, then it should be the legs that count for LoS... if you want to only use the central body part for LoS, then you should have to use that point when you measure for assault distance. Otherwise you are simply using whatever part of the model suits your purposes the most, which is unfair to the opposing player. Ie... "you can't shoot me cause all you can see are my legs, however even though the only part of me you can fire at is 8" away, my legs stick out 3" more so I can assault you!"

And when talking about LoS here, I'm talking about someone else targetting the Defiler.... Shooting From the Defiler should be measured the same as a walker.

Keeping in mind this is YMDC, note that I'm not saying this is RAW or even RAI, I'm just saying how I play it. Ranges are all based on deployment, which means that everything is based on some sort of base, just like Warmachine/Hordes. Defilers don't have bases they have legs and arms that count as part of the chassis.

Note that I still use sponsons and turrets to measure LOS, but not range. Range is measured from the chassis, LOS is measured from the gun. This corresponds to pictures of firing arcs in the rule book.

Everything is kosher so long as you agree before hand and don't change from one circumstance to the next.

insaniak wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:You could have a 2' barrel on it, but you still only draw LOS from where it attaches to the tank.

But as per the FAQ, that 2' long barrel does give you a range advantage.

So your Predator with a 2' long Autocannon can find itself able to shoot at an opposing stock Predator which would be out of range for returning fire...

I said it wouldn't affect LOS. I didn't say anything about range.
-Plus, I was referring to the Basilisk he mentioned, not a Predator.


You're changing the facts surrounding my quote.
I don't argue your point... but you misused my quote.

Eric

Whispre wrote:if you measure movement, shooting range, and assault range/contact from a certain point on a model, then that point should be the same for LOS.

For a Defiler, if you want to say that if it assaults, you only have to measure the distance from the front legs, then it should be the legs that count for LoS... if you want to only use the central body part for LoS, then you should have to use that point when you measure for assault distance.

Totally agreed that the model should be handled consistently to be fair!

There are a few misconceptions and inaccuracies running free in this thread. I’m going to try to clean them up a bit.

Re: Determining range and LOS in general-
In the main book, for a non-vehicle model, you draw LOS to and from the body of the model, and measure range to and from the base. Nice and simple. For vehicles it’s a bit more complex. You draw LOS from the weapon mount, and you measure range to and from the base if it has one, or the hull if it doesn’t.

The main rulebook FAQ modified both of these things.

First, it changed range for non-based vehicles so that it’s measured from the WEAPON, rather than the hull, to make it more consistent with LOS being determined from the weapon mount. Unfortunately this does open the possibility of modeling long-barrelled guns to increase range, but I think it’s more intuitive.

Second, it clarified that Walkers are the only vehicles which have bases that matter in game terms (skimmer bases don’t count).

Re: Defilers in specific-

A big portion of our issues with Defilers come from the fact that almost no one puts their Defiler on a base, which by rights it really should be. The main reason, I think, is practicality. It doesn’t come with one, and beyond that, the thing has such a large footprint that any base which can contain the legs will be difficult to fit in amongst terrain.

There is a certain degree of genuine ambiguity about the meaning of “body” in the quote about LOS. That said, the sentence that follows: “This rule is intended to ensure that players don't get penalized for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, spectacularly posed models, etc”, I think is fairly clear that only trivial portions and bits sticking out for dramatic effect are ignored.

In the case of a Defiler, the legs are not trivial. They’re a major part of the mass of the model. They’re also the only practical way to measure assault distances. To assault any other portion, the legs would usually be in the way! They matter from a rules perspective; they’re not a purely decorative item like a spike or a banner. So for consistency, I think you have to be able to shoot at them.

Re: The “body” of other vehicles-

Similarly, I don’t think you can easily say that a big gun barrel or turret of a tank can be dismissed as not being “the body” of the vehicle. These are parts of the tank that serve a practical in-game function. Again, they’re not banners. They’re important systems. Along the lines of the “if you can see me, I can see you” concept espoused by a couple of the previous posters, I think consistency should incline us to allow fire at the guns and the turrets. “Body” is a bit ambiguous, and the best way to read/interpret it is probably NOT the one which would allow one vehicle to peek over a hill or another tank with its turret and fire without fear of return shots at said turret.

Probably the best post I've seen on the subject... Kudos Mannahnin

Asmodai wrote:

insaniak wrote:The vehicle rules in the rulebook state that you measure range from the hull and LOS from the weapon mount.

Which only leaves the issue of what counts as 'hull' and what counts as extra bits, just as we have for LOS.

The rulebook FAQ for some unknown reason ruled that this supposedly created issues and so changed measurement to the weapon instead of the hull.

Which does indeed allow you to model longer barrels for extra range, and results in all sorts of sitations where you can shoot at something that can't shoot back.

Doesn't this create a weird situation with Basilisks?

You need to draw line of sight to the body (e.g. Chimera hull) to shoot at it. On the other hand, you draw line of sight from the Earthshaker cannon, which probably extends well over any intervening terrain, etc.

Gaming wise (not rules) the easiest is just count everything (LOS and distance) from the gun mount. Problems solved. Rulewise its ok, especially if you using a standard weapon.

I concur

Mannahnin wrote:Re: Defilers in specific-

A big portion of our issues with Defilers come from the fact that almost no one puts their Defiler on a base, which by rights it really should be.

Well-put!

However, I will note that your commentary is based on the presumption that the 40k FAQ is somehow better-tested, and therefore more authoritative than the rulebook or actual Defiler model as-shipped.

If the FAQ were indeed authoritiative, then one would have to conclude that the Defiler kits were produced and shipped as "incomplete", and are "defective" to this day. Therefore, much like Terminators, the onus would be upon GW to rectify their faulty product and provide the necessary, correctly-sized bases. Until such time as GW (or my opponents) inclines to provide (gratis, of course) the "missing" bases that ought to have been included in the Defiler model kits, we are going to have issues here.

Considering that the 40k FAQ *contradicts* the rulebook in a number of places, I wouldn't necessarily agree that the FAQ is a proper override of the rulebook. I would treat the FAQ as informative and advisory, but non-authoritative, akin to what might get when calling GW's infamous Droolzboyz.

MagickalMemories wrote:You're changing the facts surrounding my quote.
I don't argue your point... but you misused my quote.

I wasn't arguing your point either. Merely pointing out that while it doesn't affect LOS, it does affect range.