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.

Is it within the 5th ed rules to model units taller than they actually are? With true los in 5th something that is just modeled a little differently than normal is denying cover saves or a particularly squat model is giving everything and it's brother a cover save.

I really, really, really hate true los in 5th. Everyone at my FLGS says it's wonderful, but they don't play marines or run any high AP weapons. So everything I'm shooting at with those plasma guns and plasma cannons are getting cover saves. I'm getting hosed really badly, I've thought about just shelving my CSM until the next edition and picking up Chaos Demons. Because they generally don't shoot, I could just have them DS in and go straight to CC. My other idea is to be TFG and model all my CSM with a 3' or 4' high "chaos-y neck" so they can see over stuff.

Typeline wrote: Is it within the 5th ed rules to model units taller than they actually are?

It's been within the rules for the last 20 years and 4 editions.

True LOS isn't the big horror change that so many are making it out to be. Most of the game rules have always relied on true LOS. It's been possible to abuse the rules with 'creative' modeling in every single version of the game to date. While it would be nice if GW were to come out with some sort of concrete rules to govern it, in practice it's generally self-policed by gamers. Most people simply don't do it.

If the people you're playing are building their models in a way you see as abusive, then you either need to discuss it with them and come to some sort of agreement on how you play, or find other opponents who play with a more similar mindset to your own.

Add more marines with basic weapons.

Small elite forces are no longer the norm.

Unfortunate, yet true.

... Oops. Double post.

insaniak wrote:

Typeline wrote: Is it within the 5th ed rules to model units taller than they actually are?

It's been within the rules for the last 20 years and 4 editions.

That's what confuses me, too. It's really no different to 4th edition (and 3rd edition, and 2nd edition...), with the exception of infantry now providing cover saves to models behind them and that's it. Unless Magic Cylinder is more prevalent than we realise?

Likewise. As long as I've played (start of 3rd edition) you've always used 'true' line of sight except in a few specific cases so what's the big deal about it with 5th edition?

DeathGod wrote:I'll give you guys an example of what the OP is worrying about, from a mouthbreathing hobby-wrecker who plays at a nearby LGS (notice I lef the 'F' out...). Paraphrasing:

"I can't wait to make my new chaos army for 5th edition. I am going to put the bendy part of bendy straws on my marines so that I can raise their necks on my turn and get an unobstructed shooting phase, then drop them back down during the opponents turn so I get my cover save when he shoots back."

This isn't an example of creative modeling causing problems.
This is an example of someone talking about creative modeling that will cause problems.

There's quite often a very, very large divide between the two.

And as you pointed out yourself, the obvious answer if he does actually go ahead with the aforementioned conversion is to simply refuse to play against that army.

Problem solved... in exactly the same way that it has been getting solved for the last 20 years.

DeathGod wrote:The issue here being that true LOS is drawn from the "model's eyes," EDITED by MOD

And yet again he could have done the same thing a decade ago when 3rd edition came out and possibly even before that. So what if 'true' line of sight is drawn from the model's eyes? 'True' line of sight has been in use for at least a decade. Have you ever seen anyone raise the eye level on their models just to gain an advantage. So once again, 'true' line of sight was used in 3rd edition. 'True' line of sight was used in 4th edition. 'True' line of sight will be used in 5th edition. So what's the big deal? It is not a new mechanic for determining line of sight.

I agree with Ghaz and Insaniak fully here.

I just don't get it. Every single edition of 40K has used the model's eye view as the main basis for line of sight and every single edition has had some major advantages available to players who used creative modeling to their advantage in a variety of different ways.

Very few people (if any) actually take the time to gain a huge advantage with modeling and I don't see why this new edition will suddenly change anything.


And as for someone changing the shape of their models during the game, there isn't anything in the rules that allows them to do that, so it would most certainly not be a permissible thing for a player to do.

Changing models during a game I have never seen, but the rest I have. Crouching "you name it", mostly CC creatures but some others too. Long piped tanks, huge banners and extras on things. It was worse before with scenic bases that covered whole armies(usually on an etheral creature in fantasy) but at least that part is gone now.

The big problem isnt when playing casually cause you can actually just pack up and leave but in a tournament it can cause massive problems. Hard to tell how to solve it there tough.

Kallbrand wrote: Hard to tell how to solve it there tough.

That's really down to the tournament organiser.

As its already been stated many times, TLOS has been used by every past edition for determining whether or not you can see the unit in question.

Although I see the problem that he's talking about but I've never seen it abused to that kind of absurdity. (SP?) However, what about the opposite? A GW model that is larger or posted up on something and makes it taller or bigger than it really is?

I'll give an example, the new 'Nid Zoanthrope sits on top of a 'Nid pylon tip thats sticking out of the groud because it hovers above the ground and we all know you can't make it hover in reality so its just the base connector. However this makes him tower over almost all other troops minus the Tyrant, Fex, and a couple other assorted models the army has. Would it be plausible to say remove that extra 'Nid pylon peice and lower him like 1/3-half an inch? Or would that be seen as to much of an advantage? I mean I'm sure he still gets the +4 cover save with gaunts or stealers in front of him as they move across the board but just not sure since he does stagger above the other units.

Side note, does the Fex get the +4 cover save when behind gaunts or stealers, etc. Or does its MC attribute negate that and make him the big target all MEQ armies love to pop-off Las cannon shots at?

I do realize that TLOS has been in the other editions of the game. In addition to the modeling thing I guess it's bothering me more than it did in 4th because there are just a lot of people doing this "Oh lets see if he has LOS!" and puts his head on the table to try to get his eye level with the mini's eyes. I feel like it's ridiculous. I just think the rules at this point are a little ridiculous with true los. I remember in 4th just saying most of the time "My guys can drawn a line to your guys from their bases without hitting anything, no cover" and if the opposite was true I was fine with that too. But now people are all moving terrain to see if their guys can actually "see" his.

Mod mode on

I've modified a few posts.
Poster is irrelevant. Lets discuss the actual topic people
"My other idea is ...model all my CSM with a 3' or 4' high "chaos-y neck" so they can see over stuff. "

Mod mode off

JFRAZ mode. I hope there are no issues with height. It would impede conversions. Historically its not been an issue for moi as I usually have the conversion at the same height or something on the conversion that is the height of the regular model/weapon mount for use as a reference.

you might want to change your tactics.

Fexor wrote:I'll give an example, the new 'Nid Zoanthrope sits on top of a 'Nid pylon tip thats sticking out of the groud because it hovers above the ground and we all know you can't make it hover in reality so its just the base connector.

To my understanding of 5th ed LoS rules, a Monstrous Creature has to be half-obscured in order to benefit from a cover save, and all models must be mounted on the orignal GW base (although this has room for interpretation since you can mount on larger-than-original with no problem, but your cut down would arguably make it smaller than original).

So a Zoanthrope straight out of the box would almost never get cover saves from basic Tyranid troops, area terrain except forests, and only rather tall building/ruin terrain.

The real change in the new LOS rules for 5th is that models out of LOS can be killed if at least one model in the unit is in LOS. This makes it much harder to do things like hiding a squad behind a transport. If one leg or arm can be clipped by a laser pointer then the entire squad can still be killed. This won't encourage me to modify my infantry models, but it may convince me to modify my transport vehicles so that they have a larger profile to act as mobile LOS blockers.

sourclams wrote:

Fexor wrote:I'll give an example, the new 'Nid Zoanthrope sits on top of a 'Nid pylon tip thats sticking out of the groud because it hovers above the ground and we all know you can't make it hover in reality so its just the base connector.

To my understanding of 5th ed LoS rules, a Monstrous Creature has to be half-obscured in order to benefit from a cover save, and all models must be mounted on the orignal GW base (although this has room for interpretation since you can mount on larger-than-original with no problem, but your cut down would arguably make it smaller than original).

So a Zoanthrope straight out of the box would almost never get cover saves from basic Tyranid troops, area terrain except forests, and only rather tall building/ruin terrain.

Well you see Zoanthropes are "not" Monstrous Creatures, at least according to the newest Codex I have, which is the newest one I've seen to date. So it shouldn't really stick out over the to much from the normal troops for that comparison. However, the model itself is fairly 'tall', and with the new TLOS rules in 5th edition I was wondering if just taking that pylon off which really isn't that much of a change in height would more accurately reflect its actual visible profile.

But that did answer my question about the Carnifex's though, since the lesser models (baring the exceptions) won't cover more than half of the MC it doesn't get the +4 cover save.

I wish I had a picture to show you the little tip I'm talking about with the new Zoanthrope models but I don't have one at work. :S

I have yet to see or read a 5th edition book. So can you draw line of sight to any part of the targeted model, base included?

I know LOS has been used forever, but I still believe area terrain made the game faster, and removed a lot of the tension of deciding LOS/cover saves.

Here’s my thinking on this issue.

IIRC the 5th ed. book makes a distinction between firing through a unit and over it also through terrain or over it. This suggests to me that regardless of TLOS if the fire(Bullets, shells, lasers, etc) would pass through one of these things on it’s path, or if the majority of the models in the target squad are completely out of view from the firing unit, then the target unit gains a cover save(variable dependant on the type of cover). So I don’t care if your CSM has a 15 inch neck, you can see me, if it’s on one side of an area of trees and I’m on the other, your firing lane gives me a cover save.

To me the elevation is an important consideration. Also, I think these things are mostly reciprocal. If I get no cover save from you, most times you shouldn’t get a cover save from me. And in the “bendy crazy neck” situation, I would tell my opponent I was fine with either, but it’s the same unobstructed LOS when I fire at him.

It may be folly but I look and LOS and Line of Fire as slightly different.

A note on the Zoie. A Zoanthrope is not a monstrous creature, hence they only need any part of the model to be hidden, and it can gain the “wall of gaunts” cover save.

@Datajax: Thanks for the clarification I wasn't entirely sure on that because it was sounding like if you could see it without any obstruction than it didn't get the cover save. I was just worried thats it's extra height, due to the 'pylon part', would make it seem as if it wasn't obstructed.

Thanks again.

methoderik wrote:I have yet to see or read a 5th edition book. So can you draw line of sight to any part of the targeted model, base included?

I know LOS has been used forever, but I still believe area terrain made the game faster, and removed a lot of the tension of deciding LOS/cover saves.

No. Line of sight must be drawn to the head, legs, torso of the model (this is defined as the model's body, which is what you must see to draw LOS to it). Backpacks, weapons, antennae, wings, etc all are all not considered viable parts of the model's body when trying to draw LOS to them.

Again, what this all boils down to is:

How much of a is someone willing to be in order to gain an advantage?

Funny thing is, most people who suck at 40k are more than willing, but they lack the talent and usually their abominable "conversions" are indeed self-policed out.

So the reality is, most extreme models that might cause problems are...well, they are created by the converter crowd.

I haven't met one yet that I haven't steamrolled. Artists do not make good generals!

Don't worry about "creative" modeling. I haven't seen a creative model win a GW GT--ever. Sadly I have seen battleforce armies win...which makes me cry.

If its body are we still at the ambiguity of V4? (does body mean arms and legs as well).

Actually, it would be neat to see a list of Close Encounters long neck type minis. The conversation would be priceless"
"Yes, my marines with their goose heads can see over the wall at your marines."
"Thats ok, they get 4+ cover from that other unit's forest of heads."

jfrazell wrote:If its body are we still at the ambiguity of V4? (does body mean arms and legs as well).

Actually, it would be neat to see a list of Close Encounters long neck type minis. The conversation would be priceless"
"Yes, my marines with their goose heads can see over the wall at your marines."
"Thats ok, they get 4+ cover from that other unit's forest of heads."

No, the rulebook defines a model's "body" in v5 as its head, torso, legs and arms.

Another quite good one would be to model units larger in order to give your MCs coversave easier. Like huge gaunts helping the Tyrants.

Typeline wrote: In addition to the modeling thing I guess it's bothering me more than it did in 4th because there are just a lot of people doing this "Oh lets see if he has LOS!" and puts his head on the table to try to get his eye level with the mini's eyes.

But, again, that's the way we've always drawn LOS in 40K. The 4th edition rulebook even specifically tells you to do it... It's not some new thing for 5th.

I remember in 4th just saying most of the time "My guys can drawn a line to your guys from their bases without hitting anything, no cover" and if the opposite was true I was fine with that too.

If that's the way you choose to play, that's up to you. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to use the same house rule in 5th.

yakface wrote:

jfrazell wrote:If its body are we still at the ambiguity of V4? (does body mean arms and legs as well).

Actually, it would be neat to see a list of Close Encounters long neck type minis. The conversation would be priceless"
"Yes, my marines with their goose heads can see over the wall at your marines."
"Thats ok, they get 4+ cover from that other unit's forest of heads."

No, the rulebook defines a model's "body" in v5 as its head, torso, legs and arms.

Thanks Yakmeister