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.

Wait a minute I think Yak has a point. It says MODELS block line of sight. Not the UNIT blocks line of sight. DIFFERENCE? The difference is that if the unit were not in combat then a unit behind it could fire no matter what. RAW now the MODELS block line of sight, so a unit behind must shoot IN BETWEEN the other models that are not involved in the so called swirling melee. Notice it does not say the the gaps in between the models block line of sight it says the MODELS, not the unit the MODELS. So if there is a one inch gap through which to shoot I can shoot. Good point.

I can point to a model not involved in the swirling combat and say yes he blocks line of sight now. Where is he (Point to model) say "he is there". Point to gap and say "IS he here?" Answer "No he is not there" SO I can shoot through there as there is no model to block line of sight.

I should try this and see how it goes. I think I will. This totally will change my dynamics.  Awsome. 

Insaniak already did a bang-up job of refuting your argument, but I'll just mention that there are a few units that are comprised of models of differing sizes:

Tomb Spyders (size 3) are part of the unit with the Scarab swarms (size 1) they create.

Hive Tyrants (size 3) are part of the unit with their Tyrant Guard (size 2).

Chaos Lords with Daemonic Stature (size 3) and a Chosen retinue (size 2).


I'm sure there are a few more, but that's all I can think of right now.

@Smart_Alex, this is the kind of flawed reasoning that leads players to not enjoy playing games with you.

The fact that you cannot seem to understand what EVERY OTHER poster in this thread understands is amazing to me.

If I have to play you in the upcoming league playoffs, PLEASE do not attempt this type of tactic in our game.

Well where does it say the unit blocks line of site. Or that the gaps block line of sight. I don't see it anywhere. THe size two and three only mean that if all models in the combat are size 2 a lemann russ (size 3) could shoot at anything no matter what. If a daemon prince joined the combat the leman russ would now have to shoot in between models whereas before it did not. I dont see how the reasoning is flawed. It says models block line of sight, not combat blocks line of sight, not the unit blocks line of sight, not the gaps block line of sight, not "This is what they meant" blocks line of sight. people in here like to argue RAW rules. Here is one, so why are people trying to change it. most people in the league would say no shooting thats becuase most people's armies in the league are assault based. No surprise there. Even people with shooty armies in the league are armies with low numbers in which case a unit of 20 or 50 wont block anything anyways because they dont exist in power armies.


Since people are confused here is what the rules say AS WRITTEN.
(THere is an argument in the rules that could possibly contradict what I am going to write but I will address that at the end).

Page 20 rulebook:

All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, MC and artillery, friend or fow block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or PAST such models but not THROUGH them. Usa a model's eye view to determine if you can see PAST them. SKimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked.

MODELS engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the model's height matters (See page 7) If the model is doing the spotting or the model being spotted is taller than the tallest model in close combat then the line of sight is not blocked.

At first my arguement was the whole participating models thing. That was wrong. The entire unit is said to be locked. So the MODELS do block LOS. I thought this was over, end of story.

THen yak brought up the point that it says MODELS block line of sight. It does not say the COMBAT blocks line of sight. It says the models. WHich would require one to shoot in between them now where as before you could fire through them.

THe only arguement is this. This will now open up a can of worms probably like the the insta killing overheat on plasma but:

ALSO on page 20 at the end of the first paragraph....

...In some cases it will be difficult to tell if LOS is blocked or not, so player might have to stoop over the table for a model;s 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 LOS into or past terrain (...), or an onging assaut combat-this is dealt with later.

hmm....Now here is where the can of worms is opened. RAW it says not to use 'stoop down and use models eye view' method. That is what RAW says. We all should agree on that. It does NOT say i cannot use a laser pointer to find LOS through the models as MANY players have done to me with the whole "the laser hits the corner tread of your leman russ sticking out through terrain". I did NOT complain or say anything. The laser hits so the shot may be taken. I say the same applies here. Here would be where sports comes into play. Some say this is bad sports some say overpowered lists are bad sports. To each his own. RAW is what we argue here.

While the rules as written are discussed here, that doesn't always mean you should go out and expect your games should always be played to that standard.

Playing strictly by the rules as written leads to some rather absurd situations.

So while you are correct that LOS may be drawn between models locked in combat, the actual implementation of that ruling is much more difficult as you will likely have to spend some time determining which models in the firing unit can see which models in the target unit.

Also, I would say that the majority of players intuitively play this situation as the entire combat blocking LOS, which means you will have to explain/argue with most of your opponents in order to utilize this rule.

In short, this is probably one of those RAW situations (like fleeting in your opponents shooting phase) that is best left here on the forums.

Ahh. Concession: the entire CC is treated as being the height of the biggest creature involved in the CC. So, yes, if a size 3 model is fighting, the entire CC is size 3. And furthermore, in my example on the hills, the ENTIRE unit of size 2 troops becomes a unit of size 3 because of the size 3 hill some of them are on.

Insaniac is right that this is (in part) an assumption:

The area terrain bit at the end is the assumption, but it is an assumption informed by several facts:
Page 7 under Model Height says that just because a troop is modeled on his knees or even laying down he is still size 2, you don't use his actual literal height.
Page 7 says the three size categories are the only ones important for determining LOS.
Page 7 says "All you need to remember is that if a n observer OR the observed is of a greater height category than anything in the way [the CC] then it has a clear line of sight."
     That implies that if the size requirements are NOT met, there is no LOS.
Page 20 LOS says the best way to determine LOS is to bend down and get a good model's eye view of the action, UNLESS you're drawing LOS into or past Area Terrain or an ongoing assault combat, in which case you MUST USE A DIFFERENT METHOD.
     That implies that CCs and Area Terrain have some correlation to each other.  It also flat out states that you don't eyeball through CC.
Page 21 mentions that players should not be penalized for having dynamic custom models or large pointy bits that stick off in odd directions.

IF you don't use the actual literal model to determine LOS;
IF the size category is the relevant factor;
And IF "Models in CC block LOS up to the height [category] of the participating models,
Then the entire CC blocks LOS up to the height of the tallest model.

Therefore, for LOS purposes, the CC can be treated like a piece of area terrain of height X bound on the left and right by the limits of the CC itself. For LOS purposes, it is not a group of individual models (which can be posed in a variety of different manners) but instead an area of height X through which you cannot see or shoot.  That's why the "swirling melee" blurb is relevant:  the CC is a large mass of blurred motion, in which you cannot pinpoint any individual model, much less shoot through the gaps that happen to be present because this is a turn-based game and not actually animatronic miniatures fighting each other in real time (God wouldn't THAT be cool!).  That's also the same reason you're not allowed to shoot AT models in a CC:  it's not possible to pick out individuals amidst the chaos.

If your squad of snipers who are modeled on their bellies is in CC, you cannot draw LOS over their backs unless the shooter or the target is bigger than size 2.

You cannot LOS through a CC for the same reason you cannot LOS through a forrest--Just because I can actually see through the gaps between the six trees that are literally there doesn't mean I have LOS through the forrest.  That's why CC is like Area Terrain. 

Just because it's an assumption doesn't make it wrong.

Smart_Alex: no. Do not change your dynamics.

And yakface, the 'unanswered question' was rhetorical--thank you for providing examples.

Posted By Lost_Boys on 11/05/2006 6:53 AM
what was that pete haines comment out of curiousity?

Any basket of eggs that have two wounds each have a lot going for them?

Incidently, in this example, if the unit that engaged all those conscripts was a Monstrous creature, then does the combat block LoS for size 3 models just where the Monstrous creatue is standing, or for the entire combat?

According to the current line of reasoning: A monstrous creature always blocks line of sight, and when a monstrous creature is in CC the entire CC is treated as size 3.

I think the principle problem with this whole situation is the twisting of RAW to gain an advantage from ambiguous rules.  Language, especially legal language, is made to convey a certain meaning, but if it is not constructed with the utmost care can lead to misunderstandings, hence Lawyers.  We could spend all day (and we do) arguing about how locked and pinned relate to models and units, but the goal of this forum is to clarify ambiguous situations so that our games can run more smoothly.

Yakface makes a good point about intuitive rules play.  Smart alex, you can make this claim but you would have to fight like hell for it against just about everyone.  Is it worth it?

Having a line of unbreakable conscripts that function like a net is all well and good, but it seems like you are really reaching into some gray areas just so you can have your cake and eat it too.  The idea you can shoot through gaps between your models goes against the resoning for why it is possible to see through your own units.  If the shooters "conduct their firing at a convenient moment when their compatriots aren't in the way" then a line of locked men making an involuntary pile in movement seems like it might be hard to shoot through. Determining individual LOS slows the game down immensely, and must have been part of the reason all of the 4th ed LOS rules were introduced.  Players got tired of all the ridiculous LOS shennanigans that people were abusing. 

There's no grey at all. Models locked in combat block LOS. The space between them does not.

People can feel free to play it that it does, but when you encounter someone that doesn't, know he's right and you're wrong.

 

Posted By Ferro on 12/06/2006 12:01 AM
IF you don't use the actual literal model to determine LOS;
IF the size category is the relevant factor;

There are actually two relevant factors when using Sizes for LOS instead of true LOS. That's the model's Size, and the model's base... because when the Sizes kick in, the model is defined by those two things. It forms a cylinder the width of it's base, up to its height.

When in combat, that is changed slightly, because the entire combat counts as the height of the tallest model participating... so each model is now defined by the width of its base and the height of the tallest model.

But while all models in the combat are defined in that way, it is still the models, not the combat, that blocks LOS.

Posted By Ferro on 12/06/2006 12:01 AM
And IF "Models in CC block LOS up to the height [category] of the participating models,
Then the entire CC blocks LOS up to the height of the tallest model.

Those two statements aren't actually automatically linked.

The rules very clearly state that it is the models, not the unit, and not the combat, that blocks LOS.

Looking at my office wall as an example, if I say that bricks block LOS, that doesn't automatically mean that the entire wall blocks LOS... I can still see out the window. It's only the bricks that block the LOS.



Having said that, as Yakface pointed out, most players do seem to treat the combat pretty much like area terrain, and don't peek through the gaps.

Well stated, Insaniac. I must agree that the RAW rules can be interpreted as you represent them.

But to actually try to play that way will be difficult on many levels. Good debate.
-Ferro