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.

The same as they were the first time this discussion came up: the rules are contradictory. The rules say one thing in one place, and they say another, incompatable thing in another place. Both readings are valid, and they disagree with each other. The question cannot be answered from the rules as written.

Posted By Jancoran on 03/14/2007 7:04 PM
Did you bother to read how they refer to the size categories there?  I did!

So you would have noticed then that the only one that mentions the Size categories is the one dealing with Area Terrain...

Sounds to me like Jancoran's trolling.

Else, why would his arguments be so needlessly abrasive?

Posted By Jancoran on 03/14/2007 7:04 PM
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!

Obviously you didn't.  Nor did you read the White Dwarf article I quoted from.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/14/2007 1:03 PM
So without reading the entire thread what was the (factual) conclusion?

That Jancoran, whilst remaining quite eloquent, can't actually read.

BYE

Just to preface this post: I am a self proclaimed "magic cylinder" player, but according to the definitions given by yakface in the poll thread I am actually a magic cylinder lite/friendly LOS player.  I read that the area terrain rules/size categories don't apply all of the time and that a rhino cannot block LOS to a landraider.  I do agree though that it is confusing.  If they give a vehicle a size category for firing over or past area terrain why wouldn't that size category also apply when firing over or past the vehicle itself?  If there is a vehicle next to a forest and troops in between do we use area terrain for the forest and normal LOS for the vehicle to target the troops?  I think I have the answer for these situations and i also think it's clear but I can certainly understand someone else having a differing viewpoint.

 

I actually like insaniak's post in the poll thread about how the rulebook tells us to use a "model's eye view" but also tells us that the facing of the model doesn't matter.  I think this boils the argument down into its most basic elements right there.

 

I have always taken it for granted that "model's eye view" means exactly what it describes.  The player may have to crouch down over the table to get down to the little minis level.  Apparently some believe that "model's eye view" means the model's eyes.  If that were the case then the facing WOULD matter and creatures that have no eyes could never fire since they would never have LOS.

 

So either the rulebook has contradicted itself yet again (I am perfectly willing to accept that as an argument) or the LOS rules are an ambiguous vague set of rules for a game that encourages different poses, adaptations, etc of the minis.  In other words, GW has told us (in not so many words) that LOS for a game like this isn't something players can have a concrete way to determine.  There will be certain guidelines that must be played within, but the varying degrees cannot be whittled down to a razor's edge, no matter how much certain players want it to be.

I think what they mean is pretend your a muppet baby, and use your imagination on what the model would see, plus it looks better to have your gun pointed at what you are shooting.

Rules wise, regular infantry doesn't block line of sight, so they can see out the back of their heads.

With the exception of chapter approved white dwarf is not a rules source.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/15/2007 10:38 AM

If they give a vehicle a size category for firing over or past area terrain why wouldn't that size category also apply when firing over or past the vehicle itself?

Because it only applies when firing over or past Area Terrain.

The whole point of the Size categories was to allow players to resolve LOS in cases where what you actually see on the table doesn't accurately represent what is supposed to be there. Like a CD with a single tree sitting on it representing a forest, for example.

It's not supposed to replace true LOS entirely... the moment it does that, you remove any real need for miniatures. You can play just as well with a slotta base with 'Space Marine' written on it.

Given that GW are in the business of selling miniatures, I rather doubt that they'll ever send their games down that road.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/15/2007 10:38 AM

If there is a vehicle next to a forest and troops in between do we use area terrain for the forest and normal LOS for the vehicle to target the troops?

Who is drawing LOS from what to where? I'm not sure I get your example. If you're drawing LOS from the troops to the vehicle, or vice versa, and it doesn't cross the forest, then the Area Terrain is not involved in the LOS, so the Sizes aren't used.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/15/2007 10:38 AM
I actually like insaniak's post in the poll thread about how the rulebook tells us to use a "model's eye view" but also tells us that the facing of the model doesn't matter.  

Actually, the facing technically does matter. You're supposed to turn non-vehicle models to face their targets in the shooting phase.

Most players, however, simplify that to simply give non-vehicle models a 360 degree LOS.

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/15/2007 10:38 AM

So either the rulebook has contradicted itself yet again

I think I missed something... what was the contradiction?



5thelement: nobody is quoting White Dwarf as a rules source. However, if players are finding a rule to be unclear, an article from one of the games' writers explaining how that rule works would seem to be a useful reference, no?

It depends on who your speaking to. In most cases unless its a codex or a official faq NO. People wont even listen to faqs from the creators so why WD.

Ok this question still seems to be open. How about line of site from a small vehicle to a larger one? For instance i want to shoot a raider that has a rhino in front of it. Do i use true line of site and get a hold down shot? or do i not get the shot? This is always an issue in my group. We have a nid player that trys to claim cover for everything under the sun. I prefer to use true los. If i could have a little laser pointer and "shoot" it from one model to another than i have los.

But as im getting more and more into tournament play i would like to have a more official answer.  

 

p.20, BBB

Middle of first paragraph:
"In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players 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 a line of sight into or past Area Terrain (see page 21, Line of Sight & Area Terrain) or an ongoing assault combat - this is dealt with later."

Third paragraph:
"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. Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilised or wrecked."

Page 21 also has some great stuff, which I always try to follow to be as sporting as possible: "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 penalised for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, spectacularly posed models, etc."

In my personal opinion, we'd all be a lot better off without area terrain and size categories. They just don't seem well-implemented.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/15/2007 1:24 PM
It depends on who your speaking to. In most cases unless its a codex or a official faq NO. People wont even listen to faqs from the creators so why WD. 

Mainly because they do have a habit of throwing in errors... but there's a bit of difference between a single mistaken rule, and an entire article explaining how LOs works with terrain...

Posted By 5thelement on 03/15/2007 1:24 PM
How about line of site from a small vehicle to a larger one? For instance i want to shoot a raider that has a rhino in front of it. Do i use true line of site and get a hold down shot? or do i not get the shot? 

I honestly don't see how this could be an issue.

If the LOS crosses Area Terrain or a close combat, you use the Size categories.
If the LOs doesn't cross Area Terrain or a close combat, then you draw LOS from the weapon mount to the target's body/hull.

insaniak: I think I need to apologize! The two first items that you qoute in the above post are merely examples of situations that can confuse players. I know the answers to these questions. I was merely illustrating that some players may have (in my opinion valid) questions about when and where area terrain and true LOS are meant to be used.

Your last two points confuse me though. I've never read the section on page 16 to mean that we HAVE to turn our minis to face each other in the shooting phase, but I suppose we could assume that means we are supposed to. So, if we read that section to say that we MUST turn our minis to face their targets during the shooting phase then you're right, there is no contradiction. Either way, it doesn't help the poor aliens who don't have eyes or any poor model looking down. Again, I've always taken "model's eye view" to mean the same thing as saying the view if you were this tall. This is a very different thing than saying the view from Sgt. Kowalski. So, I guess I have to ask the question: What is your definition of "model's eye view?"

Posted By Glaive Company CO on 03/15/2007 3:44 PM
What is your definition of "model's eye view?"

Exactly what it sounds like. You draw a LOS from the model's head to the target.

Technically, that should be from the model's eyes, but in most cases the head is close enough. Also solves the problem of the two models in the game that don't have eyes. (Wraithlord and Wraithguard... can't think of any others off the top of my head.)

Insaniak, Drednott, HBMC, Janthkin, et al, are correct of course. The rulebook is really pretty clear on this subject, despite the wishful overapplication of size categories attempted by some players. Four pages is enough of this, as any further argument on the subject is really just trolling.

LOCKED