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.

And with the window example, depending on how big the window is or how the firer is oriented, (Above or below, or to the side.) it may even be possible to have clear, unobstructed LOS to a model in a window, and then be able to claim that said model would be ineligible for a cover save.

Oh man this part of V5 is going to suck.

On the subject of modeling to your advantage...

Sitting a defiler down low isnt really that bad. Who can honestly say how high a defiler is supose to stand? Spiders (which the defiler is modeled after) usually sit prety low.

If you sit the Defiler low enough, then I can (most likely) draw LOS over the 'body' where the legs attach. Either way, I should be able to draw LOS.

Adding bits to the lower part of the model or creating a base that blocks LOS underneath it is where one gets into the realm of 'modelling to your advantage'. That is the topic I take issue with. I think it's great for folks to be creative and original when building models. They are cool to look at and make the game more enjoyable IMO. It's when the 'alterations' to the stock model are being used to give an in game advantage that would not normally be present is what makes me start wondering about the my opponent's integrity.

Sarigar, you don't imagine that GW factored in the shape of the model when assigning the Defiler a points cost, do you? Whether a player who uses the Defiler stock is being unfairly penalised or a player who adds LoS-blocking base material is being unfairly rewarded is purely a matter of perspective.

Creative modelling to gain an advantage the stock model did not inherently have is not a matter of perspective. If it garners an additional ability, advantage etc... where, if left un-altered, it would not have, I can't see how that is just my perspective. In this case, a stock model not blocking LOS, but by adding different bits to it or putting it on a base when it is not supplied with a base in an effort to be able to block LOS. Is it a matter of perspective if I modeled all my weapons at the very front of my Falcons as I feel they look cooler? As a side effect, I'm gaining an extra 3-4 inches of range as range happens to be measured from the weapon. As a perspective, I think I would deserve to lose some Sportsmanship points for this action.

Whether GW factored the shape of the model into its points-cost, I can't say with certainty. But, after 19 years of playing 40K, I highly doubt GW took it into consideration. I've never read anywhere or seen any type of correlation with the shape/size of a model and the points value assigned to a particular model.

Additionally, this type of debate arose in 3rd edition right after the Defiler kit was released. There were many players who created their own Defiler as the model was unavailable. Once the Defiler came out, many scratch built models were considerably small than the stock model. As a result, it started to become clear that the much smaller scratchbuilt models were getting an in game advantage by being able to get it out of LOS much easier than the stock model. Those scratch built models created and in game advantage. This was a tough area as some of the conversions I saw were very, very cool. Some folks made consolations in an effort to continue using their model which, for the most part, went over pretty well.

Recently, someone posted a picture of a Rhino with a huge piece of card sitting upright going the length of the Rhino. The intent was to further block LOS with the Rhino, to gain an ingame advantage over a stock Rhino. This is an example of shenanigans I would not deal with.

If you feel it's ok to have happen to you, thats cool. I'm not going to dictate how you play your games with your opponents. Not my business or my free time. Personally, my free time is at a premium and I just don't have time to get with folks who want to create these types of extra advantages.

TC I think that one's a bit of a stretch.

Much like firing under a defiler is.

Sarigar, your second paragraph is precisely my point. Whether a unit has a great official model or an awful one with regard to tabletop practicality is wholly arbitrary. It just so happens that GW made Defilers the way they are--they could just as easily have had tank treads, or been Dread-sized, or whatever. I'm not disputing that adding crap to a Defiler's base to help it block LoS (that is, assuming it would be relevant) is modeling to one's advantage. My contention is that there is no solid basis for deeming it an unfair advantage. If the rules allow modeling to one's advantage (and they do in 4th), who is to say whether someone who modifies a model is gaining an unfair advantage or someone who does not modify it is giving themselves an unnecessary handicap? Why must it be an integrity issue?

(Wow, you respond fast. I hadn't even finished my editing yet).

There is no rule that states you can model to your advantage. It just turns out the rules as written, this is an aftereffect. Most of the time, this never is an issue, but I'll call it out if that's what looks like is happening. I don't think there needs to be a basis; you're going to know it when it happens to you, plain and simple.

But, if you don't mind me adding long barrelled weapons to the front of my eldar tanks, then all is well.

Aftereffect schmaftereffect. If a thing is a consequence of the rules, then that thing is allowed by the rules, whether it is explicitly stated or not. There isn't any sentence in the BGB that says "You can use killzone sniping" or "You can string out a charge" either.

Well, if you did that I would call you a cheesy git--but that wouldn't be an integrity issue. I'm a cheesy git sometimes; it's why I own three Falcons. A modded Defiler is to foot-long gun barrels as a Whirlwind is (well, was) to a 4 HS IW army. There are degrees to most things, and the modeling-for-advantage issue is one of them.

And of course you are free to call shenanigans and decline to play, but that's a liberty everyone has and which we may exercise for whatever reason. I am not sure why your choice should be of interest to this discussion any more than, say, my choice not to play people who haven't bathed in a week or who keep creasing my rulebooks. What information does it give us other than "Sarigar doesn't like modeling-for-advantage?"

I play the non-bathers. Bet them a bath if you win, a shower if they lose.

I posted originally as a question to the OP. Stelek ascertains that the Soulgrider would block LOS for demons. In 5th edition, if it is true LOS, I contend I have LOS to the demons behind the Defiler.

The counter to that was to build a scenic base or add additional parts underneath the Soulgrinder to ensure LOS is blocked.

It is relevant to the OP. If a Soulgrinder does not block LOS, it degrades/negates the tactic as posted.

You call people cheesy gits, I call it an integrity issue. Semantics. However, I don't begrudge anyone for armybuilds; if it's legal, bring it. Just don't put all your eldar weapons on the front of the vehicle to gain additional range.

on
Having said that Sarigar, if its "true" LOS then there's nothing wrong with modellng the defiler such that items behind it can't be seen by a mini sized opponent.

Else, if you're going verticle LOS what height do you draw the LOS from the mini? The gun of the mini? Its foot? Technically all vehicles are slightly off the ground except the tread so you can make the same argument ("see I have my laser pointer my tac marine can see under the Leman Russ and shoot your army commander's foot who's hiding behind see) And thats why true LOS can get stupid quickly.

off

Edit: thats probably not intelligible, even for me. I'll go back to the prone wraithlord on a base argument which everyone understands.

jfrazell: Not sure what you're asking of me. The question I asked is just that: Is 5th edition utelizing true LOS? If it does, is there any exception written for vehicles, such as the Soulgrinder/Defiler?

Again, I'm not aruguing the merits/downfall of true LOS. I simply pointed out that I can actually draw LOS to models behind the Soulgrinder/Defiler.

I only have the old PDF, so I can't say with any certainty how 5th edition treats LOS, specifically regarding vehicles. Some folks on the boards may have read the actual rulebook, which is why I post the question.

I don't think the tactic that was originally indicated can be considered valid until the rule is actually clearly defined, which does not appear to have been addressed as of yet.

Sarigar:

You call people cheesy gits, I call it an integrity issue. Semantics.

Rubbish. A cheesy git can be fit to hold public offic. Someone with integrity issues isn't. Powergaming != cheating.

However, I don't begrudge anyone for armybuilds; if it's legal, bring it.

I believe in the same principle. Unlike you, however, I don't apply it only where it suits me.

You keep comparing apples and oranges.

So, can you confirm/deny any rules about shooting under the Defiler/Soulgrinder?

"Apples to oranges" is an easy claim to make. Care to show how it's so?

Tri-Holofalcon: Legal.

Crouching WL (or whatever): Legal.

What's the immense difference that makes the two incomparable?

You've somewhere assumed I indicated creative modelling is illegal; I didn't.

I think an example will help clarify my point. This will be relevant to tourneys that have a Sportsmanship score (RTTs and GTs as personal experience).

First off, hard as nails armylists: not a problem. It's a tourney. If the armylist is legal, I don't complain about it. If I lose to it, I need to come up with a better plan next time.

In a tourney setting and my opponent places a Falcon, for example, who has modified the model so that all the weapons are extending from the front of the fins rather than the stock locations of the model. I'll simply ask why was it built that way. This will help clear up any misconceptions I may have. Now, if my opponent states to gain extra range on for his weapons, I'll allow it as he's not violated any rule in the rulebook. If he says b/c he thinks it looks cool, fine as well. However, in both cases I going to observe if he's truly trying and getting any advantage from this 'creative modelling'. By the end of the game, I've come to some type of decision.

a. It was simply a cool conversion and that was the extent of it. (This is typically the case with some awesome armies I've seen over the years)

b. There turned out to be an advantage garnered by altering the model in some form that a stock model would not have had. (Either my opponent was open and honest about his intentions, or he was not quite as honest as he led on)

Win, lose or draw is not an issue still at this point. No one broke any rules.

Sportsmanship is where I will explain why I've marked his score lower than expected. The game was not as much fun for me as I'm having to examine the true intentions of his 'creative modelling'. While he claims it is legal, I won't dispute the illegality of it. I won't concede it's completely allowable- it's simply not addressed in any rulebook. As a result, the ultimate defense to the 'creative modelling' is this: the book doesn't say one can't do so. I can't say for certain how much I would lower his sportsmanship score, as it really depends on how the scoresheet reads and how enjoyable the game was overall.

In no shape or form did I claim what he did was illegal or breaking any rules. In the same fashion, nor did I by explaining my position to that person why his sportsmanship score was lowered.

From experience in U.S. RTTs and GTs, I can guarantee if I tried to bring the pre-described Falcons, someone, if not multiple people, are going to ding my Sportsmanship score.

If this doesn't occur in you area, so be it. Your mileage may vary.

And it appears that no one reading these posts can actually answer the original question I posted. Therefore, there's really no point in continuing this debate.

Here's fuel to the fire.

I looooove Banners. Always have, always will.

Some of the most stirring Military actions have involved Banners being aquired/stolen/head of the Charge stuff.

Should I clip them off my Army as soon as 5th comes out?

akira5665 wrote:Here's fuel to the fire.

I looooove Banners. Always have, always will.

Some of the most stirring Military actions have involved Banners being aquired/stolen/head of the Charge stuff.

Should I clip them off my Army as soon as 5th comes out?

It specifically says in the rules that banners / antennas etc do not count for LOS purposes.

I don't disagree with any of that, really, but let me ask again: everything you've said boils down to "Sarigar doesn't like modelling for advantage (because it is unsporting)"--yes? If so I will leave it at that; very likely I read too much into your statement to begin with.

brado, it does? Can anyone confirm that? Though I'd welcome it, it seems a little out of step with the rest of 5th's "true LoS"-oriented changes.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I don't disagree with any of that, really, but let me ask again: everything you've said boils down to "Sarigar doesn't like modelling for advantage (because it is unsporting)"--yes? If so I will leave it at that; very likely I read too much into your statement to begin with.

brado, it does? Can anyone confirm that? Though I'd welcome it, it seems a little out of step with the rest of 5th's "true LoS"-oriented changes.

I don't know if I'll get in trouble for posting but seeing as other people have been "practicing" with 5th and going through the rules at GW, the copy I have states specifically that it is against the nature of the game to count banners, antennae, etc as means to draw LOS. LOS is only found on major body parts. Please delete this if it is against the rules.

"Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (including the torso, head, arms and legs, but excluding tails,
wings, etc.). Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is the barrel of a weapon, an antenna or some other minor part that does not belong to the model’s body. In these cases, the line of sight is
considered blocked. This rule is intended to ensure that players don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, blades, gun barrels, etc. with weapons that cannot hurt the tank itself."

Oh I know what the rule says, brado.

That's why I stopped commenting in this thread about idiots trying to draw LOS through the legs of a defiler. Ratlings and kneeling troopers are it, and frankly most demons will gladly take a 3+ or 4+ cover save since it really only matters to Nurgle and Slaanesh troop demons, who have no armor save but will gladly take a better save against your heavy weapons.

Good luck moving next to a defiler and trying to rapid fire bolters at demonettes 'under' it. Model ain't that tall...even poorly built it should block LOS from almost everything since it's the eyes that matter, not the models feet.

Unless you have feet guns, eyes, and heads. Then my bad!

Umm, the quote seems to cover it all (assuming that is the accurate quote from the rulebook, which I don't have). If I can draw LOS to the legs and or torso of a model, LOS exists. Period.

The further your model is from the Defiler/Soulgrinder, the easier it is to draw LOS from the head of your model to the legs and torso of an infantry model behind it, plain and simple. Getting a cover save, not a problem. That is what should be addressed in your tactica, rather than simply calling individuals idiots.

Within the context of the discussion, people are idiots if they think they can move up to a defiler that just deep striked next to them (and fleeted into blocking position) and get shots off at demonettes behind them.

Im pretty sure that idiot laserpointer would agree with Saringar. Drawing beads from head to leg under a defiler is definently possible.

Me, not so much.

I have a defiler model.

I have marines.

Stand them next to each other with demonettes 10" behind.

It isn't IMPOSSIBLE, but it is highly improbable at best.

No I am not taking pictures.

Yes. Thats not too difficult. Hence the potential need for your defiler to be modelled on tyop of the wreck of a tractor with a BIG dozer blade and the graffiti "Hah! NO LOS FOR YOU!"

All 3 of my defilers are modeled in the act of tearing apart a rhino from on top...

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I don't disagree with any of that, really, but let me ask again: everything you've said boils down to "Sarigar doesn't like modelling for advantage (because it is unsporting)"--yes? If so I will leave it at that; very likely I read too much into your statement to begin with.

brado, it does? Can anyone confirm that? Though I'd welcome it, it seems a little out of step with the rest of 5th's "true LoS"-oriented changes.

I can confirm as I spent 3 hours reading the book at the LAGT this weekend. What he posted is indeed in the book.

It also states that any creative modeling elements on a model's base (like rocks) do not block line of sight.