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.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
My suggestion, don't play people who want to argue stupid points like this.

Ok... so where are you going to draw the line?

The rules unfortunately revolve around the actual positions of the models in use. They don't make any allowances for the fact that if the models were actual soldiers, they would be able to change their position. Hence, there are no rules for treating kneeling models as standing, no rules for treating standing models as prone (other than going to ground, which isn't quite the same thing) and no rules for models leaning out around a corner, or leaning out over a parapet to fire downwards.

There's certainly nothing stopping you from introducing house rules to cover these situations... but the simple fact is that they're not a part of the rules, and an opponent is well within their rights to expect you to use the actual models you have on the table.

Another thing to think about. What if I owned some catachan snipers in the prone position, you going to tell me they can't shoot over the ADL. Or are they permanent stuck in gtg mode.

They're not permanently GtG... they're just in the prone position. Which means that yes, they would be unable to shoot over the ADL, on account of not being able to draw LOS over it. Conversely, they would be harder to shoot at as well.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
I can't believe this is even an issue. The ADL is a defense line, you must assume that the individual model would be taking full advantage of the cover and still shoot over when safe. My HWTs do not have issue with seeing over the low parts or through the vision slits. Any jackass who tells me I can't shoot the HWT over the ADL I would tell to GTFO. I mean really!?

I modeled most of my hWT with a spotter with the binoculars or with some rubble.

My suggestion, don't play people who want to argue stupid points like this.

Another thing to think about. What if I owned some catachan snipers in the prone position, you going to tell me they can't shoot over the ADL. Or are they permanent stuck in gtg mode. If I modeled my snipers prone people scream MFA. But it's ok if GW models it like that?

I hear what your saying loud and clear, and I'm not going to argue. But there is always a but...

Technically the rules don't give us this latitude, so we really need to house-rule it and apply common sense (and I'm 100% with you, btw). In a tournament, the question is what does the TO say. In my opinion, a couple of adjustments to the rules are necessary to make official rules consistent with common-sense.

1) Make it clear that walls and barricades covers obstacles over/through which a normal infantry figure can see (a 15ft high wall is not a wall in this sense)

2) If the model is in base-to-base contact, they can see and be seen, regardless of how they are modelled

3) If not in base-to-base contact, normal LOS rules apply

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
I can't believe this is even an issue. The ADL is a defense line, you must assume that the individual model would be taking full advantage of the cover and still shoot over when safe. My HWTs do not have issue with seeing over the low parts or through the vision slits. Any jackass who tells me I can't shoot the HWT over the ADL I would tell to GTFO. I mean really!?

I modeled most of my hWT with a spotter with the binoculars or with some rubble.

My suggestion, don't play people who want to argue stupid points like this.

Another thing to think about. What if I owned some catachan snipers in the prone position, you going to tell me they can't shoot over the ADL. Or are they permanent stuck in gtg mode. If I modeled my snipers prone people scream MFA. But it's ok if GW models it like that?

Yeah, I'm just gonna say it. "true LoS" is a terrible mechanic, size levels and old school area terrain was way better. I don't remember a single argument with size levels.

 Bausk wrote:
. I don't remember a single argument with size levels.

I remember quite a lot of them. Mostly over people misapplying them to situations where the rules still used true LOS, or over how ridiculous it was for all vehicles to be classed as the same size.

Maybe there is a compromise.

Use TloS, but have models occupy a volume of their base like Warmachine has.

So you would draw TloS from a cylinder of a set size for a base/model type.

Allow the model to shoot and be shot at. We don't all have to be TFG. Isn't this a game that we play with friends or like minded people at least.? Not to ruleslawyer another glaring loophole in GW's consistently poorly written and tested rule sets. Is a prone model assumed to be crawling around on the battlefield everytime he moves because he is modled that way? No it is just a dramatic representation on the model to give some variance to the game. Hey his guys a sniper, lets do him prone like a real sniper would be. It does make him harder to hit, however either he can shoot and be shot at OR he has no Los and neither do you. No advantage with any substance. It's not like he gets a 5+ cover save at 25% obscured and a 4+ cover save for 50% obscured. Otherwise you have limited this specific model to only camping area terrain or open terrain. And if I made this model from a kitbashthis would be called MFA?

And if the model is not GTG in pose how would you model one gtg ? In a foxhole?

 insaniak wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
. I don't remember a single argument with size levels.

I remember quite a lot of them. Mostly over people misapplying them to situations where the rules still used true LOS, or over how ridiculous it was for all vehicles to be classed as the same size.

All vehicles were around the same size, land raiders were about the only thing that was much bigger than anything else. Keeping in mind it was more of a height level rather than total size. And any rule if applied incorrectly is not a reason to abolish it for a terrible one. The main issue most people had with size levels was almost everything was area terrain sized level 2-3, which wasn't that bad just it broke peoples minds when a land raider couldn't be shot though that sparse base of woods even though there were like 4 trees on it and the LR was 'visible'. They didn't seem to get the difference between approximate representation and actual application. Poor application of rules does not make them bad, just the players using them.

 Bausk wrote:
All vehicles were around the same size, land raiders were about the only thing that was much bigger than anything else.

Land Raiders and Monoliths were substantially taller than everything else on the table. And Ork Trukks and buggies substantially smaller. A lot of bikers were taller than a trukk.

And any rule if applied incorrectly is not a reason to abolish it for a terrible one.

It is if people can't apply it without getting confused.

40K has always used true LOS. 4th edition introduced size categories to deal with area terrain and close combats, and TLOS the rest of the time... but people just couldn't get their heads around the idea of using two different LOS systems, and so there were countless arguments between those trying to play the game as intended, and those trying to apply the size categories all the time.

4th edition's LOS system wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever to the issue at hand, as the Defense Line isn't area terrain. So the HWT would have been just as unable to shoot over it as they are now.

The main issue most people had with size levels was almost everything was area terrain sized level 2-3,...

Only if you were playing with almost everything being area terrain...

prone IG snipers + eldar heads = practically invincible pathfinder squad! rawr. I'm usually cool if one spotter can see through the barrier but I treat the barrier as true LOS. If you park your vehicle way in the back and I can see that it's not being blocked by 25%, I will not allow you a cover save even if you claim it's parked waaaaay behind the aegis.

In my group we are generally pretty lenient with things like this. When we determine LoS we usually 'assume' the model should be 'standing' when determining LoS. If we did not do things this way there are some Tau pathfinders and IG snipers that are prone who wouldn't even see over the flock on some of our terrain...

When in doubt one could always use some sort of 'reasonable' stand in if that helps. Kind of similar to 'over-modeling an HQ, if the scenic base is too large it is acceptable to use a stand in, why not just place a standing model in the HWT location, if it can see, then case closed. If it cannot, then no LoS. (Obviously using a 'normal' standing infantry model and not a GI Joe or a Barbie Doll or something).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sudojoe wrote:
prone IG snipers + eldar heads = practically invincible pathfinder squad! rawr. I'm usually cool if one spotter can see through the barrier but I treat the barrier as true LOS. If you park your vehicle way in the back and I can see that it's not being blocked by 25%, I will not allow you a cover save even if you claim it's parked waaaaay behind the aegis.

Wouldn't this be 'modeled for advantage?'

LRs are no taller than MCs and Russes, all 3 are not much taller than a rhino/chimera/truck. They ae however significantly longer and wider which was never covered by Size level. Just cause they were the same size level didn't mean they could all be hidden by the same terrain (with respect to the width of the terrain - I know, you're thinking "Duh Bausk"). Old school buggies I'll give you, they were tiny. 40k has always used LoS, they only introduced TLoS in 5th.. We had Proper area terrain and size levels in 3rd, i remember that. Monoliths in 3rd should have been like Size level 4, as we all know that thing is well tall. Mind you I was talking about seconds size levels, the one that had size levels for all terrain and rules covering a situation exactly like this that allowed the model to fire over a piece of terrain that was just as tall as it if the mode was standing in BTB with it. I

n any case there are a plethora of options available to the OP, I wish them well and may their HWT be in cover and kill many foes.

 Bausk wrote:
40k has always used LoS, they only introduced TLoS in 5th..

Nope, sorry. 40K has used TLOS as the core of its LOS system since Rogue Trader. It's only how LOS has interacted with area terrain and close combats that has changed between editions.

We had Proper area terrain and size levels in 3rd,

Not sure what you mean by 'proper area terrain' but I can guarantee you there were no size categories in 3rd edition. Instead, IIRC models blocked LOS up to twice their own height. Area terrain was simply considered to grant cover to models in it, and block LOS through it.

4th edition introduced the size categories to deal with area terrain and close combats. 5th edition simply took them out and went back to a single LOS system to cover everything.

Mind you I was talking about seconds size levels, the one that had size levels for all terrain and rules covering a situation exactly like this that allowed the model to fire over a piece of terrain that was just as tall as it if the mode was standing in BTB with it.

In that case, I suspect that you're thinking of a completely different game, because that has never been the case in 40K.

Which is the defined difference between LoS and TLoS, LoS uses a TLoS method most of the time and TLoS uses it all of the time.

3rds system was similar, 4ths expanded on it. Remembering that 4th was 3rd, but with all the rules clarified and revised. Granting cover and blocking LoS is proper Area terrain and there was a size level system, just not the same as 2nd. It was based as, you said, on the models height and the terrain in question. Still was not the TLoS 5th and 6th.

I phrased that incorrectly, size level 1 things (like an ADL would have been) can be fired over without giving the opponent a cover save and without blocking by size level 2 (the HWT) models if they were within 1" of it, it didn't matter how they were modeled. Either that or I'm thinking about necromunda, only other game system I play. But IIRC they had a similar system for models interacting with cover they were next to for 3rd and 4th, though I may be wrong on that one.

 Bausk wrote:
Which is the defined difference between LoS and TLoS, LoS uses a TLoS method most of the time and TLoS uses it all of the time.

You're creating a distinction there that, from my experience, is not the normal way those terms are used.

'TLOS' simply means using actual LOS by bending down over the table and taking a model's eye view, which has been the core of the 40K LOS mechanics since the game began.

3rds system was similar, 4ths expanded on it. Remembering that 4th was 3rd, but with all the rules clarified and revised.

4th was developed from 3rd, but the size categories were a new addition.

Granting cover and blocking LoS is proper Area terrain and there was a size level system, just not the same as 2nd. It was based as, you said, on the models height and the terrain in question. Still was not the TLoS 5th and 6th.

That's not a size level system. There were no defined 'This is size level 2' and so on categories prior to 4th edition. It was simply resolved using the physical height of the actual model in question.

I phrased that incorrectly, size level 1 things (like an ADL would have been) ...

An ADL wouldn't have been size level anything because it's not area terrain. Even in 4th edition, models would have been able to fire over it if they could physically see over it. Again, the size categories only applied where area terrain or close combats were involved. Terrain that wasn't area terrain did not have a size category, and models drawing LOS over it used TLOS.

Necromunda used the same LOS rules as 2nd edition 40K, so nope, no size categories there either.

Its a distinction between two variations of the same mechanic. One uses TLoS for all situations the other uses it for most so the over all description could not be described as TLoS for the whole system. Thus the distinction between the two for clarity.

Using the height of the model is still a size distinction, even if there is not a number attached to it. 4th expanded and revised it, as per my quote. Size level, even non-numerical variations, based on model height with assumed area being blocked is not TLoS either. It is a variation of TLoS with exceptions like 2nd was, so I also refer to it as LoS.

Size level was applied to all terrain. If an ADL like terrain piece was used as you describe the old school grots would never be able to shoot over it, even though they were size level 2 and standing right next to it. I could be wrong, it has been nigh on 10 years since I've played 2nd ed.

This is the most ridiculous discussion i've ever seen on dakka, which is saying a lot...

The fact it is 2 pages long just goes to show how many people here are WAAC players or just really really naive.

For a start, the Aegis Line pieces have little fire slots which are clearly there to indicate that people behind it can shoot through it.
Secondly, you can trace LOS through those little slots quite easily.

Anyone that argues with this is clearly an idiot or WAAC. I can't believe I wasted 2 minutes of my life explaining this...God, suicide is an option now...

Bausk wrote:Using the height of the model is still a size distinction, even if there is not a number attached to it.

It's using the size to define the model, yes... but that's not at all the same thing as applying size categories to each model, which winds up with different sized models being the same 'size' based on the type of model they are, rather than just looking at the model.

4th edition didn't 'expand and revise' what came before. It added a completely different mechanic for dealing with certain situations.

Size level was applied to all terrain.

It really wasn't. I can absolutely guarantee you that if you go dig out your 4th edition rulebook you will find that the section dealing with the size categories will tell you that it only becomes relevant when dealing with area terrain and close combats.

This was one of the most frequent arguments hashed out here in YMDC during 4th edition. A lot of people read the rules the way you do initially, and some never accepted that this reading was incorrect as they preferred using the size categories for everything, but it is most definitely not the way the rules actually worked.

If an ADL like terrain piece was used as you describe the old school grots would never be able to shoot over it, even though they were size level 2 and standing right next to it. I could be wrong, it has been nigh on 10 years since I've played 2nd ed.

The ADL wasn't around in 2nd edition... but if it had been, then yes, models that were too short to see over it would be unable to shoot over it.

Invisible Jesus wrote:The fact it is 2 pages long just goes to show how many people here are WAAC players or just really really naive.

Or it could just mean that you missed the fact that the initial issue was dealt with back on page 1, and then it got sidelined into how it would have worked in previous editions of the game...

For a start, the Aegis Line pieces have little fire slots which are clearly there to indicate that people behind it can shoot through it.
Secondly, you can trace LOS through those little slots quite easily.

Anyone that argues with this is clearly an idiot or WAAC. I can't believe I wasted 2 minutes of my life explaining this...God, suicide is an option now...

Nobody has argued either of those points, but well done for jumping in with all guns blazing without actually reading the thread. I would recommend against making that a habit.

Snapshot wrote:
2) If the model is in base-to-base contact, they can see and be seen, regardless of how they are modelled

Just to note, I wouldn't accept playing this way, either always count them as standing or always count them as the height they are actually at, I don't think short models should have the option of standing up against terrain and magically seeing over it when they want to and then shuffling back an inch at their own discretion to go back to having LOS blocked.

Just to add - Insaniak is exaclty, 100% corrrect on how terrain and TLOS worked in 4th

TLOS has been the core since at least 2nd, with exceptions to handle certain situations.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

Editing and adding inflammatory text after a mod edit is generally a no no---Edited by AgeOfEgos

Well said bro

I can't believe you guys took a discussion about HWT and aegis defends lines to politics and religion.

This is not a thread to discuss the merits of religion v. atheism or to insult each other. If a user posts something inappropriate or inflammatory, better to hit the Triangle than engage with insults of your own. Thanks.