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.

 BlkTom wrote:

Solidcrash wrote:

Hmm, what a brilliant idea. Shall I glue all of my space marine model on it belly, and build my own defence line that was 4" tall with "fire slot post" at low as foot that my space marine able to shoot through. Then and play against with you and find out what you said?

You give me a page number where it says this, and then you can say your right. Till then, if you play in a tourney, this is how you do it because this is how the rules are printed. And I didn't respond because I went to bed, was like 6 AM. And before you cry boo hoo and that I am a rules lawyer, you have to remember that if your responding to someone's question to have to give accurate information. Otherwise all your doing is spreading a lie. Like I said, prove your point with a page number and prove me wrong. I want to be wrong in this case, I want you to find something I missed so I do not have to worry about mis-playing the ADL.

And I didn't call you a cheater, you called yourself one.

Answer my question then. Because my question relation to your text early on in this forum.


To answer this topic question about defence line. Of course if your model are base to base with defence line and enemy are too far from defence line then enemy DO NOT GAIN any cover save from defence line.
Otherwise if your defence line are between your model and enemy, either of your or enemy do not base to base with defence line DO GAIN cover save because nobody own this defence line. If both are base to base with same defence line then it count as close combat.

There are noting to do with how your model build. Of course if small model like grunt,grot or ripper are away from defence line and enemy line of fire are blocked then there are no hit.

Solidcrash wrote:

 BlkTom wrote:

Solidcrash wrote:

Hmm, what a brilliant idea. Shall I glue all of my space marine model on it belly, and build my own defence line that was 4" tall with "fire slot post" at low as foot that my space marine able to shoot through. Then and play against with you and find out what you said?

You give me a page number where it says this, and then you can say your right. Till then, if you play in a tourney, this is how you do it because this is how the rules are printed. And I didn't respond because I went to bed, was like 6 AM. And before you cry boo hoo and that I am a rules lawyer, you have to remember that if your responding to someone's question to have to give accurate information. Otherwise all your doing is spreading a lie. Like I said, prove your point with a page number and prove me wrong. I want to be wrong in this case, I want you to find something I missed so I do not have to worry about mis-playing the ADL.

And I didn't call you a cheater, you called yourself one.

Answer my question then. Because my question relation to your text early on in this forum.


To answer this topic question about defence line. Of course if your model are base to base with defence line and enemy are too far from defence line then enemy DO NOT GAIN any cover save from defence line.
Otherwise if your defence line are between your model and enemy, either of your or enemy do not base to base with defence line DO GAIN cover save because nobody own this defence line. If both are base to base with same defence line then it count as close combat.

There are noting to do with how your model build. Of course if small model like grunt,grot or ripper are away from defence line and enemy line of fire are blocked then there are no hit.

And what was your question? Can you model your marines laying down? Yes, you can do that and it will be harder for your opponent to shoot you in LoS terms. But it is then also harder for you to shoot back at your opponent because you have to work LoS from your head. Your in effect screwing yourself in the long term because your not going to be able to do anything offensively if your behind a ADL and Template weapons don't care. The simple matter is if you want to shoot, you have to be exposed to incoming fire. You can't have it both ways. You can't model your fig this way to screw your opponent and then claim they 'stand up' and are then not hindered offensively. Same goes if your in a building ruin with windows. If you have a fig that doesn't have LoS, it can't shoot but it can't be shot.

The ADL is a piece of terrain that can have a gun on it, that anyone can use. You have to treat it like you treat any other piece of terrain (abet one you have to place in your deployment zone and before table terrain is placed), just like you would treat a 6" tall wall or a 1" tall wall. It has dips that normal standing figs can clearly see over and his high points that normal standing figs can't see over. In friendly games you can play it however you want to play it (I mean, thing does have weapon slits for Pete's sake) as long as both players agree on it. But from a by the book rules interpretation it blocks LoS as another other piece of terrain does. So yeah, if your opponent was say 3" away from a ADL and you were also 3" away from a ADL and it was between you both, you both would get a cover save from it, just like any other piece of terrain.

Heh, alright, it is my move.

Imagine this, we are playing a wargame. Sudden this happen to us...
My space marine are modelling laying.. Your are normal standing..



Can you shoot back at me? You cannot see me nor line of fire.

So you assault on my wall... But wall are too high for difficult terrain test.. Or your model are destroy because it cannot landing nor cannot reach my model no matter how many range for your charge.

Can you close combat at me? Or shoot at me?




Your move.

Cut it in half lengthwise, BOOM Problem solved.

You may now call me the Problem Solver.

Solidcrash wrote:
Heh, alright, it is my move.

Spoiler:

Imagine this, we are playing a wargame. Sudden this happen to us...
My space marine are modelling laying.. Your are normal standing..



Can you shoot back at me? You cannot see me nor line of fire.

So you assault on my wall... But wall are too high for difficult terrain test.. Or your model are destroy because it cannot landing nor cannot reach my model no matter how many range for your charge.

Can you close combat at me? Or shoot at me?




Your move.

Irl, I'd just call it a d-bag move, and not play it.

But for argument's sake, due to LOS, only the SM would be able to fire.
However, unless both players agreed it was a wall/impassable terrain, and not an ADL, I'd say that the SM could still be assaulted, as per wobbly model syndrome rules (albeit in a computer-graphical-glitch way, where the model is stretched to hilarious proportions along the y-axis, and slightly along the x and z-axis).

My flamer wouldn't care or I would step back one inch so I was able to shoot you, as it would not block LoS till I was very close. It is a unrealistic situation, but it would be legal according to the rules.

Course, that would not be a ADL either. And if you were to claim it as a 'counts as' I would simply refuse it. If I did allow it, it would be forced to follow the normal rules of a ADL which means that I could assault though it as per the rules. Also, if you were to try to sneak it in as normal terrain, I would have the option of refusing to use it in the game or grabbing it first.

And yes, it would be a very poor sportsmanship play.

For starters, this discussion is dumb and full of people trying to skip the rules, which flies in the face of The Most Important Rule on pg 4 (I believe, don't have in front of me right this second).

That aside though, you cheaters who are stacking ADL's upwards....are cheaters. Read your rule book.

ADL states that ADL's can only be arranged base to base. So no stacking.

On top of that, if you start extrapolating rules to make sense out of this you end up with things like "Firing Points" and "Defense Line" rules that address all of this, but common sense alone says that your own defenses will not act as an obstruction against yourself because they are in fact your defenses. So you know them, how to work them, how not to cut your hand on the metal when hurdling the f-ing things and losing a man because he cut his foot off when he tripped over the wall.

The whole thing about "motion" and what-not, I swear I read in the rule book too. About how this is a War and a living battlefield, not just plastic models modeled some such way. I have also heard the alternative far louder, though I'm not convinced that necessarily makes them right.

What if I had my entire army equipped with high grade magnetic locking joints, limbs and weapons? And at any time during the game, I just moved my guys in the most inconvenient position to deny you LOS all the time? Sure, there feet could be mounted, but they could still crouch at the ankles?

Or here is an even better one. If I take an army of Chaos Space Marines and they are all modeled on their bellies, including Hellbrutes....have they all gone to ground?

Or how about this! Vendetta on a 24"+ rod so bolters couldn't shoot at it?

At what point do you call it what it is? Cheating? Sometimes cheating is ok, because it's creative enough to be legal and sometimes it's just stupid and flies in the face of the point of a GAMZ.

While I agree with 90% of your post Red, this has come up in the past in the Tactics section concerning the ADL, with folk asking about vehicles and walkers. I have seen it in a tourney where someone had a ADL on a flat topped hill (think Geo Hex) beck when 6th first came out. The terrain was already set per table so the ADL could be placed after terrain. Guy assaulted it and the owner couldn't fire down on him because the guy got close enough to where the defender couldn't get LoS to him.

I was there and we poured through the Base Rule Book to find somewhere, anywhere where it said the ADL didn't block LoS for the owner. I even asked on Dakka Dakka to see if someone else had seen the rule somewhere in the book where my friends and I might have missed it. No one has found anywhere in the BRB to say that the ADL does not block LoS for your own troops. It is terrain, and so it has to be treated as terrain because GW has never corrected it to say otherwise.

You have to play the gaps and just be careful where you place your guys in it. To maintain unit coherency I have actually placed guys outside the wall and risked Focus Fire just to make sure I have all /my/ guys can shoot.

Again, if someone finds something different, hidden away in the BRB, please let me know, because it pisses me off too. I just choose to deal with it the best I can according to the rules written.

Okay blktom, imagine this that we are at table top talk about this problem I've show you in picture...

In your rule, you cannot shoot at me... Nor assault.. Because your model was static and lifeless. This count as my model begin cheater.. Or!

In my rule, I would simple said that we can imagine that your model just kneel down and talk a careful aim. Dice can tell you if you miss the target or got kill. And I am allow you to assault between my defence line. Because it said that your model can go lower and stab through fire hole slot and got wound on my model. Or use live ammo close combat that fire wildly.

Just like movie called bad boy 2 firefight at pink house.

For this, we can borrow rule from rending rule for against vehicle.

So which rule would you agree with? Your or mine?

An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

 DarthOvious wrote:
An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

There is no such rule. If line of sight is sufficiently obscured, they get cover. No distances involved, no work arounds with owning the terrain or touching the terrain. TLOS period.

Chrysis wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

There is no such rule. If line of sight is sufficiently obscured, they get cover. No distances involved, no work arounds with owning the terrain or touching the terrain. TLOS period.

So what does the rule for barricades say?

Solidcrash wrote:
Okay blktom, imagine this that we are at table top talk about this problem I've show you in picture...

In your rule, you cannot shoot at me... Nor assault.. Because your model was static and lifeless. This count as my model begin cheater.. Or!

In my rule, I would simple said that we can imagine that your model just kneel down and talk a careful aim. Dice can tell you if you miss the target or got kill. And I am allow you to assault between my defence line. Because it said that your model can go lower and stab through fire hole slot and got wound on my model. Or use live ammo close combat that fire wildly.

Just like movie called bad boy 2 firefight at pink house.

For this, we can borrow rule from rending rule for against vehicle.

So which rule would you agree with? Your or mine?

While that may seem like a more fun way of spending your time, making such house rules makes the rulebook obsolete.

If we are not going to follow the rules in the rulebook as closely as possible, we might as well go to a toy store, buy a bunch of barbie-dolls or whatever, and play with them, I bet it would be cheaper too...

If we are to play a serious game, rules should be followed, even if they dont represent real life well.

Have anyone read a rending special rule? That you may shoot through tank window and hit a person inside.. Or use a claw to slash through window... That rhino tank have no model of a person who drive rhino and window are too high for genestealer to slash a claw through window..

So how come you all said that GW rule that all model are static? I think I better go to GW store and speak with GW staff.
I would proud if I was wrong or worse, is if I was right..

 DarthOvious wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

There is no such rule. If line of sight is sufficiently obscured, they get cover. No distances involved, no work arounds with owning the terrain or touching the terrain. TLOS period.

So what does the rule for barricades say?

That if two models are in base contact with the wall and within 2" of each other they count as in base contact for the purposes of charging and thus can fight. That doesn't effect Line of Sight, and thus Cover Saves, in the slightest. Which you'd know if you read the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Solidcrash wrote:
Have anyone read a rending special rule? That you may shoot through tank window and hit a person inside.. Or use a claw to slash through window... That rhino tank have no model of a person who drive rhino and window are too high for genestealer to slash a claw through window..

So how come you all said that GW rule that all model are static? I think I better go to GW store and speak with GW staff.
I would proud if I was wrong or worse, is if I was right..

Fluff != Rules. The fluff justification for why one rule does what it does is not permission to start making your own exceptions up out of thin air.

Going off of that (and the fact they put slats on the ADL), LOS should be drawn from the Wall at that point and anything less is bad sportsmanship, even if the rules themselves suggest otherwise. It seems like a common sense issue, than anything else.

EDIT: Deleted for getting irrationally angry at the suggestion that wanting to follow the rules is bad sportsmanship, and that somehow insisting on changing the rules to benefit yourself isn't.

Solidcrash wrote:


So which rule would you agree with? Your or mine?

I would follow the correct one, from the base rule book, like I would expect every person I play against to use. Because if they do not follow the rules of the game we are playing, then we really are not playing the game. And if they are knowingly attempting to do something that isn't in the rules (Cheat), there is no fun for anyone but the person attempting to cheat. I don't own every codex, I have to /trust/ the person I am playing against to know their rules and use them properly. That is the reason why there are rules, so we are all playing the same game and playing fairly.

Simple fact of the matter is that I have given page numbers and examples from the FAQ and base rule book in my posts, to give the OP the most accurate answer I can concerning his question and answer the questions along the way. If you do not like the answers I have provided, then your fight is with Games Workshop, not me. I say this because you have failed in any attempt to correct me by finding any rules to support your position. If I fail in my due diligence to find a answer, the correct one needs to be put forth. These people are asking questions because they don't know the answer or are unsure if they using the rules correctly, so it is for their benefit and anyone else's who happens to be reading the same thread who might have a similar question or might also be unsure.

Chrysis wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

There is no such rule. If line of sight is sufficiently obscured, they get cover. No distances involved, no work arounds with owning the terrain or touching the terrain. TLOS period.

So what does the rule for barricades say?

That if two models are in base contact with the wall and within 2" of each other they count as in base contact for the purposes of charging and thus can fight. That doesn't effect Line of Sight, and thus Cover Saves, in the slightest. Which you'd know if you read the rule.

Thanks for the reply and thaniks for being an ass about it. All I did was ask a simple question. I didn't want any cheek back from you. Welcome to my ignore list.

Wow, this thread's a mess. It really isn't that hard, though: if your enemy is obscured by the Aegis, he gets a cover save. There are no rules that lets your models jump, climb or otherwise ignore the Aegis for LoS purposes, so they don't ignore it.

 BlkTom wrote:

Solidcrash wrote:


So which rule would you agree with? Your or mine?

I would follow the correct one, from the base rule book, like I would expect every person I play against to use. Because if they do not follow the rules of the game we are playing, then we really are not playing the game. And if they are knowingly attempting to do something that isn't in the rules (Cheat), there is no fun for anyone but the person attempting to cheat. I don't own every codex, I have to /trust/ the person I am playing against to know their rules and use them properly. That is the reason why there are rules, so we are all playing the same game and playing fairly.

Simple fact of the matter is that I have given page numbers and examples from the FAQ and base rule book in my posts, to give the OP the most accurate answer I can concerning his question and answer the questions along the way. If you do not like the answers I have provided, then your fight is with Games Workshop, not me. I say this because you have failed in any attempt to correct me by finding any rules to support your position. If I fail in my due diligence to find a answer, the correct one needs to be put forth. These people are asking questions because they don't know the answer or are unsure if they using the rules correctly, so it is for their benefit and anyone else's who happens to be reading the same thread who might have a similar question or might also be unsure.

Agree. That why I am heading for GW and speak with one of staff who know every rule. To make clear up the gap.
And yeah I do not have every single codex, I only get my own races codex ( blood angel and dark angel) but I won't buy space marine codex because I only have blood angel and dark angel... Hopefully blood angel have their own 6th editon codex. Of course I have many more races but I got trouble with necron, I own necron but do not have codex! Silly me.

It remind me of me play against low level below me, they didn't know any special rule they can use.. I just trash them in turn 1 and 2.. But find out that they use basic rule instead of advance rule. I give them a rematch by reset battle field and reset turn number but use basic rule.. I like advance rule better really. But they are learner.. In that day I learn my own mistake too, when you play against someone you don't know. Make sure tell them which rule you both are playing. Include how line of sight work and this defence line work before start play and enjoy it.

Models are assumed to be standing even if they are on their bellies. If you are up on a wall that a standing model could shoot over, or in the case of gretchin assumed to have steps they could stand on(because it makes perfect sense the gretchin would build a wall taller than they are so they cant shoot over it, right?) , then you can assume the model will stand up and shoot over the wall, and be fired back at. Use some common sense, its why you have it. If some player did try to pull some rules lawyer crap about prone modeled figures not able to shoot over a defensive wall, then congrats they just made themselves the a-hole player of the day and never would get another game from me, its very possible I would concede the game without a handshake. I refuse to play WAAC players once I know of them and that's a perfect example of unsportsmanlike conduct.

I actually have heavy weapons based on horse bases and the gunners on 25 mm bases. This allows me to opt for about any heavy weapon in the set. Missile launchers I mount on standing guys so they only use 2 25mm bases and morters on round termy bases. When I actually put my army on the field, I put the models for each team (weapon and 2 gunners) onto a regulation 60mm base. If I know I'm playing a jerk who is gonna say "those kneeling guys cant see over the wall", I put a standing guardsman on the base instead of one of the kneelers.

Generally, I don't use a lot of heavy weapons teams, well not as many as I used to anyways. What I usually use my walls for is to put my sponge unit behind. I stick a commissar lord attached to harkers unit with camo behind the wall. a 2+ cover save they don't have to go to ground to get, decent firepower with a las cannon and harkers heavy bolter and both the commissar and a vet on the AA gun.

Yes, I have found that the smart enemy deep strike directly in front of the wall and deploy in such a way as to shoot over it denying me my cover save and keeping the save for themselves from the rest of my army and then just assault over it into me. Or even ground based assault guys make it to the wall and use it for cover in much the same way. Fortunately, for me, most of my opponants don't think of that.

Col. Dash wrote:
Models are assumed to be standing even if they are on their bellies. If you are up on a wall that a standing model could shoot over, or in the case of gretchin assumed to have steps they could stand on(because it makes perfect sense the gretchin would build a wall taller than they are so they cant shoot over it, right?) , then you can assume the model will stand up and shoot over the wall, and be fired back at. Use some common sense, its why you have it. If some player did try to pull some rules lawyer crap about prone modeled figures not able to shoot over a defensive wall, then congrats they just made themselves the a-hole player of the day and never would get another game from me, its very possible I would concede the game without a handshake. I refuse to play WAAC players once I know of them and that's a perfect example of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Absolutely.

@Evil Inc. It's one thing if you're playing right and created contingencies for the WAAC player (basically, he's not a WAAC but a Make You Lose at All Costs, which is even worse imo) and a completely other when someone breaks out their legal books to justify their cheating. As I've said, this flies in the face of Pg 4 (The Most Important Rule).

I've noticed this seems to sit exclusively on squishy IG who can't take bolter rounds. Could you imagine if a CSM player tried this sh!t? "Yeah, my Daemon Prince has wings, but he's only flying an inch off the ground and he's laying down so no LOS. He also picked up a section of ADL and stacked it up so he has mobile LOS blocker." GTFO OF HERE!

So here is my final answer to anyone caught doing that sh!t. You're guys are modeled prone? GREAT! Looks like they are permanently Gone to Ground. Thank god you can't move or shoot better than Overwatch. No 6' crawling for you.

I swear there is a quote that explains the game as "dynamic" and "moving" as Col. Dash has put forward. I swear I read almost the exact same thing he's quoting, I just haven't been able to source it yet. And before anyone tries to string me up for not following the rules, I'm not saying at 2' you don't negate the covering units save or 2' doesn't give the assault unit charging the wall a cover save against everything else. It's just this sh!t about 24" out, my ADL is covering the enemy, wall stacking, and whether or not you can model your units to cheat. All of that is garbage.

wtnind wrote:

 BlkTom wrote:


Base rulebook FAQ says you can not stack your ADL, that it has to be end to end. Does anyone know the rules to this game? I think I will start ignored 'Gets Hot' because my guy would throw away his gun before it burns him. That is how you people are sounding... sheesh.

Q: Can you deploy the Aegis Defence Line sections in two or
more groups of two or more sections apiece (this way, they will
still be in base contact with at least one other section)? (p114)
A: No – the Aegis defence line sections must be deployed
in an unbroken chain, though they can be connected end-to-
end such as in the example shown on page 114.

That FAQ has 0% to do with stacking, it is 100% to do with splitting up your aegis and having small sections deployed all over the place. The FAQ says that the line must be unbroken. It then makes an irrelevant statement about you being allowed to join up the ends if you want (nothing in the ruleset prevented it before).

The BRB says:
"Composition:Up to 4 long and 4 short Aegis defence line sections. Each section of Aegis defence line must be placed in base contact with at least one other section". Ergo as long as the base is touching it is totally fine. you can happily build a big 3D pile as long as the base is touching at least one other bit and that you can follow an unbroken line along them! So go ahead and magnitise the bases so you can build your very own tower of piza.

Obviously my post was in jest, anyone who tried to do such a thing would rapidly run out of opponents. Does anyone know how to take a joke?

Ha...I have contemplated this for a Land Raider.

I currently play mine (for bugs) in a spiral fashion where 3+ of the walls all touch at one focal point and then spread out from there...it's excellent for objetive camping the center of the board...as bugs do most of the time.

Col. Dash wrote:
Models are assumed to be standing even if they are on their bellies. If you are up on a wall that a standing model could shoot over, or in the case of gretchin assumed to have steps they could stand on(because it makes perfect sense the gretchin would build a wall taller than they are so they cant shoot over it, right?) , then you can assume the model will stand up and shoot over the wall, and be fired back at.

No, there are no such rules like that. Models are just the plastic pieces on the table, nothing more. If the actual model can not draw LOS, then it can not fire. Those are the rules.

Col. Dash wrote:

Use some common sense, its why you have it. If some player did try to pull some rules lawyer crap about prone modeled figures not able to shoot over a defensive wall, then congrats they just made themselves the a-hole player of the day and never would get another game from me, its very possible I would concede the game without a handshake. I refuse to play WAAC players once I know of them and that's a perfect example of unsportsmanlike conduct.

That goes both ways I guess. If someone insisted on that they could fire through a wall, I would stop the game right there, as I would feel that it is a waste of time. I do not wish to waste my time with people who like to play an imagination play, instead an actual game of warhammer by the rules.

So, pole cat, you would be fine with me modeling a leman russ with a battle cannon out of pvc pipe so that as soon as it left the turret, there was a 90 degree agle so that the barrel went straight up for 4 feet and then had another 90 degree turn to allow it to then point forward again for another 8 inches? I could sit it on my back line totally out of your line of sight and hammer you with battle cannon shots from an angle the negated most cover from your wall because it could see over it? Of course, you would not be able to return fire at my russ because you could not see it's hull. Did I mention I could also do that with the hull mounted las cannon and sponson heavy bolters along mounting the hunter killer missile on a huge periscope as well? According to you that's fine. Heck, while I'm at it I might do the same for all my units. The gunners on my las cannons will have 4 foot high necks (4 feet for me as the player nit 4 feet from the models perspective. They could see the whole field and the shots would be coming from head level while 50% of the model is still in cover.
This is why we need to use a little common sense. If someone refused to finish a game because they did not think my las cannon should be able to fire over a ADL (despite the fact it was designed to allow it, I would count that as a free with and the tourney runner would count it as me tableing you with all objectives. Not to mention you would be banned from future tourneys.
You appear to be the person that is the reason I will often put a standing guardsman on my heavy weapons bases instead of two kneelers to avoid just such a thing from happening.

EVIL INC wrote:
So, pole cat, you would be fine with me modeling a leman russ with a battle cannon out of pvc pipe so that as soon as it left the turret, there was a 90 degree agle so that the barrel went straight up for 4 feet and then had another 90 degree turn to allow it to then point forward again for another 8 inches? I could sit it on my back line totally out of your line of sight and hammer you with battle cannon shots from an angle the negated most cover from your wall because it could see over it? Of course, you would not be able to return fire at my russ because you could not see it's hull. Did I mention I could also do that with the hull mounted las cannon and sponson heavy bolters along mounting the hunter killer missile on a huge periscope as well? According to you that's fine. Heck, while I'm at it I might do the same for all my units. The gunners on my las cannons will have 4 foot high necks (4 feet for me as the player nit 4 feet from the models perspective. They could see the whole field and the shots would be coming from head level while 50% of the model is still in cover.

Wtf? That is not even vaguely what Polecat was talking about. Let me refresh your memory:

Polecat wrote:

No, there are no such rules like that. Models are just the plastic pieces on the table, nothing more. If the actual model can not draw LOS, then it can not fire. Those are the rules.

*snip*

That goes both ways I guess. If someone insisted on that they could fire through a wall, I would stop the game right there, as I would feel that it is a waste of time. I do not wish to waste my time with people who like to play an imagination play, instead an actual game of warhammer by the rules.

EVIL INC wrote:
If someone refused to finish a game because they did not think my las cannon should be able to fire over a ADL (despite the fact it was designed to allow it, I would count that as a free with and the tourney runner would count it as me tableing you with all objectives. Not to mention you would be banned from future tourneys.

That is so far beyond unlikely I cannot even be bothered to quantify the inaccuracy of your statement.

EVIL INC wrote:

You appear to be the person that is the reason I will often put a standing guardsman on my heavy weapons bases instead of two kneelers to avoid just such a thing from happening.

Wat?

Polecat was insisting that if the kneeler gunners on a heavy weapon squad was unable to draw a line of sight from the actual eyes of the model he would pack up and leave if someone tried to fire it over an ADL.

You obviously have not played in many tourneys. Tourney organizers simply do not put up with nonsense. if someone tosses a hissy , throws his stuff into his model cases and refuses to play because their opponent wants to fire a las cannon over a wall, the organizers will indeed award the win to the guy shooting the las cannon and most of the time (every time in my experience of witnessing it when others threw fits like that for one reason or another) the player will not be welcome back.

"You" being a player type. One that is so WAAC that will actually deny shots because the gunner on a heavy weapon base is kneeling and cant see over the top of an ADL. To avoid that, I simply put a standing model on it. Prevents the argument before it can even start.

BTW selym, I'm glad that you are following me around from thread to thread simply to troll in an effort to try to antagonize me. By all means do continue as it is entertaining to all of us.

EVIL INC wrote:
Polecat was insisting that if the kneeler gunners on a heavy weapon squad was unable to draw a line of sight from the actual eyes of the model he would pack up and leave if someone tried to fire it over an ADL.

Yes, and you're saying that this means he would therefore be okay with you modelling your LRBT to fire from anywhere, just because it would grant you LOS.
Doing so is called modelling for advantage, and nobody would be happy with that.

EVIL INC wrote:

You obviously have not played in many tourneys. Tourney organizers simply do not put up with nonsense.

Nor would they put up with the nonsense of you claiming that a unit who does not have LOS should be allowed to shoot, just because you think an ADL allows you to.

EVIL INC wrote:

if someone tosses a hissy , throws his stuff into his model cases and refuses to play because their opponent wants to fire a las cannon over a wall, the organizers will indeed award the win to the guy shooting the las cannon and most of the time (every time in my experience of witnessing it when others threw fits like that for one reason or another) the player will not be welcome back.

Arguing that you're not playing by the rules is not a hissy fit and your defense of the misinterpretation would be overruled by tourney judges.

EVIL INC wrote:

"You" being a player type. One that is so WAAC that will actually deny shots because the gunner on a heavy weapon base is kneeling and cant see over the top of an ADL.

Which is a perfectly legal interpretation of the rules. It was your choice to have a kneeling model. If that means you loose LOS all the time, that's your own fault.

EVIL INC wrote:

BTW selym, I'm glad that you are following me around from thread to thread simply to troll in an effort to try to antagonize me. By all means do continue as it is entertaining to all of us.

I and several others are trying to get you to use the correct rules, and understand that you are in many cases wrong. Our posts against you are arguing the opposite side of the arguments you are making. It just so happens that you make many unfounded and outrageus claims that we've decided that you need to be replied to.