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.

It's been pointed out that literal model heights are not relevant

It's also been pointed out that this only applies in certain situations.

You claim that we always ignore the definition of a model... we don't.
You, however, consistently ignore the fact that the Sizes are not always used. It says this in the section that explains the Sizes in the first place. It says it again in the LOS section, several times. But you keep coming back to the idea that, because it says in one single place that a model occupies the area of its base for measuring purposes that this therefore applies also to LOS, and anything to the contrary is a misprint.

Does that not seem just a tad over the top?

Please quote the page that defines what a body of a space marine is in the rulebook so you can shot it with your model's eye view since a model could be standing, knelling or laying down and therefore cannot count it's literal height. (page 7).

There is no page defining what the body is. Your point?

There's no page defining what the word 'measure' means either. Guess that means we have to use some other means to determine if our weapons are in range.


And for future reference, the LOS rules are on pages 20 and 21, not page 7.

Posted By insaniak on 04/12/2006 10:29 PM
There is no page defining what the body is. Your point?

There's no page defining what the word 'measure' means either. Guess that means we have to use some other means to determine if our weapons are in range.


And for future reference, the LOS rules are on pages 20 and 21, not page 7.

Yes, and page 20 comes after page seven where it says you can't use the literal model. Are time lines this difficult for you, you know, proceeding events define the ones that happen later?

Yes, and page 20 comes after page seven where it says you can't use the literal model.

You mean where it says that in certain situations you don't use the literal model. For example, the bit right at the end of page 7, where it tells you that the Sizes it just defined are only relevant when drawing a LOS through certain terrain features or close combats...?

Plus in a thread on the old forums yakface even admitted he would never agree to a magic cylinder style of play because he didn't like it. It's like arguing with a brick wall, just how people say they feel when arguing their side. The only difference is the opinion on this forum is both hateful and a pack mentality when people just follow the common posters listed in the title of this thread.

I never said anything of the sort. I was accused of that because I said that I *like* playing the game with a model's eye view rather than with a fully cylinder and size category based game.

But I would have played the opposite way if that is what the rules actually said (which they don't).

Besides, I haven't even been arguing this point so why would you bring up my name just to incorretly slander it?