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 another reason to keep those hatches up!

I think the "Magic Cylinder" idea is there to maybe streamline playing the game and one solution to get both players to the same understanding regarding vehicles on the tabletop.

Regardless of how you decide to play any rule in this game... its important that both players are playing by the same understanding. Yes, you can actually see through some vehicles and not through others OR you have the "magic cylinder" theory OR any other theory out there... all are acceptable gaming practice I believe.

I think alot of problems arise when two people come to the table to game and don't have the courtesy to come to an understanding of those "few" particularly vague rules out there we all have to deal with BEFORE you get in the situation during the game where your difference in understandings can have a huge impact.

As for the "rules" I use when playing my pod force, I make sure my opponent knows exactly what they are facing before we start playing. Any argumentsl are worked out beforehand and not when I have podded right down next to his soon to be short lived command squad.

That's all good and well, except the "magic cylinder" isn't actually in the rules.

"I think the "Magic Cylinder" idea is there to maybe streamline playing the game and one solution to get both players to the same understanding regarding vehicles on the tabletop."

I can't see what would be more streamlined than looking across the table, and if I can see it, I can shoot it.  No need to discuss exactly how far that 'cylinder' extends (base to banner? base to frag launcher? arms outstretched dread tip to tip?  etc.)

I otherwise agree with your comments about discussing the 'house rules' before the game, so there are no surprises. 

That being said, I used to play the 'magic cylinder', but have since come around after reading YMTC and then closely re-reading the rulebook.  I've been playing a long time, and tend to assume I know how things should work, sometimes without looking closely at the book. 

Both players would have a better understanding regarding all the rules in 40k in general if GW paid 'slightly' more attention to editing and writing clear rules from the start .

 

Posted By insaniak on 05/08/2006 11:40 PM

you still use the hull/main body of the model as it's base and since the frame/body/hull of the vehicle is used for LOS blocking purposes you could not shoot through a pod with open doors any more than you could shoot through one with closed doors.

Of course you can. Unless you subscribe to the 'Magic Cylinder' myth, which has no basis in actual rules.

You draw LOS past vehicles using a model's eye view. If you can see it, you can shoot it. It's that simple.

 

 

quite correct there is no cylinder or magic cylinder rule in the book. there is however rules in the book that tell us other things

1. a model is considered to occupy the area of it's base

2.a model without a base usually vehicles use thier hull/main body instead

3.for LOS you cannot target odly posed models or guns, banners etc... that stick way above or off the base of a model.

4.it is also true that you can as you said draw a LOS PAST or OVER a vehicle model but not THROUGH it.  as stated in the core rulebook p20

as such in a way the magic cylinder does exhist, not a cylinder in shape exactly but you still need to draw LOS past or over the model in question. so no shooting between a dreadnaughts legs or through a drop pod even if the doors are down/open.

all right. Lets do this proper like.

1. a model is considered to occupy the area of it's base

page 6

2.a model without a base usually vehicles use thier hull/main body instead

Again,page 6

3.for LOS you cannot target odly posed models or guns, banners etc... that stick way above or off the base of a model.

Page numbers help infinatly when making a point. Though I am assuming you are refering to the first paragraph of page 21.

4.it is also true that you can as you said draw a LOS PAST or OVER a vehicle model but not THROUGH it. as stated in the core rulebook p20

This is true. You cannot draw LOS through a vehicle. By being strictly RAW, I would have to agree with Mughi. Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

it was relevant to show the difference for modesl with and without bases. as noted on page 20 vehicle and mosterous creatures block LOS through but not over or past. monsterous creatures like wraitlords and vehicles like sentinels and dreadnaughts all have bases. and as the rule applies you would not be able to shoot between the legs on any of them, but rather past or over. hence a quasi magic cylider.

 

This is true. You cannot draw LOS through a vehicle. By being strictly RAW, I would have to agree with Mughi. Though there is a catch. There is no drop pod model that comes with a base, so you are mistaking your first point to have relevence in your form of a magic cylinder.

Yay, rusty spoon time yet again.

Hellfury: the area of the base is simply the area of the base, *not* the area above the base. So all that rule literally says is that the base is considered part of the model, so measurments should be made from the base.

Here is my whack-ass drawing to illustrate my point a bit more:




The green is the "area of the base". The blue is the area *above* the base. The model is only considered to occupy the red and the green, not the blue.

And Mughi:

There is a difference between shooting "through" a vehicle model and shooting in between parts of a vehicle. If I cannot draw LOS through part of a vehicle model, then by the rules I cannot shoot through it. If I *can* draw LOS in between portions of a vehicle, I am not firing "through" the vehicle model, I am firing in between portions of it.

I do not play the game this way, but I do believe it is what the literal rules say.

Why the hell are you pointing that thing at me, Yak?  I think you really misunderstood what I was saying about the magic cylinder. I am not sitting here even slightly defending the magic cylinder. I am simply agreeing with Mughi's very strict interpretation of the LOS rules.  But whatever. Read what you quoted me on again.

Then, you can take that diagram and point it at someone else.

Yak, I've seen it several times, and I will say it again: that is truly an ugly, albeit accurate, schematic.

Actually, the area of the base is its base size (diameter in mm), yakface is using the profile. As per page 7 you cannot use the model's literal height as it could be crouching or kneeling, making the model part also void. The only thing left to use is the height (size level) and the base area (radius in mm or the hull area covering the board) providing the famed magic cylinder. This will be shot down by dakka chumps since:

They suck at geometry and don't know what area is.
They ignore the model guidelines because of one line that is talking bout how you ignore size level 2 models most of the time, but their height (size level 2, you cannot use their literal height) becomes important when in close combat. Since it doesn't say size level 2 in the line, they ignore the lines before it explaining that almost all models are size level 2, then gives rules for the majority of models (size level 2) and gives special rules for other models.

Hey all! Brother Love here! I gots a friend who made some cool grooving transformer type terminators. They got big kicks when they land which he claims blocks LoS. The next turn the termies ditch their kicks. Sounds totally bogus huh?

Snooggums, as misguided as you are, you are tenacious and you consistently make me laugh.

For that, I applaud you.

  

 

Snooggums, that was so horrible I think you gave me cancer.

First, the claim that other suck at geometry and don't know the definition of area is false.  I am graduating with a degree in aeronautical engineering, and I have probably seen an area term in more calculations than you will ever see in your life.  I've worked with CAD programs and have even made parts in a machine shop for class projects, where if you get your geometry wrong, the parts don't work and you fail classes.  I'm not just talking about making a tea cup either, I'm talking about making a wind tunnel for a children's museum.  And now that I've graduated I'm going to work for a company that designs parts for helicopters.  So in other words: shut up and sit down because your opinions about the abilities of others are worthless.

This is from previous discussions which you are refusing to comprehend.

***

Page 20: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight.  A light 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."

According to this entry, if you can draw line of sight from the model's eye view, you can shoot over vehicles and monsterous creatures. If I place a model on a stack of books, and I can draw line of sight over a monsterous creature based on the model's eye view, I can see past it.

Page 21: "A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other Area Terrain."

Size categories definitely don't stack, but a model on a size 3 terrain piece can count the height of the terrain piece for line of sight with regards to other Area Terrain.  Note this doesn't say all line of sight applications; the model's eye view determines whether you can see over vehicles or monsterous creatures.  Page 21 shows that if a size 2 model is standing on a size 3 terrain piece, it can see over other size 2 terrain pieces.

Say a monsterous creature is 2 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model.  Say a building on the board is 10 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model as well.  There are only 3 size categories, but a building can still be 10 inches tall.  A size 2 model is placed on top of the building, and is trying to draw line of sight over the 2 inch tall, size 3 monsterous creature.  The player uses the model's eye view to see if they can see over it, and he can.

Page 7: "These following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority."

This is still true.  The model on top of the 10" tall building still has to take a target priority test to shoot past the size 3 monsterous creature.  Size 1, 2, and 3 models that can't draw line of sight over or past the size 3 model can't shoot models behind it.  If there is a size 2 model that completely covers another size 2 model, and the model on top of the building wants to shoot at the covered model, he can because size 2 models do not block line of sight for other size 2 models.

I agree that there are only 3 size categories, but when determining line of sight, you do so from "the model's eye view".  Size 3 models do block line of sight, but if you can see over them from a model's eye view, you can shoot past them.

.***

Again, taken from previous posts about line of sight.

***

The only condition for seeing over area terrain is: "Models that are classed as taller than the area terrain can see and be seen over it".

The Basilisk in the OP case was size 3, and was hiding behind size 3 terrain.  The HammerHead was a size 3 vehicle flying high over a size 3 terrain piece.  A model can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other area terrain.  In this case, it doesn't help the HammerHead to use the terrain piece height because it is already classed as size 3.  So in response to the OP's question: yes you got raped.

While it may seem awkward, the current rules allow models to see over other size 3 models if they can see over by the "model's eye view".  Area terrain is totally different, where only "Models that are classed as taller than the Area Terrain can see and be seen over it."  This means that no models can ever see over a size 3 area terrain piece, regardless of the fact that they may be standing on or "flying high" over a 10" tall size 3 terrain piece, because there is no class taller than size 3.  While the terrain may be physically taller than the rest of the size 3 models and terrain on the table, the BGB states that you don't use actual LOS for area terrain, and instead you refer to the size class.

So the net result is that size 3 models can be seen over, but you can't see over size 3 area terrain.

***

The 'dakka chumps' are going to shoot down your 'magical cylinder' idea because it isn't supported by the rules.  You are taking house rules and trying to support them with rules in the book, and you are failing miserably.  The 'dakka chumps' aren't ignoring anything: you are.  You have completely ignored every argument in this thread that is based upon the rules, even the ones that quote the rules.  So I am going to reiterate the important quote in the book that makes your argument about never using a model's point-of-view worthless.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

If we are playing, and I can see past one of your vehicles from a model's eye view, and you don't allow me to shoot past it after I have passed a leadership test because of your 'magical cylinder', then you are cheating.

 

First, the claim that other suck at geometry and don't know the definition of area is false.  I am graduating with a degree in aeronautical engineering, and I have probably seen an area term in more calculations than you will ever see in your life.  I've worked with CAD programs and have even made parts in a machine shop for class projects, where if you get your geometry wrong, the parts don't work and you fail classes.  I'm not just talking about making a tea cup either, I'm talking about making a wind tunnel for a children's museum.  And now that I've graduated I'm going to work for a company that designs parts for helicopters.  So in other words: shut up and sit down because your opinions about the abilities of others are worthless.

I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude. I have no problem  with geometry or spacial relations or reading comprehension even if I don't do them for a living. All of the rules are written for a flat playing surface with abstract heights for models, as is clear to those of us who read more than one line at a time.

Page 21: "A model's line of sight will be considerably improved by being on an elevated position, such as a cliff or building, so it can count the height of the terrain piece it stands on for line of sight in regards to other Area Terrain."

Size categories definitely don't stack, but a model on a size 3 terrain piece can count the height of the terrain piece for line of sight with regards to other Area Terrain.  Note this doesn't say all line of sight applications; the model's eye view determines whether you can see over vehicles or monsterous creatures.  Page 21 shows that if a size 2 model is standing on a size 3 terrain piece, it can see over other size 2 terrain pieces.

Say a monsterous creature is 2 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model.  Say a building on the board is 10 inches tall.  It is a size 3 model as well.  There are only 3 size categories, but a building can still be 10 inches tall.  A size 2 model is placed on top of the building, and is trying to draw line of sight over the 2 inch tall, size 3 monsterous creature.  The player uses the model's eye view to see if they can see over it, and he can.

That is contradictory. The biggest a building or area terrain can be is Size level 3, you cannot use the literal height, per page 7. The rules are simplified to allow a quick look at the table to determine LOS, if you can't just glance then you lean over the table to see what is in between, nothing more than that. In your example of standing on a size level 3 terrain to shoot over size level 2 you have it corrent, you can use the terrain's height class to shoot over shorter size levels. Having a 10 inch high piece of terrain doesn't make it over size level 3.

Page 20: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monsterous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight.  A light 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."

You can see if you can see past the magic cylinder simply by leaning over the talbe and using the figure of speech "model's eye view" by bing low to the table. As page 7 states that you cannot use a model's literal height since it could be standing or kneeling, this cannot be a literal rule, it has to be a figure of speech. I agree completely that you lean over the table, just that you don't use the model's physical height to see over things. This is because page seven, which comes before page 20, states that you cannot use the model's height for LOS. Already established, never countered.

Page 20: Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them.

One line does not override what a model is, which is explained on page 7. If you cannot use the literal height of a model to decide LOS then you cannot look over a size level 3 model because it is always size level 3, since it always blocks LOS. You can lean right on over the table, see the tank is between you and the target and state:

"Since the model's eye view shows the tank between my model and the target, and my model is not a taller size level, I cannot shoot over the tank."

And it does say at some point that you can shoot over vehicles, you can shoot right over bikes to the tank behind. And you would be following the rules, not house rules. Anyone that uses WYSIWYG for LOS is using house rules and not the written rules, since it says you cannot use the height per page 7.

Tacit, if you can't laugh at him, ignore him.

Its simply not worth it. Some people are so convinced of their rightness that they have become incapable of understanding the concept that they might be mistaken. Look at religious fanatics, they suffer from the same problem. The possibility that they might be in error no longer exist for them, and it is therefore impossible to carry out a resonable debate with them.

At this point, all that you can do is to try and prevent others from falling into his logical void and thank the Emperor that he's not in your gaming group.

Posted By blue loki on 05/10/2006 12:42 PM
Tacit, if you can't laugh at him, ignore him.

Its simply not worth it. Some people are so convinced of their rightness that they have become incapable of understanding the concept that they might be mistaken. Look at religious fanatics, they suffer from the same problem. The possibility that they might be in error no longer exist for them, and it is therefore impossible to carry out a resonable debate with them.

At this point, all that you can do is to try and prevent others from falling into his logical void and thank the Emperor that he's not in your gaming group.

Except you are the religious fanatic and I am the voice of reason. You take a single quote out of context and declare the rest of the rules conform to it (model's eye view) instead of taking the line in the context of the surrounding rules. If you can't convince the other person then make derogatory remarks against them and declare them to be misinformed that way newcomers will be tempted to ignore tham and follow the mass or more loudly shouted opinion.

Just like Fox News.

I am with snoogums totally... blue loki is totally full of fertilizer that smells really bad.

Snoogums would be right, if it wasn't for the small problem that Size levels only matter in area terrain and assaults.

I wouldn't compare people who disagree with you on YMDC to religious fanatics.

1) Don't diss fanatics. We make better pizza and (noting your sig) coffee.

2) Arguments on YMDC, especially on Dakka (not that I check any other group rulewise viva la Dakka) tend to get shrill and dogmatic on many sides quite quickly.

 

You all need to learn how to skip over posts by certain posters.  Just don't read 'em; treating them like they don't exist is the easiest way to do it.

That's right, I just insulted EVERYONE.   Even people not on Dakka.  Snap!

Posted By Iorek on 05/10/2006 2:20 PM
You all need to learn how to skip over posts by certain posters.  Just don't read 'em; treating them like they don't exist is the easiest way to do it.

That's right, I just insulted EVERYONE.   Even people not on Dakka.  Snap!

So you're the WMD of snaps now? Takes 'em all out?

Sorry, I just had to add this:

"You take a single quote out of context and declare the rest of the rules conform to it (model's eye view) instead of taking the line in the context of the surrounding rules."

And you're doing the same thing by taking Pg7 out of context to all of the rules in the sections about Line of Sight (Pgs 20-21).

You are failing to account for several truisms that you conveniently ignore, and that have been patiently typed out for you several times:

1) Size categories only apply to AREA TERRAIN and CLOSE COMBATS.  Nothing else.  Everything else is "model's eye view".  See, they can both coexist.

2) Yakface's #1 Rule of Warhammer 40,000: Yes, modeling can be used to your advantage.  So, you may certainly make your wraithlord kneeling, heck, even crawling.  And yes, it will be harder to draw LOS to him, but likewise, it will be harder for him to draw LOS to another model.

Nothing like yet another re-hash of fully-supported rules :-) 

Oh, and btw, I'm with tacit and blue-loki, and everyone else who has posted the correct way to play LOS> 

"I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude."

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/spring%202004/final%20report%20(isr)%20s2004.doc

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/Spring2003/Reports/ISR_S03_Final_Report.doc

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc

Wow... it's easy proving you wrong.  One name appears in all of those reports, and I bet you can figure out who that represents.

"You can see if you can see past the magic cylinder simply by leaning over the talbe and using the figure of speech "model's eye view" by bing low to the table. As page 7 states that you cannot use a model's literal height since it could be standing or kneeling, this cannot be a literal rule, it has to be a figure of speech."

This is entirely supported by the rules.

You've changed my mind. 

The rules explicitly state that you should use the 'magic cylinder' approach designed by snooggums on the dakkadakka.com forums.

The rules also explicitly state that its representation of a model's eye view is a figure of speech.

Please, continue to quote the rules, you make it so much clearer when you add words and intentions that weren't written by Games Workshop employees.

"One line does not override what a model is, which is explained on page 7. If you cannot use the literal height of a model to decide LOS then you cannot look over a size level 3 model because it is always size level 3, since it always blocks LOS."

Circular logic:  when a premise implicitly or explicitly assumes that the conclusion is correct.

"All of the rules are written for a flat playing surface with abstract heights for models, as is clear to those of us who read more than one line at a time."

You're not assuming GW intent at all in that statement.

"You cannot use the literal height, per page 7."

Really? I thought the rules state:

"This does not mean litterally their actual height, as the simple expedient of crouching, kneeling or crawling will render such direct comparisons irrelevant.  Instead there are three broad height bands into which all models fall."

So when you consider the size category of a unit, you don't use the literal height of a model, i.e., a half inch tall model with daemonic stature is still a size three target.

It's nice how your comprehension of a quote in the 'Model Height' section of the rulebook makes the 'Line of Sight' section of the rulebook irrelevant.

Posted By Tacit on 05/10/2006 2:53 PM

"I'm a ninja and I invented geometry through time travel! That's about as reliable a statement as you posted mr attitude."

http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/isb/spring%202004/final%20report%20(isr)%20s2004.doc

https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc">https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Courses/CoursePages/aae451/2006/spring/group%206/group_6_SRR_document.doc

Wow... it's easy proving you wrong.  One name appears in all of those reports, and I bet you can figure out who that represents.

That you're not a Ninja? Its not relevant to anything else.

"That you're not a Ninja? Its not relevant to anything else." - jfrazell

"They suck at geometry and don't know what area is." - snooggums

Almost got that one right.  The 'you suck at geometry' argument was used by one of the 'magical cylinder' supporters.  It's relevant as long as 'magical cylinder' supporters continue to doubt our knowledge and understanding.  So far I haven't seen any of you try to prove your intelligence or understanding.  For all I know you could be a monkey throwing feces at a keyboard and are simply lucky enough to form words.