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.

You can know when someone has been proven wrong when you compare what they wrote with the rules and see that they are different.

The LOS rules are actually fairly clear, although they are spread over about three different sections, and they do not read the way that Snoogums says they read.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 06/08/2006 2:26 PM
You can know when someone has been proven wrong when you compare what they wrote with the rules and see that they are different.

The LOS rules are actually fairly clear, although they are spread over about three different sections, and they do not read the way that Snooggums says they read.

Since it is clearly writte on page 7 that literal model height cannot be used, but instead models have a size level, how do you support the view that a model can shoot over another model if the literal model height is not blocking the model behind it? How do you resolve the contradiction that the only clearly stated time you have clear LOS is when the firer or the target are taller than the terrain or models in between, and that the model's eye view statement does not say that you can use the literal model for LOS purposes?

I actually had a decent piece written up in the "model's eye view" titled thread that got deleted. I'd like to point out that the literal reading of model's eye view contradicts the rules for models, yet this is never addressed.

Hey! You're right! Where did that thread go? Man, that had all kinds of good stuff in there. It was already locked. What more harm could it do? I mean jeesh! Talk about censorship. If the mods think they can silence me then they've got another th...

[BAN!]

Hold up there turbo, I was just assuming the crappy forum software ate it, I wasn't gonna accuse that rat ba$@%$[

NO CARRIER

Posted By bigchris1313 on 06/08/2006 2:01 PM
But the Snozzberries do taste like Snozzberries. He's making an invalid conclusion, by the very nature of his argument.

EDIT: In retrospect, perhaps the Snozzberries do not taste like Snozzberries.  But he's still wrong.

 

Yes but that doesn't matter does it.  We've already broken into the Snozzberries box.  As you know once you've popped the container the snozzberries will just get stale, so you might as well eat them all.  Mmm snozzberries...

You guys are funny, snozzberryz, no service, BAN, heh.

Snoogums, I think perhaps only you want to have this debate.

You think wrong!
I, for one, want to have this debate!
Once it is mine I will lock it in my magic cylinder for all time and only let it out on Sunday evening for 3 hours.

Posted by snooggums on 06/08/2006 4:01 PM
Since it is clearly writte on page 7 that literal model height cannot be used, but instead models have a size level, how do you support the view that a model can shoot over another model if the literal model height is not blocking the model behind it?

Because you keep ignoring the fact that size categories are only used in two situations, shooting over a close combat and area terrain. At any other time it is totally irrelevant. At all other times you use true line of sight and not the 'model height'.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/08/2006 11:10 PM

Posted by snooggums on 06/08/2006 4:01 PM
Since it is clearly writte on page 7 that literal model height cannot be used, but instead models have a size level, how do you support the view that a model can shoot over another model if the literal model height is not blocking the model behind it?

Because you keep ignoring the fact that size categories are only used in two situations, shooting over a close combat and area terrain. At any other time it is totally irrelevant. At all other times you use true line of sight and not the 'model height'.

Exactly.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/08/2006 11:10 PM

Posted by snooggums on 06/08/2006 4:01 PM
Since it is clearly writte on page 7 that literal model height cannot be used, but instead models have a size level, how do you support the view that a model can shoot over another model if the literal model height is not blocking the model behind it?

Because you keep ignoring the fact that size categories are only used in two situations, shooting over a close combat and area terrain. At any other time it is totally irrelevant. At all other times you use true line of sight and not the 'model height'.

But you can't use "true line of sight" if you can't use the model's literal height for LOS (page 7). Hello mr brick wall.
Just because a model isn't as tall as what you are shooting (literally taller) doesn't mean it isn't still between you and the target (as determined when leaning over the table for a model's eye view). All you are determining whith model's eye view is wether it is wide enough to block your view since you can't use the model's literal height for LOS. There is not 'true line of sight' anywhere in the book. Once again as I have to post every time, the comment about it only mattering for close combat and area terrain is because area terrain isn't a solid enough object to be able to look at and say "solid object" when leaning over the table. Since most models are size level 2 (and won't be blocking LOS) you don't have to worry about their height unless they are in close combat. Note that it then on page 20 states that monstrous creatures and vehicles always block LOS, which since you can't use their literal height, means they are blocking at size level 3.

Tell me, when leaning over the table to shoot a land raider behind a rhino, is the rhino still between you and the land raider? If it is, then you would have to be a highr size level to have a clear LOS. Sure it isn't in close combat, but the rhino has that special rule on page 20 which is the exception to the "only in close combat" comment that is aimed at the majority of model without special rules (size level 2).

But you can't use "true line of sight" if you can't use the model's literal height for LOS (page 7). Hello mr brick wall.

It doesn't say anything of the sort on page 7. It says merely that you can't use the models literal height to determine whether they can see over obstructions. It then defines the Size categories, and then, as you consistently ignore, goes on to say that these Sizes only become relevant when drawing a LOS through close combats or certain terrain features.

And yet, somehow, we're the ones taking single lines out of context...

Posted By insaniak on 06/09/2006 7:08 AM

But you can't use "true line of sight" if you can't use the model's literal height for LOS (page 7). Hello mr brick wall.

It doesn't say anything of the sort on page 7. It says merely that you can't use the models literal height to determine whether they can see over obstructions. It then defines the Size categories, and then, as you consistently ignore, goes on to say that these Sizes only become relevant when drawing a LOS through close combats or certain terrain features.

And yet, somehow, we're the ones taking single lines out of context...

Actually, you just took that line out of the whole post and ignored this:

"Once again as I have to post every time, the comment about it only mattering for close combat and area terrain is because area terrain isn't a solid enough object to be able to look at and say "solid object" when leaning over the table. Since most models are size level 2 (and won't be blocking LOS) you don't have to worry about their height unless they are in close combat. Note that it then on page 20 states that monstrous creatures and vehicles always block LOS, which since you can't use their literal height, means they are blocking at size level 3."

Where amaizingly enough I am not ignoring that it says that size levels only matter for close combat and terrain. Besides, what  could possibly block LOS other than an obstruction? Everything that would block LOS would be an "obstruction". You are ignoring the fact that the paragraph that contains the "these will only matter" is in a section talking about how models don't normally block LOS, so of course it wouldn't count until then. It later has the rule that vehicles and monstrous creatures always block and therefore would be blocking at size level 3 since you cannot use the model's literal height. The reason it says that area terrain is always defined with a size level because people can build them in a way that is not even across the area, they might have a broken wall on one side and rubble on the other, but call it level 2 area terrain. That is why it matters for area terrain and close combat.

 

I predict you will take one line out of this post and spout some crap back that you read here previously and say that I ignored something that is in this very post.

On the positive. Cities of Death is pretty clear on LOS issues at least for combat in urban environments. I can deal with either belief (although I prefer a level theory to vavoid constant conflicts about whether my 1in tall model can see another 1in tall model) but GW really needs to clarify on their website or WD or something which way works. there are a couple of topics that are extremely simple and could be cleared quickly, but its infuriating that they are not.

Posted by snooggums on 06/09/2006 7:36 AM
But you can't use "true line of sight" if you can't use the model's literal height for LOS (page 7). Hello mr brick wall.

And yet again, you only use size categories for two reasons. Shooting over a close combat and shooting over area terrain. In all other instances you use true line of sight exactly as dictated by the first paragraph on page 20 under Line Of Sight. The only brick wall I see here is you and your insistance on using a rule that has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/09/2006 9:51 AM

Posted by snooggums on 06/09/2006 7:36 AM
But you can't use "true line of sight" if you can't use the model's literal height for LOS (page 7). Hello mr brick wall.

And yet again, you only use size categories for two reasons. Shooting over a close combat and shooting over area terrain. In all other instances you use true line of sight exactly as dictated by the first paragraph on page 20 under Line Of Sight. The only brick wall I see here is you and your insistance on using a rule that has absolutely no relevance to the question at hand.

The first line on page 20 does not say to ignore the fact that you cannot use the model's literal height. This is a basic, basic rule, all of the rules on page 20 are based on this fact. Nothing on page 20 says that "now you literally use how the model is modelled to determine LOS". It simply says to lean over the table to see if something is between you and the target. Not "taller than the target" or "in a way that obscures the target literally if you were to shoot a laser beam from his eyeballs". It says that you lean over to see if something is in the way. Well without being able to use the literal height for LOS purposes as has already been established we can still use the model's height because it is still there. You cannot use it's eyes as you cannot use the model's literal height for LOS purposes. It is also noted that monstrous creaetures and vehicles always block LOS.

If you cannot use a model's literal height for LOS purposes and you are using it's literal height to determine LOS then you are a cheater. It might not be in the LOS section, but it comes before it and clearly states that it applies to LOS.

I'm done.

From page 7 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant.

Page 20 doesn't have to say that you don't use the model height rules because they already told you where the rules are relevant on page 7 and drawing line of sight is not one of them.

Just because something is not relavant at that time doesn't make it stop being true. The only height you are allowed to use in the rules for LOS purposes is the size level because that is the only one allowed. Just because it may not be "relevant" doesn't mean it isn't still in effect. Since it is the only height you can use either you can go ahead and still use it or you can declare LOS impossible because while you cannot use literal height, size levels aren't "relevant". You can however always use the model's size level to determine LOS like it says, unless you mean it can only be used while in close combat since that is the only time it is relevant.  Maybe they mean "only relevant for blocking LOS" like the paragraph reads.

"Only relevant" and "model's eye view" are misinterpreted and used out of context to achieve a level of play that keeps people from having to adjust to abstract rules. Those people are cheaters.

It is all so clear now.

I wonder why I never saw it that way before.

Now I see the light.

You have pulled the blinders from mine eyes.

Praise. Glory. Hallelujah.

I now join the ranks of the truth-seers. All others are wrong and must burn in the fiery pits of hell.

 

Posted by snooggums on 06/09/2006 11:38 AM
Just because something is not relavant at that time doesn't make it stop being true.

If it's not relevant, then it has no bearing on the matter at hand. It may still be true but it DOES NOT MATTER. It's only relevant for shooting over Area Terrain and shooting over close combats which use a different method of determining line of sight anyway.

From page 20 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain (see page 21, Line of Sight & Area Terrain), or an ongoing assault combat - this is dealt with later.

Those are the two situations where model height is relevant. Anywhere else model height is irrelevant.

irrelevant

adj : having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"

Ahh, yes! Another Blue Loki picture Riddle! Yay! OK, let me see if I can get this one...

So the president only has LOS to the naked pictures glued to the inside of the Binocular lens covers because:

A. They are of a size category 8.3
B. He is currently involved in CC with a young Theodore Roosevelt in a Green Beret outfit.
C. Those aren't binoculars. They are a limited edition Sports Illustrated "Game Buddy." One side contains bourbon, while the other contains PEZ.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/09/2006 11:01 AM

Posted by snooggums on 06/09/2006 11:38 AM
Just because something is not relavant at that time doesn't make it stop being true.

If it's not relevant, then it has no bearing on the matter at hand. It may still be true but it DOES NOT MATTER. It's only relevant for shooting over Area Terrain and shooting over close combats which use a different method of determining line of sight anyway.

From page 20 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook:

The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain (see page 21, Line of Sight & Area Terrain), or an ongoing assault combat - this is dealt with later.

Those are the two situations where model height is relevant. Anywhere else model height is irrelevant.

irrelevant

adj : having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"

Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely. Are size level 2 models not size level 2 all of the time? If a monstrous creature is always size level 3, and it always blocks LOS, why doesn't it block at size level 3? You cannot use his literal height you know. Sure size levels are relavant when shooting over combat and area terrain, area terrain doesn't always have a piece of plastic or tree between you and the target when you lean over to shoot, that's why you have to use it's designated size level instead. It becomes relevant for combat because MOT MODELS ARE size level 2 and don't normally block LOS. Of course they are still size level 2, but for them it isn't relevant because they don't block LOS unless they are in combat. However, a size level 3 creature ALWAYS blocks LOS and would always be size level three so it would block ize level 3. Nothing says you can now start using the literal height which has already been disallowed.

Unless of course they lose their size level or you can ignore their size level in which case a monstrous creature can't block LOS because you cannot use their literal height for LOS. So I guess I can shoot through any model not in combat while playing you because I can't use their literal height and their size level isn't relevant. Yay!  Here it is in form.

P1 Size levels only matter in close combat or for area terrain.

P2 You cannot use a model's literal height for determining LOS (page 7).

P3 A model's eye view tells us to lean over the table to see if something is in the way.

C1: Leaning over the table to see if something is between the firer and target cannot use a size level or literal height for LOS, so no models between the firer and target can block LOS unless they are in combat.

Using that I can say:

P1 A model can only block LOS if it is in combat

P2 A monstrous creature always blocks LOS

C1 A monstrous creature can always be shot over outside of combat since he has no height to shoot over, but always blocks LOS to a non-height.

C2 Literal model's eye view players are taking things out of context.

Again, try a dictionary. If it's not relevant, then it DOES NOT MATTER. Model height has no more bearing on line of sight than what I had for lunch or the fact that the Baltimore Ravens just signed Steve McNair. You keep trying to make it relevant when it is NOT.

The only person here taking anything out of context is you.

So if you cannot use literal height (this does not say you can when not using size levels, it just says that you cannot use literal height), what do you use to see if you can see a model over something in between?

Exactly as it states on page 20:

In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view.

And from page 94 of US White Dwarf #308:

This building can be treated as WYSIWYG. It is simply treated as Impassible Terrain that blocks line of sight (if it actually blocks the "true" line of sight between a shooter and it's target). If you are trying to shoot at a unit behind the building, you have to hunker down and get a model's-eye-view from the firing model to determine if it can actually see it's intended target.

As everyone keeps repeating. You use "true" line of sight from the shooters model's eye view to the body/main hull of the target.

Posted By Ghaz on 06/09/2006 12:13 PM
Exactly as it states on page 20:

In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, so players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view.

And from page 94 of US White Dwarf #308:

This building can be treated as WYSIWYG. It is simply treated as Impassible Terrain that blocks line of sight (if it actually blocks the "true" line of sight between a shooter and it's target). If you are trying to shoot at a unit behind the building, you have to hunker down and get a model's-eye-view from the firing model to determine if it can actually see it's intended target.

As everyone keeps repeating. You use "true" line of sight from the shooters model's eye view to the body/main hull of the target.

Is that a clarification or a quote from a battle report, which I have heard usually include errors? (without a GW shop nearby and no urge to pay a subscription for something I might need for one rule I have yet to see a White Dwarf past 270)

It is an article from GW dealing with terrain. And it is not an 'error' because it says the exact same thing we keep telling you that the rulebook says when you get past the fact that model heights are only have any bearing on drawing line of sight over area terrain and ongoing close combats.

"Just because something is not relavant doesn't mean it goes away completely"

Um, Then maybe you'd like to define "Irrelevant" for us? Because my dictionary says:

ir·rele·vant·ly adv.
Synonyms: irrelevant, extraneous, immaterial, impertinent
These adjectives mean not pertinent to the subject under consideration: an irrelevant comment; a question extraneous to the discussion; an objection that is immaterial; mentioned several impertinent facts.
Antonyms: relevant

Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: ir-'re-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
: not relevant : not applicable or pertinent

irrelevant

adj : having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations" [ant: relevant]

Snoogums, you're right.  Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away.

That's Hillarious Iorek!

It's a diamond at the bottom of the mudpie of this thread!

Snoogums, you're right. Your arguments are irrelevant, and they sure as heck aren't going away.

LOL
Sigged!