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.

Hi folks,
In the games of 40k I play, we tend to make extensive use of the Cityfight terrain, so as you can imagine there is a lot of 'If I see through that window and that window I can see that Marines elbow'; we've never really had any arguments over this or even much of a debate, but it would be nice to have some kind of consensus that we can follow; so how do you folks play the LOS rule? Do you have a policy of needing to see so much of a model, or is it 'anything goes'?

Many thanks!

This (From page 16, main rulebook. ):

any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).


You see his elbow, well, that's part of the arm and the arm counts as part of the 'body'.

in the BRB it states that for infantry that you must be able to see any part of the body. Ie leg, arm, torso or head. My understanding of that is if you can see any of those parts whole you can fire. If you can only see "an elbow" as you state I would go with NO!

For Vehicles I have not seen anything similar. The question has come up that if I can see abit of a Land Raider through a window, can I shoot it? I would go with yes

sn0zcumb3r wrote:For Vehicles I have not seen anything similar. The question has come up that if I can see abit of a Land Raider through a window, can I shoot it? I would go with yes

Try the first line on page 60 of the rulebook.


For the original question, there is no percentage value assigned to LOS. You just have to be able to see a part of the model, with the sole caveat being that some (generally purely decorative) parts of the model are ignored.

We basically go with the idea of if it would hurt if you were shot there it counts for LOS.

So ask yourself, if I was hit in the elbow with an autocannon, would I feel it? As far as strict RAW is concerned you could still shoot the elbow because it's part of the ARM and arms are specifically listed in the acceptable places to shoot at.

Can you see any part of the model that isn't decorative like wings, guns, etc? Fire away

Vehicles, if you can tag even a hair of the tank fire away.

Laser pointers are your friend

For vehicles there is a similar distinction, you must be able to see the hull or turret. Ignoring barrels, antennas etc. That also means that many of the vehicle upgrades arent viable targets when determining LOS.

Thats one reason that the ork deff rolla has raised so many concerns, since its not part of the hull tracing LOS to the deff rolla alone isnt enough to shoot at the vehicle.


Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:For vehicles there is a similar distinction, you must be able to see the hull or turret. Ignoring barrels, antennas etc. That also means that many of the vehicle upgrades arent viable targets when determining LOS.

Thats one reason that the ork deff rolla has raised so many concerns, since its not part of the hull tracing LOS to the deff rolla alone isnt enough to shoot at the vehicle.


Sliggoth

There is nothing in the rulebook as far as I know that makes this distinction. If you can see the vehicle, you can shoot it. If you can see less than 50% of the vehicle, it's obscured and therefore in cover.

As far as extraneous parts are concerned, be aware as a modeler that the more fancy thingamajigs you put on your troops and vehicles the more visible you're making them. This is in keeping with the fluff of 40k, where some armies (SM) WANT to be visible, and some (IG) really don't.

And if you get shot in the elbow, you've got a pretty good chance of bleeding out and dying. I don't care what you see in movies, that will in fact kill you. Especially if it's a .75 caliber rocklet. So if you can see any part of the infantryman, you can shoot them. Guns are fair game, because they're not going to be holding their weapons exactly like that the entire game, it's logical they may move their hand further up the stock. Shoot a few fingers off. At the very least it takes them out of the game, even if they don't die from the wound.

If you can see it, you can shoot it. There's no rule (but do correct me if I'm wrong) that says that parts of a model are off limits.

That's how I've always played it.

SaintHazard wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:For vehicles there is a similar distinction, you must be able to see the hull or turret. Ignoring barrels, antennas etc. That also means that many of the vehicle upgrades arent viable targets when determining LOS.

Thats one reason that the ork deff rolla has raised so many concerns, since its not part of the hull tracing LOS to the deff rolla alone isnt enough to shoot at the vehicle.


Sliggoth

There is nothing in the rulebook as far as I know that makes this distinction.

If you can see it, you can shoot it. There's no rule (but do correct me if I'm wrong) that says that parts of a model are off limits.

You're wrong.
The rule for non-vehicles is clear and was posted above in the first reply with a page reference.
Sligg's description of vehicle targeting is also correct (see pg60, first paragraph, "...must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.).").

Don't have the rulebook with me at work. Mind quoting?

SaintHazard wrote:Don't have the rulebook with me at work. Mind quoting?

I edited it in above, but it was essentially exactly what Sliggoth said.

Then I stand corrected, thank you.

However, I would interpret the infantryman's weapon as part of his body, as that's where his hand is going to be. Maybe not if you can just see the tip of the barrel, but if you can see flesh (or glove, as the case may be) I'd interpret that as part of the arm.

As for vehicles, I wasn't clear. I'm not going to try to say I have a shot if I can see an antenna, but not the hull of the vehicle. Since shots are measured FROM the hull, it stands to reason LOS would be measured TO the hull. That's all. "Percentage" of the vehicle showing has no bearing.

SaintHazard wrote:
So if you can see any part of the infantryman, you can shoot them. Guns are fair game, because they're not going to be holding their weapons exactly like that the entire game, it's logical they may move their hand further up the stock. Shoot a few fingers off. At the very least it takes them out of the game, even if they don't die from the wound.
...
As far as extraneous parts are concerned, be aware as a modeler that the more fancy thingamajigs you put on your troops...the more visible you're making them.
...
However, I would interpret the infantryman's weapon as part of his body, as that's where his hand is going to be. Maybe not if you can just see the tip of the barrel, but if you can see flesh (or glove, as the case may be) I'd interpret that as part of the arm.

P16:
"Sometimes, all that may be
visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner
or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying
(including its wings and tail, even though they are
technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is
not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that
models don’t get penalised for having impressive
standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc."

It's right there in the LOS rules in black and white, so even if you choose to somehow confuse 'body' or 'arm' with 'weapon' and 'banner' the rules tell you no.

If we have to draw line of sight to anything on the fig I'm gonna shave off the coneheads of all my eldar and my autarch will definitely have to lose his helmet wings and I will never model another figure with its arms outstretched and. I like the idea of just taking the body mass as an indicator. Elbows or feet or extraneous feathers and tails and whatnot are not part of the body mass, just cool modelling and nitpickey details. My rule of thumb is... if you can shoot it in the torso, you can shoot it. Miniatures abstractify everything (why you get a shot on a squad because you can see one of them, and the others get a cover save ?!?!... I much prefer solid target rules, not nitpicking elbows and footpads and stuff, because it's already abstractified enough as it is)... can you shoot my sniper in his gun barrel just because the fig has it pointing skyward so it pops up over the top of the terrain? I would think no.

nvm

Easiest solution is to just make everything either area terrain or impassable terrain then there's no question about TLOS. It either is or it isn't. No nitpicking over exactly how far that guy's arm was out past the treeline and such crap like that.

It was an example Leez.... To get a point through. You are not contribiuting to the discussion at all

Leez wrote:

Guitardian wrote:If we have to draw line of sight to anything on the fig I'm gonna shave off the coneheads of all my eldar and my autarch will definitely have to lose his helmet wings and I will never model another figure with its arms outstretched and. I like the idea of just taking the body mass as an indicator. Elbows or feet or extraneous feathers and tails and whatnot are not part of the body mass, just cool modelling and nitpickey details. My rule of thumb is... if you can shoot it in the torso, you can shoot it. Miniatures abstractify everything (why you get a shot on a squad because you can see one of them, and the others get a cover save ?!?!... I much prefer solid target rules, not nitpicking elbows and footpads and stuff, because it's already abstractified enough as it is)... can you shoot my sniper in his gun barrel just because the fig has it pointing skyward so it pops up over the top of the terrain? I would think no.

So, with respect to modifying the helmets smaller, your intention is to model for advantage, there's a word for people that do that.

Dont be insulting. That wasn't the point. The point was that we are encouraged to have modelling skills and vibrant and interesting poses on our miniatures. If the rules turn that into a disadvantage we would all be using pawns from a chess set painted in whatever marine colors with a bolter glued on close to the body. Nobody wants to have his squad hosed just because one figures hand was raised in salute or something and they suddenly get the IG artillery fury all over them just because the one guy was running around with his arm up as modelled. There's a word too for people who would try to exploit that. Quit being that word, I don't take kindly to insults.

Guitardian wrote:

Leez wrote:

Guitardian wrote:If we have to draw line of sight to anything on the fig I'm gonna shave off the coneheads of all my eldar and my autarch will definitely have to lose his helmet wings and I will never model another figure with its arms outstretched and. I like the idea of just taking the body mass as an indicator. Elbows or feet or extraneous feathers and tails and whatnot are not part of the body mass, just cool modelling and nitpickey details. My rule of thumb is... if you can shoot it in the torso, you can shoot it. Miniatures abstractify everything (why you get a shot on a squad because you can see one of them, and the others get a cover save ?!?!... I much prefer solid target rules, not nitpicking elbows and footpads and stuff, because it's already abstractified enough as it is)... can you shoot my sniper in his gun barrel just because the fig has it pointing skyward so it pops up over the top of the terrain? I would think no.

So, with respect to modifying the helmets smaller, your intention is to model for advantage, there's a word for people that do that.

Dont be insulting. That wasn't the point. The point was that we are encouraged to have modelling skills and vibrant and interesting poses on our miniatures. If the rules turn that into a disadvantage we would all be using pawns from a chess set painted in whatever marine colors with a bolter glued on close to the body. Nobody wants to have his squad hosed just because one figures hand was raised in salute or something and they suddenly get the IG artillery fury all over them just because the one guy was running around with his arm up as modelled. There's a word too for people who would try to exploit that. Quit being that word, I don't take kindly to insults.

My apologies, I read it wrong.

cool. sorry for the misunderstanding.

back on topic though: I think the extensional bits of a fig should not be considered as TLOS, otherwise nobody would ever put their commander in a heroic pose. Just use the core of the fig as a basis and all problems solved.

Guitardian wrote:cool. sorry for the misunderstanding.

back on topic though: I think the extensional bits of a fig should not be considered as TLOS, otherwise nobody would ever put their commander in a heroic pose. Just use the core of the fig as a basis and all problems solved.

I disagree, but before I elaborate, let me clarify a few things.

I personally love action poses. I think the most boring thing in the world is a model holding his gun in the default "at rest" position and standing straight up, staring forward. Bores the hell out of me. So every single one of my Marines, every one of my Tau, and every Ork in my army has a different pose. I love, love, love action poses.

That said, I am perfectly okay with you saying that you have a shot on my Tau FW squad because you can see that FW's leg, which is out in front of him a bit because he's taking a shot at something. I'm alright with that. It's nitpicky and a little bit WAAC, but I accept it because when I model my miniatures that way, I fully expect them to get shot in their outstretched extremities.

THAT said, I believe the most fair (and concise) way to play is to say that if I can see a part of your mini, be it an arm or an outstretched leg, I can shoot it. If you start getting into "this is their core shape, this is what you can shoot at," I believe that that's beginning to get abstract, not the other way around. I don't want to have to remember what a Space Marine's core shape is to shoot at him. Does that include his torso and legs? Just his torso? His torso, legs, arms and head? If I can see his legs from underneath a Devilfish, but not his torso, can I shoot him?

My way, I say yes. Your way, it's up in the air. Not the best example but you get my point.

I do get your point. It would be even easier still if they just used the base as an abstraction of what can and cannot be seen. It already works as abstraction in cc, may as well be for shooting too, since everything has regimented base sizes. The way I see it it should be all or nothing. Either I can shoot your toe because its peeking over your base, or your head because you modeled a crest on it, etc, or there is a perfectly standardized way of avoiding these ambiguities. I prefer the latter. This also brings to mind the existance of 'kneeling' figures who can shoot though windows of a building they cant actually reach over or see over, but cannot be shot in return?

Guitardian wrote:I do get your point. It would be even easier still if they just used the base as an abstraction of what can and cannot be seen. It already works as abstraction in cc, may as well be for shooting too, since everything has regimented base sizes. The way I see it it should be all or nothing. Either I can shoot your toe because its peeking over your base, or your head because you modeled a crest on it, etc, or there is a perfectly standardized way of avoiding these ambiguities. I prefer the latter. This also brings to mind the existance of 'kneeling' figures who can shoot though windows of a building they cant actually reach over or see over, but cannot be shot in return?

I see where you're coming from with the base being used as the standard - sort of imagining a cylinder going directly from the base to the top of the mini's head, with the same diameter as the base itself, could work as a standard. It's still abstract since you can't see said cylinder, but it IS a standard, and not a bad one.

As for the kneeling minis that can't see through windows, I personally draw LoS from each miniature's head (line of sight being the operative term), so if they can't be shot through the window, they also can't shoot.

This puts me at a personal disadvantage since many of my Tau are kneeling. But to me it's only fair.

Because oddly enough GW want to make the game as much about the models as possible. You know, the things they wrote the rules for in order to sell more of?

Bases are used in CC as an abstraction as to do otherwise creates nightmares. On the other hand getting down to eye level adn working out if you can see one of the items listed as viable targets really doesnt.

Guitardian wrote: can you shoot my sniper in his gun barrel just because the fig has it pointing skyward so it pops up over the top of the terrain? I would think no.

The rules also say no, as has been pointed out.