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.

So I saw this being argued, but didn't want to step in...

So, say you have a "short" squad behind the ADL, guard heavy weapons teams, grots, etc. They are obscured by the ADL, but the ADL also blocks their LOS. At least I heard when two guys were playing and some IG AC HWT were plopped up against it. The opponent opposing to is said they couldn't drawn line of fire directly across the field because where the were camped obscured LOS...

or truth?

Technically it is true. If the ADL blocks LOS then the model is affected thusly (either not getting to shoot or granting a cover save depending).

That being said, most people I play with are lenient in this sort of situation and will at lest allow the models in base contact of the ADL to shoot as if the ADL did not block LOS.

Happyjew wrote:
Technically it is true. If the ADL blocks LOS then the model is affected thusly (either not getting to shoot or granting a cover save depending).

That being said, most people I play with are lenient in this sort of situation and will at lest allow the models in base contact of the ADL to shoot as if the ADL did not block LOS.

I have a tournament coming up and I know they may be playing in it... I guess the TO would have to rule!

If I can't see you, I can't shoot you. If you can't see me, you can't shoot me.

If you want to deploy your grots or HWT so they can't be seen, cool! But don't expect to shoot as ADL blocks LOS in both directions. Hugging a barricade isn't going to give one way LOS.

As for "I have cover, but you don't" that is possible for most standing models who hug the wall. You will have to get dispensation for vouching models who cannot easily see I obscured over the wall.

But are you borderline "TFG" if you're calling this out?

Also, I came to the realization that if I had elevation and can see behind an ADL, I can focus fire on those warm bodies in a unit not obscured by the line and blow 'em up. That was a fun realization.

The adl's are visually appealing but from a game stand point they're crappy for the exact reason everyon has mentioned. I noticed that problem in 5th when we would use them simply as terrain, that's why more often than not we started using these:



Still, if you pay the points for a defence line there's not excuse for not using the GW ones.

Even the crouching members of a HWT can see over the lowered sections of the line, and the raised parts have vision slits in.
So it's not all bad.

Good points i would at least say hey if you can shoot while crouched behind it then i should be able to shoot at them too.

The shooting the exposed guys is genius get on a hill or building and bam.

Can't find where it says that the ADL blocks LOS....

The rules state that the ADL counts as "battlefield debris" that confers a 4+ cover save with an additional +2 save if a unit goes to ground behind it.

Nothing about them blocking LOS.

Blocking occurs when you can't draw LOS from your shooters eyes to the arms, head, torso or legs ( or equivalent ) of the thing being shot. It doesn't take a special rule on the adl.

If you can see one of those parts then you are good to go.

 helgrenze wrote:
Can't find where it says that the ADL blocks LOS....

The rules state that the ADL counts as "battlefield debris" that confers a 4+ cover save with an additional +2 save if a unit goes to ground behind it.

Nothing about them blocking LOS.

If your guy can't see over/through the wall beings it's solid and non-transparent. His LOS is blocked he may not shoot what he cannot draw LOS to, as well as may not be shot if LOS cannot be drawn to him.

clively wrote:
Blocking occurs when you can't draw LOS from your shooters eyes to the arms, head, torso or legs ( or equivalent ) of the thing being shot. It doesn't take a special rule on the adl.

My poor Wraithguard can't shoot anything! No Eyes!

........sorry.

I'll show myself out.

If we start making LoS exceptions for ADLs (as I've argued), you'd presumably need to make those exceptions for other walls and barricades too, and that doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. I'm getting comfortable with the idea that if you've got models that can't see over the ADL (or any other wall), (a) be happy they can't be shot, (b) move them, or (c) model them so they are a bit taller.

Snapshot wrote:
If we start making LoS exceptions for ADLs (as I've argued), you'd presumably need to make those exceptions for other walls and barricades too, and that doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. I'm getting comfortable with the idea that if you've got models that can't see over the ADL (or any other wall), (a) be happy they can't be shot, (b) move them, or (c) model them so they are a bit taller.

I tend to agree, it's a slippery slope.

Grots should be hidden. As far as the HWT, there is a diffrent exception you can apply to them. That is the modeling for cover but look cool rules.

Meaning that the model is laying down however they are not prone, (this happens with scouts a lot) and they they should be considered standing up for LOS purposes. They means they can shoot over and can be shot (although they would get cover)

jegsar wrote:
Grots should be hidden. As far as the HWT, there is a diffrent exception you can apply to them. That is the modeling for cover but look cool rules.

Meaning that the model is laying down however they are not prone, (this happens with scouts a lot) and they they should be considered standing up for LOS purposes. They means they can shoot over and can be shot (although they would get cover)

Only in a perfect world, however I'm fine with that even if there are no rules backings. Just decent people lol

Hi, just curious to add my question to this debate:

Does an Aegis Defense Line have a set of dimensions? I know that GW makes a kit for it, but I was planning on making my own terrain pieces that had the same length dimensions, but then I could have the freedom to make a set of themed terrain for my particular army. This is OK according to the current rules?

I've also been following the debate about the gun platform additions. It looks like these gun additions can be deployed by themselves? For example, the Aegis Line can run across the table but a Quadgun can be purchased and then placed on a hill in the back corner?

Model them close to the current ADL dimensions and not one should have an issue with it.

The gun is an upgrade to the ADL, so it needs to be deployed with it.

What "needs to be deployed with it" actually means is another thing. as it could be near the ADL. and it could mean at the same time as the ADL.

Though it is an upgrade for the ADL so the best bet is to take the least advantageous interpretation and deploy it very close to the ADL.

Also the ADL and gun can not be on a hill as terrain is placed after fortifications (Unless you are not using a flat board, then I would say that the hill is terrain and the ADL/Gun can not be within 3 inches of it anyway).

I was arguing this in another thread and some people were being real asshats about it. So first lets look at page 8 in he mini book, the Models Eye View box : "Warhammer 40k uses what we call true line of sight. This means that you take the positions of the models and terrain at face value, and simply look to see if your warriors have a view to heir target.
True line of sight makes the game feel much more cinematic and puts you in the heart of the fighting - essentially, if not physically. There's nothing like getting a model's eye view to bring a game to life. Of course, this does mean that there are occasionally borderline cases when it is hard to tell if a model can see a target or not, but players should ALWAYS be generous and give their opponent the benefit of the doubt"

I asked a bunch of guys at my local FLGS and they all agreed HWT's can shoot over and be shot at. I took it one step further and asked them if I had the prone GW sniper model could they shoot over the line, even though they clearly don't have LOS in this case. We agreed that the sniper modled prone can shoot over and in turn be shot at.

House rules are fine. Your rules quote proves that the prone model couldn't normally (ie without that house rule) shoot over the ADL.

That's funny because we considered it common sense since the model prone could stand up if he wanted, otherwise he is permanently gone to ground.

Common sense seems to be lacking these days.

Common sense is still alive and kicking, it's just relegated to the back seat for many discussions here. This seems to be especially true when one person is arguing RAW and the other is saying HYWPI.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
That's funny because we considered it common sense since the model prone could stand up if he wanted, otherwise he is permanently gone to ground.

Common sense seems to be lacking these days.

He's really not - note how gone to ground is a rule with prerequisites and specific effects.
You're saying how you play it - which is fine, but is not what the rules actually say.

It's as if we want GW to say that walls (and ADLs) provide cover but do not block LoS. This would neatly address all the worries about vertically challenged models, different poses, distance from the wall, etc. The problem is that they haven't said this, and it's not apparent they are about to start saying it.

Alternately, you could model your ADL with "Arrow Slits" or "Sniper Holes".
Would solve the vision issues.

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
That's funny because we considered it common sense since the model prone could stand up if he wanted, otherwise he is permanently gone to ground.

A model that is laying down is not automatically gone to ground, any more than a model that is in a running pose is automatically running.

Common sense seems to be lacking these days.

It's not an issue of common sense. It's an issue of the game rules simply not dealing with certain abstractions.

Yes, it makes sense that a soldier would change position to suit his available cover. It also makes sense for soldiers to be able to commandeer heavy weaponry from defeated foes, or to take advantage of high ground in an assault, or to use squad formations to increase the effectiveness of their shooting, or to shoot at deep striking units as they descend from the stratosphere... but none of these things are a part of the current rules of Warhammer 40000.

The LOS rules work solely off the actual position of the model in question. No option is given to assume that the model is in any pose other than the one that it is physically in. So for the purposes of the game, that's how it's done.

Common Sense. Some things just need to be an abstract to fit in a game. Because GW makes the models kneling down, reducing their LOS, you would deny them the ability to shoot from the one single piece of terrain that makes the most military sense to set them up in?

Common Sense is anything but. Speaking as someone who's played in several states and multiple countries, I have learned to instinctively be skeptical of anyone claiming that their position is "common sense", as it denies the reality that other people can (and often do) have a completely different interpretation, which they find to be just as intuitive.

Models which have been sculpted lower to the ground derive advantages and disadvantages from that fact. It's easier for them to hide, but harder for them to get LOS. That's just the nature of this game.

dkellyj wrote:
Common Sense. Some things just need to be an abstract to fit in a game. Because GW makes the models kneling down, reducing their LOS, you would deny them the ability to shoot from the one single piece of terrain that makes the most military sense to set them up in?

Yes. First, any argument that is "Common Sense" is inherently flawed.
Second, just like they can't shoot me, I can't shoot them. Mode,s have in game effects. Who'd'a thunk?

dkellyj wrote:
Common Sense. Some things just need to be an abstract to fit in a game. Because GW makes the models kneling down, reducing their LOS, you would deny them the ability to shoot from the one single piece of terrain that makes the most military sense to set them up in?

It makes the most 'military sense' for a drop ship to be able to deploy its weaponry against ground targets... and yet GW made Thunderhawks and Stormravens with their heaviest weaponry on their roof. Should we ignore the normal vehicle LOS rules and allow them to fire at targets underneath themselves?

Kneeling models, as has been pointed out, both benefit and suffer from their reduced LOS. This is something that GW are well aware of as it has been discussed frequently since at least 2nd edition... but they have chosen in each edition of the game since then to not bother addressing it in the rules. Which leaves us with LOS rules that rely on the physical position of the actual model.

So yes, I would deny a model from shooting over something that it can't see over. The fact that GW made the model like that is more of a reason to do so, not less, since presumably the guys making the models are conversant in the rules of the game and are aware of the impact of their modelling choices.