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.

on page 8 of the BRB in the line of sight rules it says:

'For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the targets body (the head, torso, arms or legs)

Sometimes all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. in these cases the model is not visible.'

some models pack serious hardware, and an example would be space marine devestators. If i'm drawing a line of sight to a devestator, and all i can see is the heavy weapon, and the heavy weapon itself is blocking the LOS to the targets body (which would be in LOS if the weapon wasn't there). can i draw LOS to the model carrying it? RAW i would say no, but RAI i would say yes. what does everyone else think?

In my view you are supposed to discount the weapon/banner/wharever as being there for LOS. If the weapon was not there and you would be able see some part of the model then you can see the thing. I think it would be a bit cheap to claim that the model could not be seen because it is hiding behind something you aren't allowed to target.

You can without question target the model in that case.

Strict RAW, unfortunately, LOS would be blocked. The rule does actually state the line of sight must not only be "unblocked", but also that if the weapon is all that is visible, "the model is not visible". It doesn't give any caveats for if the model would otherwise be visible. We aren't told to treat the weapon as not being there.

I don't believe this is the intention, if only because of units like Obliterators where it isn't clear where the weapon ends and the model begins!!

Im pretty sure when they say Ignore Banners and weapons. Is if the model is hiding behined something a wall for instance, But his weapon is Showing or his banner is showing.

If all you can see is a weapon that is say held to the chest of a model then you can shoot a model. The rules dont state that weapons block line of site. It just says that Weapons can not be targeted. And as such ignored.

But it is not very clear without actualy having a picture of your models situation.

The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

 BryllCream wrote:
The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

LMAO

I can see the overly large squad covering standards now myself. I'd play it as the weapons not there, you can always ask your opponent to pivot the model or have a 'stand in' to see it LoS is possible if the weapon was not there.

 BryllCream wrote:
The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

Gets the heat gun out......

Cerbrus - nope, that isnt the actual rule. The rule says you ignore the weapon (etc) for determining if you can draw LOS to the model.

There is no rule, anywhere, saying that the weapon does NOT block LOS normally. Those are 2 separate concepts

"You can not take your cover with you!" Pg 18 brb

That's in the cover save section, and its referring to scenic elements on bases, but IMO you can infer the same in this situation becuse in the OP scenario, that model would be carrying its own cover more or less.

 BarBoBot wrote:
"You can not take your cover with you!" Pg 18 brb

That's in the cover save section, and its referring to scenic elements on bases, but IMO you can infer the same in this situation becuse in the OP scenario, that model would be carrying its own cover more or less.

Wow i never thought about sticking trees on my Kroot bases to make them constantly in cover

As Nosferatu said, and that is completely right in what he is saying that weapons cant be ignored for LOS drawing. But again what you say and what the rules say about not taking cover with you is also completly right. but then again weapons are not really considered Scenic though. As as All tournaments I have seen the models must have the exact weaponry equipped to the model that is listed in the army roster. So are weapons actually scenic?

As I said before I thought the rule was mainly there so you cant Target a weapon that is stuck out of cover, Rather than just not targeting a weapon full stop. eg. One held to the chest of a marine.

 BryllCream wrote:
The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

You cannot target wings on FMC's anyway.

If it's this kit of guys that you're talking about:



... then I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where the *only* part of the model that will be visible is the weapon, and not also an arm, leg, body, or head, unless there is also some other kind of cover in play (low wall, terrain, whatever), in which case the rule about the model being in cover would come into play.

Given that the rules are an abstraction, we're not allowed to shoot the gun out of the hands of a model, even though this would be a viable tactic (especially against a heavy weapons trooper) IRL, as disabling the weapon is more important than killing the guy carrying it.

 Psienesis wrote:
disabling the weapon is more important than killing the guy carrying it.

Your not a Khorn player are you? :p

 BryllCream wrote:
The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

That's .... special

You ignore weapons and other decorative elements for drawing LoS to the model with those particular things visible. They do still block LoS to other models.

You can't use the wing of a Daemon Prince to draw LoS to the Prince, but the wing could block LoS to a rhino hiding behind him.

 Psienesis wrote:


... then I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where the *only* part of the model that will be visible is the weapon, and not also an arm, leg, body, or head, unless there is also some other kind of cover in play (low wall, terrain, whatever), in which case the rule about the model being in cover would come into play..

Say those models are in a ruin, and the ruin happens to have a small hole in it where the only thing visible through the hole is that plasma cannon. That is one of the scenario's in which this could happen.

 Psienesis wrote:
If it's this kit of guys that you're talking about:



... then I'm having trouble picturing a scenario where the *only* part of the model that will be visible is the weapon, and not also an arm, leg, body, or head, unless there is also some other kind of cover in play (low wall, terrain, whatever), in which case the rule about the model being in cover would come into play.

Given that the rules are an abstraction, we're not allowed to shoot the gun out of the hands of a model, even though this would be a viable tactic (especially against a heavy weapons trooper) IRL, as disabling the weapon is more important than killing the guy carrying it.

if the unit was out in the open, then i would have to agree. however i'm not in the habit of deploying devestators or heavy weapon squads in general out in the open, i would hazard a guess that the same holds true for most people. in which case, if the heavy weapon squad is in ruins, and the ruins obscure the lower half of the model, and the only part that you can see is the heavy weapon, and that heavy weapon itself is obscuring the torso and head, then your devestator is completely hidden behind cover, and his own weapon.
i'm sure you would struggle to find someone who would argue the point, especially if the heavy weapon is the only thing thats preventing you from seeing the model which is why i asked what everyone else thought, both RAW and RAI, and thankyou for the answers thus far

And what if the gun is poking out around a corner?

That's another situation where only the gun would be visible.

 BryllCream wrote:
The last time this came up someone seriously suggested modelling a demon prince with its wings wrapped around itself so as to be "invisible" to enemy shooting

This is where this argument leads. So no, if a direct line through that point on the gun or wing would see the model’s body (legal target area), LOS is valid.

Anyone who plays RAW that strict you don't want to play with. in my mind It is stupid to say that he isn't in los because he has his weapon in front of his face.

Not sure if this is necro or not, but hopefully topically, is the "can't shoot past the wings" thing true? That seems hugely vulnerable to abuse.

Can you (for example) charge through/past wings, or big heavy weapons (like broadsides)?

It seems like there should be cases where wings or guns are such integral elements that they move from decorative to core (as wings do for flyers).

Yes the "can't shoot past the wings" thing is true.

6th ed uses True Line of Sight.

that means if you can not see it you can not shoot it.

The wings of a creature only do not count for targeting that particular model.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the "can't shoot past the wings" thing is true.

6th ed uses True Line of Sight.

that means if you can not see it you can not shoot it.

The wings of a creature only do not count for targeting that particular model.

That seems to be the gap here, right? "True" line of sight for line of sight but "pretend" line of sight for targeting?

That does lead neatly to (say) wrapping the wings around a demon prince and making him impossible to hit. Maybe that's not allowed because of modeling for advantage issues, but that's really soft. And maybe it's not covered by "you can't take your cover with you," but this isn't cover.

Let's not even be as extreme as "I wrap my demon prince's wings around him," but as appropriate as "I model huge, beautiful wings around my demon prince. Inspired by giger and insects alike, these four pairs of wings describe the eight fold path beautifully around him, crying out to chaos' power." So my demon prince now has eight wings, extending out the same distance as the default model's wings, but making it pretty much impossible to reach him without running into the wings (which can't be targeted).

So it's not a clear modeling for advantage, but it clearly causes all sorts of rules issues. You're saying that anywhere the wings intruded would be dead zones for targeting?

It's probably obvious, but my feeling is there can't be one 'true' los for establishing los and a different one for establishing target validity. If the reasoning is that wings/barrels/etc might move out of the exact pose they're in + we don't want everyone to just model their guys as small as possible, then that same reasoning dictates anything which doesn't count for targeting shouldn't count for LOS blocking. Right?

deadairis wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes the "can't shoot past the wings" thing is true.

6th ed uses True Line of Sight.

that means if you can not see it you can not shoot it.

The wings of a creature only do not count for targeting that particular model.

That seems to be the gap here, right? "True" line of sight for line of sight but "pretend" line of sight for targeting?

That does lead neatly to (say) wrapping the wings around a demon prince and making him impossible to hit.

Not at all. To target the DP you pretend the wings are not there because we are told to ignore them when targeting that particular model, so you target his targetable parts as normal. (It may be tougher to tell where these parts are if you wrap his wings around him, but that's another issue).

Maybe that's not allowed because of modeling for advantage issues, but that's really soft. And maybe it's not covered by "you can't take your cover with you," but this isn't cover.

and irrelevant as I have explained above

Let's not even be as extreme as "I wrap my demon prince's wings around him," but as appropriate as "I model huge, beautiful wings around my demon prince. Inspired by giger and insects alike, these four pairs of wings describe the eight fold path beautifully around him, crying out to chaos' power." So my demon prince now has eight wings, extending out the same distance as the default model's wings, but making it pretty much impossible to reach him without running into the wings (which can't be targeted).

again this does not matter, you ignore the wings as per the BRB.

So it's not a clear modeling for advantage, but it clearly causes all sorts of rules issues. You're saying that anywhere the wings intruded would be dead zones for targeting?

Never said that...

It's probably obvious, but my feeling is there can't be one 'true' los for establishing los and a different one for establishing target validity. If the reasoning is that wings/barrels/etc might move out of the exact pose they're in + we don't want everyone to just model their guys as small as possible, then that same reasoning dictates anything which doesn't count for targeting shouldn't count for LOS blocking. Right?

The rules tell us that the system uses True Line of Sight, so every model on the table blocks Line of Sight. The exception being when targeting a particular model you ignore the wings etc...

Its like this.


If you are shooting at the model in question, you ignore the wings and other frilly bits.

If you are shooting at a different model, the wings and other frilly bits can block LoS just fine.


You aren't going to do serious damage to a Daemon Prince if all you have to shoot at is his wings, but those wings can get in the way of you shooting at something else.

Edit: I should note, I appreciate the discussion and edit/pick apart feedback regarding games for a living [sign up at vgmarket.com/playtest !]), so I'm as interested in just running through edge cases as anything else. For a simple table fix, my local meta is "decorative bits don't count for anything," because that's uniform and therefore predictable, and that's an axis we've decided is key for rules calls. That noted:

RAW simply says "... we ignore wings and tails, and antennae even though they are technically part of a models body." That could be read to mean that that is when drawing LOS to that specific model (immediate precedent) or simply referring to drawing a straight, unblocked line to your target (paragraph which the immediate precedent uses as precedent).

Unclear precedents are an English-wide issue.

But, if we are sticking to "blocks for anyone else, but not for that model," there's nothing in RAW against modeling your (for example) Hive Tyrant with massive wings that drape down to its tail/base (but don't extend any further), effectively 100% blocking LOS behind it -- right?

And, since we're saying the ONLY reading of the "ignore wings" is in terms of targeting that model, that also means that you can't go under the wings as you would usually (for a typical 28mm model) be able to; you now have to go around (more below).

DeathReaper, while you never said the words 'creates a dead zone for targeting ... ", there's no difference between that and saying they block LOS. Come on.

Grey Templar: I get the "you aren't going to do serious damage" idea, but if it comes down to flavor, you can (for example) make it *very hard to fly* if you shoot something's wings.

And look at the Daemon Prince's wing models -- those are essentially limbs. If you shoot someone's arm, that can do a Wound. What's in an arm that's not in the wing limbs? Blood, bone, nerves ... ?

And while those wings can get in the way of shooting someone else, it seems like that's having cake and eating it too: the wings aren't 'fixed' in that location, so you can't really shoot them (after all, we don't want people modeling boring minis), but equally so, they are fixed in that position, so you can't shoot through them. So they're not in that exact literal position -- but are.

And, of course, per the errata, if you can fit under a swooping FMC and are 1"+ away from its BASE, you're good to go. So no 1"+ requirement away from the wings.

So that means that you ignore the wings for shooting at the thing, count them for shooting past the thing, count them for moving near the thing if it's gliding, and don't count them for moving near the thing if it's swooping.

And note that while we're talking about shooting, what we're really discussing is what part of a model we count. We can say that LOS (which is model-centric) and movement restrictions (which are objective) are totally different metrics, so it makes total sense that the wings "exist" in one in a different way than they "exist" in another, but that doesn't really actually make sense. Why do the wings "exist" in two different ways?

Relatedly, if a Swooping FMC goes from swooping to gliding while an enemy model is under its wing but within 1" of the wing ... ?I would suppose it's not allowed to, right?

And all that skips the LOS requirement for assault, where sure -- the bullet might get caught by a wing. Okay.

But let's just use default daemon prince wings. I have a 28mm guy behind them. The attacker can't see the guy through the wings. All he can see of the daemon prince is the wings.

So both units are no invulnerable to shooting and assault.

What about if I can see a little of the guy, enough to charge in a straight line? Well, can't actually, since I can't move through the DP's wings (since we're counting them as blocking except for shooting at the unit, right)? but I can't charge the DP either (since charging requires LOS, and I *cannot* get LOS on the DP from its wing).

What if I'm falling back and the straight route back is 100% blocked by a wing, or a banner, but not by the base or the enemy mini itself?

deadairis wrote:
But, if we are sticking to "blocks for anyone else, but not for that model," there's nothing in RAW against modeling your (for example) Hive Tyrant with massive wings that drape down to its tail/base (but don't extend any further), effectively 100% blocking LOS behind it -- right?

Yes, it's possible to abuse the rules of Warhammer 40K with 'creative' modelling. This has been the case since Rogue Trader.

The standard counter to it (aside from the rather maligned argument that there are no rules allowing you to use anything other than stock Games Workshop models) is that you're talking about a game. If your opponent goes to those lengths to abuse the rules, there is no requirement to actually play against them.

Insaniak: I think I'm less concerned about 'abusing' the rules -- my games are all friendly -- but we like rules in my local meta.

I'm drawing out extreme examples of what could occur if we draw these rules interpretations out so that we can see (hopefully) the issues that I'm chewing on.

I do think that having two mutually exclusive ways of taking the metaphor of models -- that they are 'fixed' and you have to treat them as such for LOS, and that the they are 'not fixed,' and you can pretend they're moving out of the way -- is a pretty key part of how the game plays.

But I do really like rules, and discussing them, to the point where I basically have made that my living, so ...

deadairis wrote:
But, if we are sticking to "blocks for anyone else, but not for that model," there's nothing in RAW against modeling your (for example) Hive Tyrant with massive wings that drape down to its tail/base (but don't extend any further), effectively 100% blocking LOS behind it -- right?

You could model for advantage that way, I do not suspect many people would play you if you tried to claim 'You do not have Line of Sight' to anything behind the massive heavily modified wings though.

And, since we're saying the ONLY reading of the "ignore wings" is in terms of targeting that model, that also means that you can't go under the wings as you would usually (for a typical 28mm model) be able to; you now have to go around (more below).

Not at all, you measure Base to base for non vehicle models. If your wings were 3 inches past your base, the opponents models would be allowed to move next to and even past them as long as they stayed 1 inch from the models base.

And look at the Daemon Prince's wing models -- those are essentially limbs. If you shoot someone's arm, that can do a Wound. What's in an arm that's not in the wing limbs? Blood, bone, nerves ... ?
And while those wings can get in the way of shooting someone else, it seems like that's having cake and eating it too: the wings aren't 'fixed' in that location, so you can't really shoot them (after all, we don't want people modeling boring minis), but equally so, they are fixed in that position, so you can't shoot through them. So they're not in that exact literal position -- but are.

Fluff, it does not matter to the actual rules of 40K

And, of course, per the errata, if you can fit under a swooping FMC and are 1"+ away from its BASE, you're good to go. So no 1"+ requirement away from the wings.

There is no requirement to stay away from the wings of a MC, or indeed any part of any non-vehicle model, only the base. (Vehicles are a bit different of course).

So that means that you ignore the wings for shooting at the thing, count them for shooting past the thing, count them for moving near the thing if it's gliding, and don't count them for moving near the thing if it's swooping.

And note that while we're talking about shooting, what we're really discussing is what part of a model we count. We can say that LOS (which is model-centric) and movement restrictions (which are objective) are totally different metrics, so it makes total sense that the wings "exist" in one in a different way than they "exist" in another, but that doesn't really actually make sense. Why do the wings "exist" in two different ways?

1) you do not count the wings when moving near the model if it is gliding either.

2) The wings "exist" in two different ways because that is what the rules of 40k dictate.

Relatedly, if a Swooping FMC goes from swooping to gliding while an enemy model is under its wing but within 1" of the wing ... ?I would suppose it's not allowed to, right?

Not at all, as per the explanation There is no requirement to stay away from the wings of a MC, or indeed any part of any non-vehicle model, only the base. (Vehicles are a bit different of course).

But let's just use default daemon prince wings. I have a 28mm guy behind them. The attacker can't see the guy through the wings. All he can see of the daemon prince is the wings.

So both units are no invulnerable to shooting and assault.

No, you can shoot the DP. You can also move in such a way to make the 28mm guy visible, there are ways to get the assault.

What about if I can see a little of the guy, enough to charge in a straight line? Well, can't actually, since I can't move through the DP's wings (since we're counting them as blocking except for shooting at the unit, right)? but I can't charge the DP either (since charging requires LOS, and I *cannot* get LOS on the DP from its wing).

you only ignore the wings for shooting as laid out in the shooting rules.

What if I'm falling back and the straight route back is 100% blocked by a wing, or a banner, but not by the base or the enemy mini itself?

If you are falling back you need to stay 1 inch from enemy models bases. If the wings stick out past 1 inch and the wings are in the space the falling back model would end up, then, if the model is on a circular base, turn the MC so the wing is not in the way.