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.

Another discussion about LOS in terms of 40K and I'm afraid I'm the only voice at the moment for the 'true' LOS (as in, rules-supported LOS) side in this discussion. Please back me up here or in the thread below. Just looking for a little help and support.

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=15483

Just give up dude. Centurian's thing has already been quoted; nothing can be added. The people over there will believe what they want to believe.

How do you determine LOS?
"Players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is the best way to determine whether a line of sight exists. The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past area terrain." p20

What blocks LOS?
"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe, block line of sight. A line 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 immobilized or wrecked.

Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the models' height matters (see page 7). If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked. " p 20.


Armed with these two quotes, I don't see how anyone can argue against you. They are one of the few things spelled out in black and white.

I think some people are just over-zealous about the new "size categories".

Okay, point taken, Jeff, I'll leave the thread at that.

Blue Loki, that's it exactly: the size categories become EVERYTHING. I can understand this to an extent, because the group I regularly game with thought the size categories were everything at first too several months back, but with some careful thought and discussion, we concluded what Centurian essentially said. And I can't see how those two quotes can be refuted, nor Centurian's post.

Posted By blue loki on 04/07/2006 12:56 PM
How do you determine LOS?
"Players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is the best way to determine whether a line of sight exists. The only time you don't use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past area terrain." p20

What blocks LOS?
"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe, block line of sight. A line 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 immobilized or wrecked.

Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the models' height matters (see page 7). If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked. " p 20.


Armed with these two quotes, I don't see how anyone can argue against you. They are one of the few things spelled out in black and white.

I think some people are just over-zealous about the new "size categories".

And some people ignore size catagories even though in the model section they are clearly said to be the only thing that matters when determining LOS. both the above quotes are taken out of context and ignore all of the other LOS rules. Some people also don't realize that model's eye view, just like "bird's eye view" is a figure of speech. Go with the group, as long as everyone agrees it is fair.

They are not taken out of context at all. The second quote consists of the two bullet points on page 20 that follow the following statements:

"Models from the same side do not normally block line of sight ... and enemy models can be ignored for line of sight purposes... However, the following models do block a unit's line of sight if they are in the way:"

The quote basically says that "nothing block line of sight unless it falls within the circumstances detailed in the following two points..."


Furthermore, the Modeling section makes no mention of how to draw line of sight, nor does it tell you when the height characteristics come into effect (other than implying that you will need them when discussing terrain and close combat). It simply tells you that there will be times when height is important, and that this is how you determine height in those instances.

Uh, then how you explain this quote 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.

The only person taking quotes out of context is you. There is nothing that states that only size classifications are relevant for line of sight. It's just the opposite actually. Size classifications are totally irrelevant except in the two situations quoted above.

See, this is why Warhammer ISN'T a beer and pretzels game.  Drunkeness + arguments like this = fisticuffs.

For the record, I'm on the right side in this argument ~chuckle~

Sorry, THX...looks like you're doing well on your own.

I only take part in discussions on boards that I'm actually a member of. AWC is the board for the club that runs AdeptiCon, so I'm on their for stuff other than rules discussions.

Besides...I'm fresh out of rusty spoons.

No problem, Centurian, it seems to be under control. But thanks, I'm glad I had that post of yours to back the view points up.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/07/2006 1:54 PM
Uh, then how you explain this quote 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.

The only person taking quotes out of context is you. There is nothing that states that only size classifications are relevant for line of sight. It's just the opposite actually. Size classifications are totally irrelevant except in the two situations quoted above.

Actually, the paragraph right next to it states:

"This does not mean their literal height, as the simple expedient of crouching, kneeling or crawling will render such comparisons irrelavant. Instead there are three broad height bands into which all models fall. These categories are also used to define the height of some terrain features. The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining Line of Sigh and target priority."

So model's heights are defined by their size category in ALL cases.  The line before your very out of quote text is:
"Initially, virtually every model you use will fall into the middle category. Be aware..."

So actually your quote would only apply to size leve 2 models since that is what they are talking about. The line of sight page further clarifies that size level 2 models only block during combat, reinforcing the point that they only count as blocking at size level 2 or below when in combat. That does not carry over to size level 3 models, and it never states as such. You make it looks like some braod sweeping rule but it isn't, it is only talking about size level 2 models. You are the one taking things out of context.

So model's heights are defined by their size category in ALL cases.

Indeed they are. What you consistently overlook however is that the model's height is only relevant when drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or close combats.


It's really very simple:

The LOS rules are in the LOS section.
The LOS section tells us to use a models eye view UNLESS drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or close combats.


It doesn't matter what it says in the Sizes section. All that does is define the Size categories, and what that all means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how to apply them to LOS. That's what the LOS section is for.

Yep. Exactly as stated. While all models will have a size category, those categories are only relevant in the two instances from the quote above.

Posted By insaniak on 04/10/2006 9:02 PM

So model's heights are defined by their size category in ALL cases.

Indeed they are. What you consistently overlook however is that the model's height is only relevant when drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or close combats.


It's really very simple:

The LOS rules are in the LOS section.
The LOS section tells us to use a models eye view UNLESS drawing a LOS into or through Area Terrain or close combats.


It doesn't matter what it says in the Sizes section. All that does is define the Size categories, and what that all means. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how to apply them to LOS. That's what the LOS section is for.

You are so close but not there. A size level 2 model's height only matters in close combat, a size level 3 is always size level 3 for blocking LOS and a such ANY tank no matter how it is modelled blocks ANY size level 3 object behind it because the close combat only rule does not apply. Model's eye view in either a figure of speech or a direct contradiction to this. As I quoted from the model section those sizes are the only thing that matters for LOS, not the model's actual vertical dimensions.

Posted By snooggums on 04/11/2006 10:35 AM
As I quoted from the model section those sizes are the only thing that matters for LOS, not the model's actual vertical dimensions.

 

This statement is simply false. The model section does not mention LOS at all. It simply defines the height characteristic for each model. Period. Nothing else.

Now, the LOS section tells you WHEN to apply the height characteristic. In black and white, the LOS section tells us that the only time we take the height characteristic into consideration is when drawing LOS through/over area terrain or close combat. That is it. Period.

Its simple. The modeling section defines height. The LOS section tells you when to use that height.

Posted By blue loki on 04/11/2006 10:52 AM

Posted By snooggums on 04/11/2006 10:35 AM
As I quoted from the model section those sizes are the only thing that matters for LOS, not the model's actual vertical dimensions.

 

This statement is simply false. The model section does not mention LOS at all. It simply defines the height characteristic for each model. Period. Nothing else.

Now, the LOS section tells you WHEN to apply the height characteristic. In black and white, the LOS section tells us that the only time we take the height characteristic into consideration is when drawing LOS through/over area terrain or close combat. That is it. Period.

Its simple. The modeling section defines height. The LOS section tells you when to use that height.

So this line does not exist?

"The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining Line of Sigh and target priority."

Or are you saying that it is fine to ignore that line because it is in a section before the LOS section? Since they have already stated, as I quoted above, that most models will fall into the Size Level 2 category, all following rules are given with Size Level 2 in mind. They even reiterate that Size Level 3 models Always block LOS in the LOS section, as a reminder that they are not part of the general rules. And as I quoted above, the model's physical height DOES NOT MATTER. Only size level matters, there is no "when to use" except for Size Level 2 models. Again I say, you are taking rules out of context.

Snoogums, refer to Blue Loki's 2nd post above. It clearly illustrates the only time height categories become relevant to line of sight. Playing it any other way is cheating.

Posted By snooggums on 04/11/2006 11:03 AM
So this line does not exist? "The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining Line of Sigh and target priority."

No, it exists, but you are reading it like this, "The following three categories are ALWAYS important in the Shooting phase", and that is not what it says. It simply says that there are only three size categories (no one is questioning this) and that these are the only size categories that matter in the shooting phase (no one is questioning this either). What is does not say is that you must always take these three size categories into consideration.

Or are you saying that it is fine to ignore that line because it is in a section before the LOS section?

I'm not ignoring it at all, you are simply applying it to situations that it is not designed to be applied to.

Since they have already stated, as I quoted above, that most models will fall into the Size Level 2 category, all following rules are given with Size Level 2 in mind. They even reiterate that Size Level 3 models Always block LOS in the LOS section, as a reminder that they are not part of the general rules.

Oh. My. God.

No, the rules most certainly do NOT say that. In fact they say the exact opposite.

"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe, block line of sight. A line 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 immobilized or wrecked.

Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the models' height matters (see page 7). If the model doing the spotting, or the model being spotted, is taller than the tallest model in the close combat then the line of sight is not blocked. " Page 20<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

Riddle me this: How can you ever draw line of sight over a vehicle, wreck, MC or artillery if all of these are lvl-3 and lvl-3 ALWAYS blocks line of sight? Why would they print that statement?

What part of, "A line of sight can still be draw over or past [all vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe]... Use a model's eye view...", do you not understand?

And what part of, "Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the models' height matters (see page 7)", is unclear?

Your statement,"They even reiterate that Size Level 3 models Always block LOS in the LOS section" is a complete lie. Size 3 completely blocks LOS, but only in reference to area terrain and engaged or locked models. Period.

And as I quoted above, the model's physical height DOES NOT MATTER.

You are correct, BUT ONLY IN REFERENCE TO SIZE CATEGORY. When determining "size category" a model's height does not matter. At all other times, physical height still matters!!!

Only size level matters, there is no "when to use" except for Size Level 2 models. Again I say, you are taking rules out of context.

Where in Satan's parlour are you getting this? The LOS section tells you exactly when to use the height charactistic. I don't understand how you cannot see it. Its in plain English. I feel like I'm talking to a size level 3 brick wall.

 

Lets do it this way:

P1: "Model Height - ..there are three borad height bands into which all models fall. The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority... Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant." p 7 BGB

Each model will fall into one of the 3 height catagories. These 3 are the only ones which are relevant when the Shooting phase mentions height categories. These will be used, but are not limited to, when LOS is drawn over certain terrain and close combats.

 

P2: "Line of Sight - In some cases, it will be difficult to tell if line of sight is blocked or not, soo players might have to stoop over the table for a model's eye view. This is the best way to determine whether or not line of sight exists. The only time you do not use this method is when you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain, or an ongoing assault combat - this is dealt with later." p 20 BGB

Model's eye view is the recommended method to determine LOS unless certian other circumstances apply, those circumstances being intervening Area Terrain or Close Combat. The models eye view method makes no mention of height categories.

 

P2: "Line of Sight - Models from the same side do not normally block line of sight...and enemy models can be ignored for line of sight purposes... However, the following models do block a unit's line of sight if they are in the way:" p 20 BGB

Friendly models and Enemy models do not block line of sight unless the following rules apply.

 

P3: "Line of Sight - All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creaturesand artillery... A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to see past them. Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilized or wrecked." p 20 BGB

If LOS can be drawn over a vehicle by using model's eye view, LOS exists. Otherwise, vehicles block LOS. This section makes no mention of height categories, and instead uses the model's eye view method.

 

P4: "Line of Sight - "Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the model's height matters (see page 7)." p 20 BGB

Models engaged or locked in close combat block LOS up to their height characteristic as defined on page 7. The section does make reference to height characteristic and does not mention the model's eye view method.

 

C1: Height characteristics, as defined on page 7, are important, but only when height characteristics are mentioned in the LOS section.

C2: There are two methods for determining LOS, the "Model's eye view" method and the "Height characteristic" method. The "Model's eye view" method is the default method and makes no mention of height characteristics. The "Height characteristic" method is dependent on the height characteristics defined on page 7 and overrides the "Model's eye view" method.

C3: The "Model's eye view" method is always used unless "you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain, or an ongoing assault combat" and does not mention the height characteristics defined on page 7 at all.

C4: The "Height characteristic" method is used when "you want to draw a line of sight into or past Area Terrain, or an ongoing assault combat" and always uses the height characteristics defined on page 7.

 

The two problems I see with the counter argument are that:

1. Model's eye view is not just an abstract figure of speach. Model's eye view is not only an actual physical concept, but it is the recommended method of determining LOS.

2. "The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase..." does not mean "The following three categories are always important in the Shooting phase..." It simply means that when size categories are mentioned in the shooting phase, these 3 categories are the only ones that you take into consideration. No more, no less.

 

Size categories are only mentioned in the shooting phase in relation to area terrain and close combats, hence this is the only time that you can take them into consideration. At all other times you use the Model's eye view method for determining LOS.

Please take the time to digest the above P/C argument and build any objections against its components. If there are any errors I will be happy to fix them or make them more clear. In the case that I am truly in error, I will happily relent.

Riddle me this: How can you ever draw line of sight over a vehicle, wreck, MC or artillery if all of these are lvl-3 and lvl-3 ALWAYS blocks line of sight? Why would they print that statement?

Because they word their rules poorly and then make WD articles about level 4 terrain so regular models can shoot over tanks

What part of, "A line of sight can still be draw over or past [all vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe]... Use a model's eye view...", do you not understand?

And what part of, "Models engaged or locked in close combat block line of sight through them up to the height of the participating models. This is where the models' height matters (see page 7)", is unclear?

Your statement,"They even reiterate that Size Level 3 models Always block LOS in the LOS section" is a complete lie. Size 3 completely blocks LOS, but only in reference to area terrain and engaged or locked models. Period.

Your entire argument is based on models actually representing their true physical structure for shooting. As the rules had previously defined model height not mattering, all literal "can you see the model" arguments are void. You cannot use a model's torso to define LOS because the model could be kneeling, standing or sticking his tongue to a cold piece of metal as explained in the model section. Since you cannot use the vehicle's actual height, and it says that only size level matters for LOS, you have to use the size level to define LOS. 

Here's a gem you always leave out:

P1: "Model Height - ..there are three borad height bands into which all models fall. The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority... Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant." p 7 BGB

Note that the part you snipped out: "Initially, virtually every model you use will fall into the middle category. Be aware..."

Would then read: "Initially, virtually every model you use will fall into the middle category. Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant."

Hey look at what always gets snipped, that most models are Size Level 2. All the following rules read about Size Level 2 including only mattering in close combat. Since the LOS section states that:

P3: "Line of Sight - All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creaturesand artillery... A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to see past them. Skimmer vehicles only block line of sight if immobilized or wrecked." p 20 BGB

If I had the book with me I could fill in your snip here too. It basically stated that they always block LOS, and of course since they can be standing kneeling or taking a crap you cannot use their literal height. Therefore you would have to use, ta-da, Size Level! don't brinbg up the fact that tank can't take craps, since they follow the same rules as the monstrous creatures that could.

All of your presmises are based on taking rules out of context, snipping out the context, and then using model's eye view is a literal meaning instead of the figure of speech that it is based on. Basically I'm arguing against the rational that even though the rules say the literal height does not matter, it suddently does because of one line that says 'model's eye view' is being taken literally. It's hard to argue against stupid.

Seriously?

I just quoted like 90% of the Model's Height and LOS sections, yet you still claim that they are out of context?

Apparently, "The only time you don't use this method..." means absolutely nothing to you.

None of my premises are taken out of context. None of my premises are based on assumptions.

I invite you to form your own P/C style argument for your position. Which I will look at objectively, and to which the rest of the forum can do the same.

Until that time, I give up. I've tried to help you understand the rules better, but if you want to ignore all of that and go ahead and cheat, because you 'think' you know how it should work, be my guest.

fin

Blue Loki nailed it right on the head, and defended it much better than I ever could.  I used to play the 'other' way, where the Size levels blocked LOS and there was a 'magic cylinder' around things like dreads.  A careful re-read of the rules (which you don't need to do since Blue Loki posted everything relevant) will show that is incorrect. 

Also, Yakface's #1 rule of 40k is that "Modeling can be used to your advantage." 

If you don't want someone shooting through your Dreads legs, model him with a skirt.  If you want to hide your Wraithlord behind some wreckage or vehicles, model him crawling or kneeling.

There is no 'average height' based on size classifications that allows you to ignore 'model's eye' LOS.  If you can see it, you can shoot it, unless its behind trees or a close combat. 

Its really quite simple

Cruentus
(Height classification hangup convert)

 

Posted By blue loki on 04/11/2006 1:38 PM

Seriously?

I just quoted like 90% of the Model's Height and LOS sections, yet you still claim that they are out of context?

Apparently, "The only time you don't use this method..." means absolutely nothing to you.

Since the 10% you left out includes the definition of the model size they are generalizing about and you refuse to acknowledge that a model is defined at the beginning of the book, yet continue to use a single line outside of context right in theis very quote, then yes, I will still claim that you are using rules out of context. The rules in the book are basically in literary chapters, with each proceeding rule influencing the following rules. You are grabbing one line here, two lines there and slapping them together in a manner that ignores what a basic model is. I have already quoted the part about a model not being the actual height of the plastic and you have still not even acknowledged that.

I would also point out that your "the only time" crap is in relation to "Model's eye view" which you take literally but not a single picture in the book that deals with LOS draws a line from the model's eyes/weapons to a target. All of the diagrams follow a straight line path ALONG THE GROUND to the target, noting that you can ignore the units of Size Level 2 not in combat that are in the way.

 

Also, Yakface's #1 rule of 40k is that "Modeling can be used to your advantage." 

I agree that larger base sizes or custom mounted vehicle weaponry could possibly be used to your advantage, but since a model as defined in the beginning of the book doesn't take into account creative decorations, you cannot use creative modelling to very much advantage in most cases. Those two cases only work because of either lack of vehicle models, or the general idea that larger bases being as much hindrince as they gain in effectiveness.

 

Because they word their rules poorly and then make WD articles about level 4 terrain so regular models can shoot over tanks

Um, actually the White Dwarf article simply suggested that you might want to add a Size 4 if you use particularly large terrain features. It was nothing to do with being able to shoot over vehicles.

Here's a gem you always leave out:

P1: "Model Height - ..there are three borad height bands into which all models fall. The following three categories are the only ones that are important in the Shooting phase when determining line of sight and target priority... Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant." p 7 BGB

Note that the part you snipped out: "Initially, virtually every model you use will fall into the middle category. Be aware..."

And ooh, look at what you just quoted: "Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant."

Why would they 'become' relevant in those two situations if they already applied all the time?

If I had the book with me I could fill in your snip here too. It basically stated that they always block LOS, and of course since they can be standing kneeling or taking a crap you cannot use their literal height.

Nonsense. The full paragraph actually reads:

"All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or fow block line of sight. A line 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."

No reference is made to the models Size. It in fact very clearly states that a LOS can still be drawn over such models... somethnig that is impossible if th Sizes always apply.

All of this nonsense about having to use the Sizes is nothing more than wishful thinking. Yes, the current system allows for abusive modelling. Welcome to 40K, where that's been a problem since the very first edition of the rules, and is likely to continue to be a problem for some time to come... because it's not really that much of a problem.

And ooh, look at what you just quoted: "Be aware though that when you want to see over some terrain features or an ongoing close combat, these heights will become relevant."

Why would they 'become' relevant in those two situations if they already applied all the time?

Why don't they have rules for ordinance wounding? Because they probably changed something and didn't fix the relavant clarifications of previous rules.

Well, as I quoted already it said that most models will be Size Level 2, which does not normally block LOS. A model is defined at the beginning of the book, if you can quote where a model's 'body' is defined at to target with your 'models eye view' you'll have the beginning of an argument. you also ignored my point that all LOS examples have a line drawn on the ground from the base of the model. Why didn't they draw a line from the model's eye view?

Snooggums gets the "nit-picking" award of the day. Your argument is ridiculous. You've effectively conceded the argument to Insaniak and Blue Loki on anything that they've made into a premise or a conclusion, and have been reduced to nit-picking at irrelevancies. Not to mention red herrings, absurdities, and numerous logical fallacies.

About the only thing you haven't done is throw ad hominem attacks. Well done. Remember, I'm not making fun of you personnally, I'm showing how your argument is completely whacked.

Why don't they have rules for ordinance wounding? Because they probably changed something and didn't fix the relavant clarifications of previous rules.

Ah... so anything that doesn't fit your argument (ie: the majority of the LOS rules section) is clearly a typo, and the actual rules for LOS are in a completely different section of the rulebook that defines how bases and size categories work?


Yeah, ok. Thanks for playing.

Snoogums, where do you play?  If you play in tournaments, please wear a button saying "I'm snoogums on Dakka".  This way we can dice for it at the beginning of the game (since your obviously rejecting all other arguments) and we can get on with it and don't have to waste any more time.

You may also want to drop this "viewpoint" of the rules on your opponent BEFORE you start the game.

Posted By Iorek on 04/11/2006 5:48 PM
Snoogums, where do you play?  If you play in tournaments, please wear a button saying" i'm="" snoogums="" dakka="" .="" this="" way="" dice="" for="" at="" beginning="" of="" the="" game="" (since="" your="" obviously="" rejecting="" all="" other="" arguments="" we="" can="" get="" on="" with="" it="" and="" don't="" have="" to="" waste="" any="" more="" time="">

You may also want to drop this "viewpoint" of the rules on your opponent BEFORE you start the game.

Actually I usually just default to however my opponent plays so that the game goes smoother for LOS but I do ask before the game so I know what to expect. I also clarify several other things that opponents seem to be inconsistent on, such as wrap around while piling in which a lot of players still want to do. YMDC is how I read the rules, not how I play since I do actaully play for fun. I don't play tournaments because I doubt that they would be fun since while I like winning games, I don't thrive on competition or total powergaming.

**BEATS* self in face with BGB* after reading those other forums.
Maaaaaan.....

GW is responsible for a lot of very poorly written and ambiguous rules. This is just NOT one of them.

This is not Dakka-ish rules lawyering. It's not unsporting interpretation. It's not about realism. Its not even about deciphering intention. It's about people who are supposedly first language speakers just not being able to accurately comprehend what has been written and very sadly, following that, stubbornly refusing to admit it.

I can't believe there are still people (and thats not an attack snoogums- I just honestly can not believe it) that still think a ork trukk blocks LOS to a Battlewagon or a Rhino blocks a Raider.

I can however believe that there are people that believe the wrecks block this- BUT- this relies on you proving that wrecks become area terrain (which you cant!)

Difficulty with this is that stubborness is more difficult to sway or refute than a player basing their argument on logic.

Thankfully most of Dakka are enlightened and its the other forums that are like this. *sigh*.

Snoogums- if possible- and this isn't a jibe or an attack or anything- but, can you try make a logically coherent P&C argument? Again- i gotta re-itterate that that was not a jab at you sayin you havent- im talking about a structured "premise, premise, conclusion" argument. Sometimes, if we write it up like that we realise our own flaws in our arguments.

It's been pointed out that literal model heights are not relevant in the modelling section, in this very thread. This is always ignored for a contradictory "body" comment in the shooting rules. I've seen several people do very good jobs of explaining what a model is only to have the "but it says mode's eye view" single line used to ignore the entire definition of a model. One night when I have an hour or two I'll put it together but each time I think about it I just know that the only responses will be the same two lines, both of which contradict the definition of a model.

Plus in a thread on the old forums yakface even admitted he would never agree to a magic cylinder style of play because he didn't like it. It's like arguing with a brick wall, just how people say they feel when arguing their side. The only difference is the opinion on this forum is both hateful and a pack mentality when people just follow the common posters listed in the title of this thread.