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.

Phryxis wrote:So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

No.

If you can't draw a LOS to the model's body, and all that you can see is the banner, then the rulebook says that the model is not visible.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.


Here's where it gets interesting, though: If you deploy that same model in the open, there's nothing in the rules that says that the banner doesn't block LOS. The model (or parts thereof) are only considered not visible if you can't see the model's body.


We've always played around here though that parts of a model that aren't a valid target for LOS don't block LOS, as that just makes more sense to to the mob I generally game with.

Drunkspleen wrote:

DaisukeAramecha wrote:1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Let's take a sampling of numbers:

1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,6.

If you graphed these numbers against how often they occur in the sample, you would get a (rough) bell curve, if you average these numbers out you get 3.5, meaning exactly half of them are below average.

The bell curve only affects how common the degree to which something is below average is, you will still in most situations have approximately 50% of things being below average.

Let's take another sampling of numbers

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5

The average of these numbers of 3.
There are 10 numbers.
Only 4 of them are below average. This is less than half.

Phryxis wrote: Hence, a monolith or a Daemon Prince is likely to be able to actually "see" over infantry models and see further units clearly.

Alternately, if you shoot "through" the unit, as in, a model of the same height (figuratively speaking) shooting between models in a unit (similar to terrain features) to hit a further unit, even if the target models can be clearly seen, does grant a cover save.

The point is, shooting from a height is supposed to be a benefit, being able to overlook cover-providing terrain would be one of those benefits.

But This assumes that the value of height is paid for in the points. What is to keep players from converting vehicles to have weapons on tall poles or mega bases that elevate the model? Who will be the first battlewagon with a kill canon mounted on a 12" tower? What about Ork lootas who wear a backpack that have the weapon 3 inches above the ork's head? I have seen some GT armies where every model is on a 2" tall base. None of this was an issue in the size class and abstract LOS of 4th.

I don't mind True LOS as long as vehicle mountings and handheld weapons have some rules of what is expected from a model. If I see roof-mounted lascannons on a land-raider then there is a problem.

DaisukeAramecha wrote:

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

2) "If you don't like it, quit whining and go to another game" is just insulting and unnecessary. I can have a legitimate complaint and still play a game, and not all complaints are "whining".

1) a bell curve by definition has half the people below average. Hence its shape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Note the table that has the US general data... half the people hang around the 90-110 range... well half of that half (25% of the population) will be under 100 and the other will be over.

THEREFORE half the people you meet are below the average.

Now I don't think you have a very good grasp of what IQ is because you called it insulting. The lower the IQ the longer it takes for you to learn something. Thats all it means. It doesn't mean you are dumb, it doesn't mean you are stupid, it simply means that people with lower IQs need more time and training to become "experts" at something. Think of it this way. Some people are naturally fast runners. I may not be, but IF I work harder at it then someone who is a natural at running I can be faster then them.

2) Stop Whining

Problems can be solved;

My post on new 5E LOS, please read.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215480.page

Yes, terrain pieces are at fault, not the rules, but consistancy is a must.

Please help.

insaniak wrote:

Phryxis wrote:So, could you not build a model with a massive back banner, deploy him out of LoS, but with his back banner covering your whole side, and thus obscure all your vehicles?

No.

If you can't draw a LOS to the model's body, and all that you can see is the banner, then the rulebook says that the model is not visible.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.

Um... huh?

I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'. And there is nothing in the rules that lets you shoot things you can't see.

I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Does anyone else find it funny and ironic that he got this wrong..??

Let's take another sampling of numbers

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5

The average of these numbers of 3.
There are 10 numbers.
Only 4 of them are below average. This is less than half.

You are right, but since that is not even close to being a Bell Curve, it doesn't really apply.

Since 40K players are a self-selecting sample it's highly unlikely that they represent a sufficient cross-section of the general population to generate good statical results representative of the entire population.

Since the game requires a lot of reading and use of fairly complex rules, it will not appeal to stupid people. The average IQ of players is probably higher than the average of the general population.

DaisukeAramecha wrote:
I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Obviously you have 0 understanding of a bell curve... With a bell curve EXACTLY 1/2 of the data is below average while the other 1/2 is above... That's why its shaped like a bell...

Red_Lives wrote:

DaisukeAramecha wrote:
I'm really tired of hearing people say these two things.
1) "Half the people you meet are below average" is bollocks. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Obviously you have 0 understanding of a bell curve... With a bell curve EXACTLY 1/2 of the data is below average while the other 1/2 is above... That's why its shaped like a bell...

You are making the dangerous assumption that nobody is exactly average. In which case they would be neither above or below average - making it impossible for half to be either.

AAAAAARGH!

Can I please be a part of the lower-IQ-group, because I don't see the point of this (for want of a better word) "discussion".

A plot of IQ of the general population will not be a standard bell-curve. It will most likely (I'm guessing here, but I suspect I'm correct) be skewed to the right (there's a considerable higher number of idiots out there then there are mental giants). So really in any general sample of people you have a decent chance of there being more idiots then geniuses (which really, don't we already know this? Look at the guys which normally play at your store - if you don't see any idiots, that means you're the idiot probably...).

But let's give table-top players the benefit of the doubt and say that it's unlikely they are representative of the general population being at heart we're nerds and geeks, so in all likelihood, more then half of us are above the median IQ of the general population.

We've been playing TLOS in all cases - if you have a tree on one end and a shrub on the other and you're shooting from a hill, can you see over the tree if you're shooting over it? Can you see over the shrub if you're shooting over it? If there's any obscurement, they get cover. If not, then no cover.

If a TMC can draw a line from the "gun" to the base of a model without touching an intervening unit, no cover. Otherwise cover. It really makes it very simple IMHO.

Even those outliers on the far left of the IQ line can understand it...

Modquisition Mode on
***OK guys lets get back to topic of the thread. This IQ discussion, while interesting, could get snarky. I suggest you take it to the OTT.

Modquisition Mode off

coredump wrote:I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'.

You need to determine whether or not anything is in the way.
The rules very clearly state that the model is not visible if you can't draw a LOS to its body.
If the model is not visible, it can't be blocking LOS.

The giant flag thing providing cover, but not being allowable to target when behind cover, actually kind of makes sense. If you lob a shot at a huge flag, your bolt/plasma ball/las beam/splinter goes right through it, making a little hole. The flagbearer is unharmed. Out in the open, his giant flag obscures whatever is behind him, giving any shot a 50/50 chance of missing.

The places where this doesn't make as much sense is with targets behind the flag being shot at by elevated gunners that would normally be able to see them but not the bearer, or blast templates that one would assume would go straight through the flag and not be affected at all by not being able to see its target exactly.

If the model is not visible, it can't block LOS.

Where is this in the rules, though? I agree with your conclusion if it's true, but I see nothing to say that it's true.

We've always played around here though that parts of a model that aren't a valid target for LOS don't block LOS, as that just makes more sense to to the mob I generally game with.

But this would be a house rule, right?

It's interesting to me how you and your gaming group object to (and change) such different parts of the TLoS rules than I would. Makes one wonder how much individual communities speak "dialects" of 40k.

People are approaching some of these issues from a highly theoretical viewpoint.

It really can't often happen that one MC kind of model can be completely obscured from view by surrounding models. There are too many ways to poke a laser beam through little gaps from different angles.

Perhaps that is why Samurai generals used to command from inside a wall of screens -- being invisible meant they couldn't be targetted!

Phryxis wrote:Where is this in the rules, though?

It's not. But since the rules don't give a rules-specific meaning to the word 'visible' it doesn't need to be.

The rules say that the model is not visible. We use the dictionary meaning of 'visible' (since no specific meaning is given in the rules) which tells us that this means the model can not be seen.

If the model can not be seen, then parts of the model can not be blocking LOS. It's simply impossible for something that's invisible to block you view... if it were doing that, it wouldn't be invisible.

But this would be a house rule, right?

Yes, of course. That's why I said that it's the way we play it, rather than the way the rules say to play it.

insaniak wrote:

coredump wrote:I can't see that being supported by the rules. If I am trying to shoot a ravener on a hill, but I can't see it because of the wings of a flyrant, there is nothing that says I need to check LoS to the flyrant to see if it is 'visible'.

You need to determine whether or not anything is in the way.
The rules very clearly state that the model is not visible if you can't draw a LOS to its body.
If the model is not visible, it can't be blocking LOS.

The rules don't say that.

The rules ask if you can see the target, it does not mention 'determining if anything is in the way'.
If you can't see it, you can't shoot it. There is nothing in the rules about checking to see if intervening units are 'invisible'

Being visible is only determined if you are trying to target that model.

Even the fluff logic falls apart. If you can see the head of the HT, then his wings totally hide the ravener, if you can't see the head, then the ravener is a viable target....

Interesting decision to say 'since I can't shoot the HT main body with this model/unit, its wings don't block LOS to other models from this model/unit'... I would not have made that leap away from RAW personally.

I think this is a unique and rare situation though on the table... and interesting situations will generate interesting solutions I suppose!

If the model can not be seen, then parts of the model can not be blocking LOS.

Well, what constitutes the model? The rules spell oot pretty clearly that when it comes to establishing LoS, only a subset of the model is actually relevant, specifically "the body." So, really it doesn't say that the model can't be seen, it says that the model's body can't be seen, and thus the model can't be chosen as a target.

The rules don't really determine if you can see, they determine if you can choose the target for shooting.

I'd have to go read the rules again, with your points in mind, but from the half dozen times I've already read them, I think there's no basis in RAW for what you're saying here.

After all, they call these rules "true line of sight." It appears that in this case, you're not playing true line of sight, but instead pretending parts of the model aren't as they appear, in order to make sense of the rules and prevent ootcomes you don't think are legitimate.

Sorta like I'd suggest we do with crouching models, and you said it was a bad idea...

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I feel like "I told ya so." I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims, and various people with less maturity than you questioned my manhood. Now you're being forced to come up with house rules, and very questionable rules interpretations to make them palatable in some cases, which is really the same reason I was objecting to them in the first place.

If people are doing stuff in local games like your examples with the wings, that's where you walk around the table and give them several good slaps upside the head, then find a new opponent.

If you want to do tournament play, only play in tournaments where you know the guy running it in smart enough to do the same thing.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I feel like "I told ya so." I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims, and various people with less maturity than you questioned my manhood. Now you're being forced to come up with house rules, and very questionable rules interpretations to make them palatable in some cases, which is really the same reason I was objecting to them in the first place.

I completely agree with you that banners, wings, etc. can and do block line of sight to other models, even though they may not be used to target the actual model that possesses them.

But I think you're grossly overstating the impact of such a rule.

Have you played a game yet with the new rules (honest question)? Because the amount of times actual issues arise from the new LOS rules once players wrap their heads around the idea and accept what it means is pretty low with my game experience.


Yes, players can abuse the rules through modeling if other players allow them to (remember, the rules don't specifically allow conversions), but what has really changed in this regard from previous editions? The answer is: not much. Players could gain an advantage through modeling in previous editions and they still can.


You might argue that this new edition should fix these "problems" but like I've said many times, you really have to make a choice: Either you start throwing LOS abstractions into the game which starts pulling out the meaning of 3D models and 3D terrain or you stick with the 3D models and the 3D terrain and you accept the issues that arise with it.

Clearly you're for a more 2D approach but I do believe the right choice was made for this new edition. These rules highlight the fact that we're playing with 3D models on 3D terrain that we've worked so hard to create. It emphasizes the difference of this type of game as opposed to a simple boardgame like Axis & Allies.

The terrain and the models themselves are part of the game and how they interact with each other *matters*, which is how it should be IMHO.

FWIW I have rarely seen in a GW GT much model abuse.

Indy GT, lots of it. Less shame I guess.

Locally, there's a in the northern part of the state and another in the southern part of the state that use modeling to their advantage.

Sadly, there are also a couple that cheat in various ways, both north and south.

Thankfully, they are like bears. They lose a game, can't handle the epeen blow when they lose, and hibernate.

I've seen alot of very questionable modeling in my time (the list is endless) but the truth is--I haven't yet experienced a game where I was affected by it.

Steamroller the idiot with the 'flak tower' tanks and the 'tall as a blade of grass' wraithlord, and don't forget to berate them for their clever-yet-not "conversion" while you do so; and eventually...they stop doing it.

I think my favorite was the Deceiver head on a 20mm base. That was sooo funny. Especially when we explained the rules to him and shot it anyway despite the corked up oversized 'scarabs' in front of his Deceiver head. Haven't seen that guy since that day.

Oh and yak, your rule #1 is still in your sig. It's lame for so many reasons. When are you going to get rid of it?

coredump wrote:The rules ask if you can see the target, it does not mention 'determining if anything is in the way'.

Really?

So how do you tell if a model is in cover, then?

Phryxis wrote: So, really it doesn't say that the model can't be seen, it says that the model's body can't be seen, and thus the model can't be chosen as a target.

Nope, sorry. As I already pointed it, it says that if the model's body can not be seen, the model is not visible.

I said these rules were full of annoying inconsistencies and exploits, and you scoffed at my claims,

If you took it as 'scoffing' then I apologise, since that was never the intention.

I never disagreed with their being inconsistencies. The disagreement was simply over whether or not they were as much of a problem as you were claiming.

Now you're being forced to come up with house rules,

No I'm not.

We choose to use a house rule in this situation because we prefer to play a certain way. The rules are perfectly functional as is in this situation, and in actual practice the situation comes up very, very rarely.

Really?

So how do you tell if a model is in cover, then?

Because either you can see all/part/or none of the model. That is usually because something is in the way... but that is secondary really. There is nothing in the rules to make you do any consideration of what that item is. (Except for if it is part of the shooting/firing units.)

coredump wrote:Because either you can see all/part/or none of the model. That is usually because something is in the way...

Right. And if that thing in the way is considered by the rules to be not visible, then it's not actually in the way.

There is nothing in the rules to make you do any consideration of what that item is.

Of course there is. Models get a cover save from Area Terrain, regardless of whether or not the terrain is physically obscuring them. To get that cover save, you have to look at what is actually in the path of the LOS, and apply the rules that tell you how that obstruction affects LOS.

Same thing here. Something is in the way of the LOS. The rules tell you how that obstruction works within the LOS rules: if its body is not visible, the model is not visible. It is therefore ignored as an obstruction.

You are reading way too much into that. The rules do not call out for you to determine if something is visible unless you are shooting at it.
And the entire section it is detailed in is to determine if it is visible to be shot at, which is very different than being unable to be seen, and very different to not being able to block LoS to a different model.

t I think you're grossly overstating the impact of such a rule.

I don't mean to imply that this is a game breaking issue, or that it will be a problem without being willfully exploited... However, if this was such an uncommon ocurrance, I don't think insaniak and his crew would have already come up with a ruling that they follow. Clearly it's happening...

It's not my intent to rehash the whole "these rules are good, these rules are bad" discussion. These are the rules we have, they'll be fine... I'm just responding to the fact that people were acting like I was way off base in my complaints, and then going off themselves and "fixing" things they had issue with.

As I already pointed it, it says that if the model's body can not be seen, the model is not visible.

It does say this. It lays oot how to determine LoS, and then says that if LoS doesn't exist, then the model isn't visible.

I think it's interesting (and most likely unintentional) that the rules are written this way. Your argument is a good one, but ultimately I think it's very thinly supported in the rules. It's almost like you're creating a loophole to tie off another loophole. It's clever, but I don't think the RAW really support it unequivocally.

Some fairly stupid sanity checks can be tried. For example, it says the unit isn't visible. It doesn't give any qualifiers, such as "to the firing unit." So, you could use a similar argument to say that if one enemy unit couldn't trace LoS to the target, then it's not visible, period. And thus another enemy unit, with a wide open shot, could no longer take that shot, since the unit isn't visible.

Ultimately I think the rules are pretty explicit aboot what can be excluded from blocking LoS (as coredump has said). The implication of a rule isn't a rule, but I think the implication here is very strong that you don't exclude models simply because their bodies are oot of LoS.

I think it's rather funny, really. GW loves to write wordy, ill considered rules, with sloppy language. Now you're using their sloppy use of the word "visible" to actually fix other problems in their rules for them. Model customer, it'd seem.

Phryxis wrote:However, if this was such an uncommon ocurrance, I don't think insaniak and his crew would have already come up with a ruling that they follow.

'Already'?



We've been using that house rule since 2nd edition. It's not something that was suddenly added in 5th.

The times when it's actually been called into play are negligible.

It doesn't give any qualifiers, such as "to the firing unit." So, you could use a similar argument to say that if one enemy unit couldn't trace LoS to the target, then it's not visible, period.

You could, if you want to complete ignore context. LOS is only relevant to the unit in question at the time.

Now you're using their sloppy use of the word "visible" to actually fix other problems in their rules for them.

In your opinion. In mine, I'm using the fact that they clearly spell out that the model is not visible in a given situation to mean that the model is not visible in that given situation.

In mine, I'm using the fact that they clearly spell out that the model is not visible in a given situation to mean that the model is not visible in that given situation.

Well, let's get yak to work pulling his FAQing strings.

I'd be interested to hear what they say...

Perhaps a better example that's less ridiculous might be proposed:

"A squad of Marines are located behind a solid building, and a single Obliterator attempts to fire on them. All the models are completely hidden by the building, except for two. One is the Sergeant, who has a back banner. Another is a Tactical Marine who is behind the Sergeant. The Sergeant's body is not in LoS for the Obliterator, however his back banner is visible. The Tactical Marine is entirely obscured by the back banner, but were the banner invisible, the Obliterator would have LoS to the Marine's head."

I'd like to hear how they rule.

If I understand you, you believe that GW intentionally authored the rules to allow for the interpretation you've made. I.e. the Marine behind the back banner would be a valid target for shooting (and thus his whole squad could be killed, in theory).

I tend to think that GW did not intentionally author the rules to account for the situation in question, and your ability to make them apply is a happy coincidence.

I think this is the case because of how they write all their other rules. They have a tendency to put any point, no matter how obvious, in parentheses with an exclamation point, and they often put an "obviously" or "clearly" in there as well. That's why I say they're wordy. Example: "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit (just as if they were not there)."

I really think they should have done a global find and replace on the rules for "clearly" and "obviously" and removed them all. But I digress...

I realize that's arguing intent, not RAW, but I'm just putting it oot there. I also think that they would answer the FAQ question above by saying that the squad is not in LoS.

That's my guess, we'll see if I'm correct.