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.

EVIL INC wrote:
Polecat was insisting that if the kneeler gunners on a heavy weapon squad was unable to draw a line of sight from the actual eyes of the model he would pack up and leave if someone tried to fire it over an ADL.

That is what the rules say. You do understand, that it was your choice to deploy the HWS behind the ADL, right? Maybe you could have deployed them in area terrain, giving them 5+ cover (3+ when GTG)?
Also, your HWS could still see tall models and models on flier base and such even when behind ADL.

You see, it's a slippery slope when you start ignoring rules like that. For example, could your HWS fire at a unit of Necron Scarabs (a model that has very little height) that are very near you and the ADL? How do you determine when you can or cannot fire if you do not have a clear indication like true LOS?

You need to use some sense. Models are a representation. They absolutely are not static. This is the crux of the issue and rules lawyers are simply not going to get it. You play your game your way, and I will play the game the right way, the same way its been played by me and the majority of players out there for almost 20 years now. If we run into each other in real life and this comes up, we can flip a coin or quit playing, its that easy.

Col. Dash wrote:
You need to use some sense. Models are a representation. They absolutely are not static. This is the crux of the issue and rules lawyers are simply not going to get it. You play your game your way, and I will play the game the right way, the same way its been played by me and the majority of players out there for almost 20 years now. If we run into each other in real life and this comes up, we can flip a coin or quit playing, its that easy.

No, clearly you don't get it, because you refer to your way as "the right way". Unless you're playing by strict RAW (which no one does, that I've met) you're not playing by the "right way". Get over yourself. Your interpretation of the rules is not the only valid one. You come across as someone who has only played a narrow range of people. Just look at tournament FAQs - there can be quite a discrepancy in how rules are played.

I am aware of this and I used to be heavily involved in local tournaments at various stores. However assuming the models are static is without doubt the wrong way. Never have I played like this, never have I been to a tournament or store where it was played like this and I have played quite a bit throughout the South East and a few other areas. So yes, non static models is the right way.

"Doing so is called modelling for advantage, and nobody would be happy with that." modeling for advantage or not. it is still legal . Not something I would personally do but something he is advocating.

"Nor would they put up with the nonsense of you claiming that a unit who does not have LOS should be allowed to shoot, just because you think an ADL allows you to." Again, you have obviously never played in a tourney.

"Arguing that you're not playing by the rules is not a hissy fit and your defense of the misinterpretation would be overruled by tourney judges." Again, you have obviously never played in a tourney or had to deal with players making threats, screaming or throwing models.

"Which is a perfectly legal interpretation of the rules. It was your choice to have a kneeling model. If that means you loose LOS all the time, that's your own fault." Again, the reason why I usually put a standing model on the base. Just so asshats cant try to deny me legal shots.

"I and several others are trying to get you to use the correct rules, and understand that you are in many cases wrong. Our posts against you are arguing the opposite side of the arguments you are making. It just so happens that you make many unfounded and outrageus claims that we've decided that you need to be replied to." It is funny how you try to draw others onto your "side" in an effort to try to legitimatize yourself. You misread the rules and make outrageous claims. Simply because I prove you wrong you try to turn it about. How are your games going now that I have taught you that monstrous creatures are allowed to take cover saves from area terrain after you spent pages denying it?

EVIL INC wrote:
"Doing so is called modelling for advantage, and nobody would be happy with that." modeling for advantage or not. it is still legal . Not something I would personally do but something he is advocating.

No.
He is advocating the use of true LOS. Tell me where exactly he supports modelling for advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:

"I and several others are trying to get you to use the correct rules, and understand that you are in many cases wrong. Our posts against you are arguing the opposite side of the arguments you are making. It just so happens that you make many unfounded and outrageus claims that we've decided that you need to be replied to." It is funny how you try to draw others onto your "side" in an effort to try to legitimatize yourself. You misread the rules and make outrageous claims. Simply because I prove you wrong you try to turn it about. How are your games going now that I have taught you that monstrous creatures are allowed to take cover saves from area terrain after you spent pages denying it?

I made one post where I misremembered a rule.
And my games are going exactly as before, tyvm.

Reread the thread.

EVIL INC wrote:
Reread the thread.

For the parts where you make wild accusations, unreasonable assumptions, and vastly incorrect rules interpretations?
I could do that, but I can't be bothered to quote all of your posts.

 ductvader wrote:


Ha...I have contemplated this for a Land Raider.

I currently play mine (for bugs) in a spiral fashion where 3+ of the walls all touch at one focal point and then spread out from there...it's excellent for objetive camping the center of the board...as bugs do most of the time.

I am not sure by what you mean by the 3+, but as long as you have a unbroken chain from end to end, as the example shows on page 114, it is fine. Pretty much, you can only have two ends. And no, you still can not stack ADL sections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Col. Dash wrote:
I am aware of this and I used to be heavily involved in local tournaments at various stores. However assuming the models are static is without doubt the wrong way. Never have I played like this, never have I been to a tournament or store where it was played like this and I have played quite a bit throughout the South East and a few other areas. So yes, non static models is the right way.

There is nothing in the Base rule book to support that position though. The rules state that you base True Line of Sight from the models 'eyes' on page 8 of the BRB. No where in that section (3/4 of the page) does it say anything about 'assuming you have LoS'. It is pretty black and white that if there is something blocking their LoS, they can not fire. An ADL is a piece of terrain. It is not a friendly model that you can ignore. There are no rules written that say that if the ADL blocks LoS of the owner of the ADL that you ignore it.

Just because you and the stores you have played at are playing it wrong doesn't make it right. If you disagree, that is fine. But give me a rule then to support your disagreement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
So, pole cat, you would be fine with me modeling a leman russ with a battle cannon out of pvc pipe so that as soon as it left the turret, there was a 90 degree agle so that the barrel went straight up for 4 feet and then had another 90 degree turn to allow it to then point forward again for another 8 inches? I could sit it on my back line totally out of your line of sight and hammer you with battle cannon shots from an angle the negated most cover from your wall because it could see over it? Of course, you would not be able to return fire at my russ because you could not see it's hull. Did I mention I could also do that with the hull mounted las cannon and sponson heavy bolters along mounting the hunter killer missile on a huge periscope as well? According to you that's fine. Heck, while I'm at it I might do the same for all my units. The gunners on my las cannons will have 4 foot high necks (4 feet for me as the player nit 4 feet from the models perspective. They could see the whole field and the shots would be coming from head level while 50% of the model is still in cover.
This is why we need to use a little common sense. If someone refused to finish a game because they did not think my las cannon should be able to fire over a ADL (despite the fact it was designed to allow it, I would count that as a free with and the tourney runner would count it as me tableing you with all objectives. Not to mention you would be banned from future tourneys.
You appear to be the person that is the reason I will often put a standing guardsman on my heavy weapons bases instead of two kneelers to avoid just such a thing from happening.

While I agree with your post on heavy weapons (I do the same thing with a standing Guardsman), I do not agree with this post. Besides, your tank would be illegal because you measure from the mounting along the barrel (pg 72 BRB). This is to avoid what your describing and to keep folk from 'shooting around corners'.

And is someone was a total scumbag and made IG models with 4" tall necks, I would never play against them and I doubt anyone else would as well.

So if you glue the head of a model on looking to the right, than that means that unless you positioned it so that the face was looking at the target in the movement phase (you are not allowed to pivot or reposition them in the shooting phase except to make a run move) you could not shoot at it? The rulebook says infantry models have a 360 degree fire arc. that being said, if you cant draw a direct los from the actual eyes of the model on the base they would not actually get that 360 degree fire arc as they would only get the 90 degree the face is looking at. Further, how about models with the head looking down as they reload a bolter? Are they not allowed to fire anywhere but at their feet as the model's eyes are looking down.
At some point in time, you need to insert a modicum of common sense. We had that 90 degree fire arc years ago for that reason and to avoid arguments, I put marks on my bases to visibly show where my 90 degree fire arc was. Not a fan of that as it is too easily abused by people who are not willing to have a set 90 degree marked on their bases.

EVIL INC wrote:
So if you glue the head of a model on looking to the right, than that means that unless you positioned it so that the face was looking at the target in the movement phase (you are not allowed to pivot or reposition them in the shooting phase except to make a run move) you could not shoot at it? The rulebook says infantry models have a 360 degree fire arc. that being said, if you cant draw a direct los from the actual eyes of the model on the base they would not actually get that 360 degree fire arc as they would only get the 90 degree the face is looking at. Further, how about models with the head looking down as they reload a bolter? Are they not allowed to fire anywhere but at their feet as the model's eyes are looking down.

If we assume that infantry can see all 360", ,then we can assume they do not take the back of their head into account, and can rotate their eyes to any angle in a sphere.
Therefore, all we need do is check from eye level.

EVIL INC wrote:

At some point in time, you need to insert a modicum of common sense.

You should try using it, too.

EVIL INC wrote:
We had that 90 degree fire arc years ago for that reason and to avoid arguments, I put marks on my bases to visibly show where my 90 degree fire arc was. Not a fan of that as it is too easily abused by people who are not willing to have a set 90 degree marked on their bases.

Wat.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
An aegis defence line is a barricade. Under the rules for barricades you only need to be within 2" of it to count as touching the terrain piece. I believe this means your opponent doesn't gain any cover from any of your models shooting at him as long as they are within 2" of the ADL.

There is no such rule. If line of sight is sufficiently obscured, they get cover. No distances involved, no work arounds with owning the terrain or touching the terrain. TLOS period.

So what does the rule for barricades say?

The rule for barracades pg 104 BRB,
"If a model is in cover behind a barracade or wall, it has a 4+ cover save. For the purposes of charge moves, models that are both in base contact with the barricade and within 2" of each other are treated as being in base contact. Despite the models on either side not literally being in base contact, the combatants fight nonetheless."

So... your wrong on the first part because it doesn't say anything about shooting them within 2". But, it brings up a point that we would need to ask or define 'in cover behind'. Still doesn't answer the LoS question, but it would mean that your opponent can not claim a 4+ cover save because they can not claim to be behind a wall. They would get at best a 5+ cover save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EVIL INC wrote:
So if you glue the head of a model on looking to the right, than that means that unless you positioned it so that the face was looking at the target in the movement phase (you are not allowed to pivot or reposition them in the shooting phase except to make a run move) you could not shoot at it? The rulebook says infantry models have a 360 degree fire arc. that being said, if you cant draw a direct los from the actual eyes of the model on the base they would not actually get that 360 degree fire arc as they would only get the 90 degree the face is looking at. Further, how about models with the head looking down as they reload a bolter? Are they not allowed to fire anywhere but at their feet as the model's eyes are looking down.
At some point in time, you need to insert a modicum of common sense. We had that 90 degree fire arc years ago for that reason and to avoid arguments, I put marks on my bases to visibly show where my 90 degree fire arc was. Not a fan of that as it is too easily abused by people who are not willing to have a set 90 degree marked on their bases.

Infantry have 360 degree vision, as all it says is to 'look from behind the model's head for a 'model's eye view''. You do have a Base Rule Book, correct?

Yes, I have a base rule book. two copies that are well read. I don't actually believe that the true literal models eye view I described should be done. I was only taking nthier view to an extreme to demonstrate that the raw and rai are two separate things and how waac pure raw can cause hard feelings in friendly games. As I said, that is why I usually put a stander on a heavy weapons base to stop that issue. Butof course, in an actual game a jerk could even then say that that is not the official heavy weapon gunner and it is not even glued to the weapon's base and argue to support it, not that I would take it off and not that any tourney organizer worth his/her salt would make me switch it to two kneelers.

I agree. But that is not the point. The point is that there is still nothing in a base rule book that says you ignore TLoS concerning a ADL.

I mean, they have rules that you can move through walls (pg 99 BRB), but nothing about ignoring things that block LoS. In fact, you can't even shoot through friendly models, unless those models are in the same unit (pg 8 BRB). So a skirmish line screws you as much as the enemy.

 BlkTom wrote:


I am not sure by what you mean by the 3+, but as long as you have a unbroken chain from end to end, as the example shows on page 114, it is fine. Pretty much, you can only have two ends. And no, you still can not stack ADL sections.

Here are the sum total requirements for Aegis defence line placement:

From BRB:
R1. 4 or less long Aegis defence line sections
R2. 4 or less short Aegis defence line sections
R3. Foreach section ( base of section is touching base of another section) - pyramid kinks are totally cool, they are in base contact

From FAQ:
R4. sections cannot be deployed in two or more groups
R5. sections must be deployed in an unbroken chain

That is all, the section "though they can be connected end-to-end such as in the example shown on page" is meaningless since it uses the word "can be" to grant permission to do somehting that is already covered by the placement rules.

So clearly you can have it go up hills at a slant as long as R3 is still the case.
Clearly you can have it go over big rocks with gaps underneath it as long as R3 is the case

From this point it is very easy to justify (within the rules) gluing/magnitising your wall so there are lots of gaps and vertical zig zags to produce a crazy high wall. This is just one of many examples of how believing in nothing but strict RAW is baddd for sanity and enjoyment.

The only potential debate you can have is whether your unbroken chain can have 3 ends (joining in the middle). It definitely fits the requirements for being unbroken but is it still a chain? I'd go with yes.

I will often attach them in the middle and along the way as they are all still touching and in base to base (I have seen chains built that way. Look at what you put on your car tires.
This allows better protection from barrage weapons and is still perfectly reasonable as in do so, you are losing a lot of "frontage".

wtnind wrote:


The only potential debate you can have is whether your unbroken chain can have 3 ends (joining in the middle). It definitely fits the requirements for being unbroken but is it still a chain? I'd go with yes.

I'd agree here, in that I see no logical reason to say that you cannot form the following shapes with an ADL:

T


E


F