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.

RAW: No.
HIWPI: Sure...but I can shoot and assault him in my turn also.
Judging: I'd give my opponent credit for using models other than bog standard standing guys...especially if he converted/based the model prone without trying to claim MFI advantages.
If my opponent insisted on playing LOS as RAW forcing those models to become ineffective/irrelevant then I would make a TFG note on that.
Of course you could also be TFG when you see he's going to shoot and assault you...go to ground behind the ADL; laying every model on its side to "indicate it has GTG. Then when he tries to assault tell him RAW he has no LOS to the unit (since they are laying sideways below the level of the ADL) and may not assault a unit he cannot see.
Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

dkellyj wrote:
RAW: No.
Of course you could also be TFG when you see he's going to shoot and assault you...go to ground behind the ADL; laying every model on its side to "indicate it has GTG. Then when he tries to assault tell him RAW he has no LOS to the unit (since they are laying sideways below the level of the ADL) and may not assault a unit he cannot see.
Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

You have no permission to lay models down on it's side when unit goes to ground. That would be breaking the rules.
GTG is indicated by placing a suitable marker next to the unit as a reminder (page 18 BRB).

My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

As long as you are not manipulating the models that have not been killed then it is fine to use one that has been previously removed as a casualty for this purpose.

But laying a model down that has been deployed and not removed as a casualty is against the rules.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

In a friendly thats a suitable house rule.

In tournaments if your opponent is fine with it, too. But i'd ask my opponent if i was you.

dkellyj wrote:
My "suitable" GTG Marker is laying the SGT (or next "senior" model if he's dead) on his side as an easy reminder of the Squads status.

That's not what the book says to do, though. They removed the permission to mark the unit by laying models over, presumably precisely to stop the sorts of LOS shenanigans you suggested, which was an issue with the GtG rules last edition.

If someone was complaining about their prone sniper not being able to see over their Aegis Defence Line, I wouldn't implement a house-rule where they count as being able to see over it, I'd say "you should have thought of that before sticking it behind your defence line".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If someone was complaining about their prone sniper not being able to see over their Aegis Defence Line, I wouldn't implement a house-rule where they count as being able to see over it, I'd say "you should have thought of that before sticking it behind your defence line".

Exactly this, just like sticking your standing model behind LOS blocking terrain; you do not get to fire with that model, and you should have thought of that before sticking your model there

dkellyj wrote:

Yeah, pretty WAAC...but s is intentionally debilitating a persons army just because they put time and effort into cool conversions.

Its really not WAAC, intentionally debilitating or to do with effort.

It's not WAAC because it is just asking to play as both the rules are written and intended. It is asking that you don't start messing about with guesses at the "normal" hight, or swapping minis around mid turn to check. Also, where do you put the standing up mini for measurement?

It is not intentionally debilitating. Prone minis have pluses and minuses in LoS.

There should be no conversions to prone, as you can't do prone and reasonable keep it on a standard base. They have to go on bike bases, and with the exception of 2 minis, no infantry come with them.

 Peregrine wrote:

FinnSeer wrote:
So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit. Since the dreadnought kit does include a 24" gun you would be using an illegal model and therefore cheating.

Now, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that conversions are legal, but only if the conversion is "reasonable". Most people will not consider a 24" gun to be a reasonable conversion and will not grant you that exception to the rules, so your MFA dreadnought will never be allowed in a real game. And TBH if you try to use it you'll probably find that nobody wants to play against you at all.

LOL.

Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

FinnSeer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

FinnSeer wrote:
So if I model my Dreadnought with a flexible 24" AC Barrel, I can measure the range from the end of that barrel?

The rules never give you permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel kit for a model, assembled according to the directions included in that kit. Since the dreadnought kit does include a 24" gun you would be using an illegal model and therefore cheating.

Now, virtually everyone plays with a house rule that conversions are legal, but only if the conversion is "reasonable". Most people will not consider a 24" gun to be a reasonable conversion and will not grant you that exception to the rules, so your MFA dreadnought will never be allowed in a real game. And TBH if you try to use it you'll probably find that nobody wants to play against you at all.

LOL.

Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

It does have something that implies that in the first paragraph under Models & Units page 2 to be precise.

The Citadel miniatures used to play the game of Warhammer 40,000...

And b]Cosing Your Army[/b] pg. 108 under Codexes.

...Which will let you transform your collection of Citadel miniatures into a Warhammer 40,000 army.

(Extreme emphasis mine)

Using a 24" flexible gun that is not similar in any way to the gun it is representing is most definitely modeling for advantage. Making a gun that is very similar to the weapon it is acceptable to most people because it can't give you an advantage.

Really, I find this whole thread rather silly.

FinnSeer wrote:
Please o mighty beholder of wisdom, tell me where is that rule you are referring or stop BS

There is no rule, and that's the point. You are not allowed to do anything in this game unless you are specifically given permission to do it, and there is no rule granting permission to use anything other than the standard Citadel models to represent your forces. Using a converted or proxy model is like putting your casualties back on the table just because "there's no rule that says I can't".

(And, again, that's RAW. Most people have a house rule that "reasonable" conversions or proxies are allowed, but a 24" gun is not "reasonable" according to the vast majority of players.)

we had situations like this in fifth, where a crouching or kneeling model couldn't see out of the window of a ruin we'd simply assume it could shoot from the window and be shot at in return.

I also don't have a problem with people lying models down when they gtg. I know it left the rules in sixth edition but it is a very convenient way of remembering that a model has gone to ground

xruslanx wrote:
we had situations like this in fifth, where a crouching or kneeling model couldn't see out of the window of a ruin we'd simply assume it could shoot from the window and be shot at in return.

I also don't have a problem with people lying models down when they gtg. I know it left the rules in sixth edition but it is a very convenient way of remembering that a model has gone to ground

I dislike this practice because it messes with the positions/Profile of models; laying your model on the side because it has GtG against my first unit Might mean that my second, cover ignoring, unit no longer has LOS to your unit.

Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner. The models pose is just the pose in that moment. They can stand, go prone, even run and jump just fine. If someone is going to female dog about it that much, I'll stand those flat 'prone' bases at an angle against the ADL, or flush against them and say the model can now certainly see. Or model boxes under my ratling's feet or on the ADL to let them see. Then what can you complain about?

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner.

Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

The models pose is just the pose in that moment.

So why doesn't that apply to every other situation? For example, you can't draw LOS to my model (even though they're half visible over a wall) because they're just posed that way at the moment and could go prone behind the wall and out of LOS.

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

Yeah, playing by the rules of the game is such a WAAC cancer...

 Peregrine wrote:
Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

Except at the same time, there is no rule in the entire BRB that says the entirety of the base of your model must be touching the gameboard at all times.

There is no rule stopping from you taking a model on a bike base (say, the aforementioned prone OOP Pathfinder) and leaning his base in such a way that his head/rifle rests on the sill of a ruin's window.

We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

Yes, it's totally the fault of the players that GW makes models that are not actually appropriate for use in their own games.


Do not confuse people pointing out how the rules work with how people would actually play the game.

Peregrine wrote:

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
Personally I don't think TLOS applies in that manner.

Why doesn't it? TLOS says you draw LOS to the model on the table, not to how you imagine the "real" soldier.

The models pose is just the pose in that moment.

So why doesn't that apply to every other situation? For example, you can't draw LOS to my model (even though they're half visible over a wall) because they're just posed that way at the moment and could go prone behind the wall and out of LOS.

I think the people saying those models can't see to shoot are the cancer WAACs that are killing 40K anyway.

Yeah, playing by the rules of the game is such a WAAC cancer...

TLOS is based on what the model could see realistically, so yes I can 'assume' he'd be standing to see his target if he has to, and when troopers are getting their 'cover saves' it's generally because they are hugging that cover like a lover, be it chest high wall, tree, or the edge of trench. It's just a matter of fact. Now if there is a mountain in the way regardless that blocks LOS, or the foot of Titan, or whatever else is on the game board that actually obscures 'true' view.

As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

insaniak wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
We all know the RAW by now, I'll bet, but HIWPI, I second the idea of using the squad's average height. Seriously, are you guys trying to force people with sniper models to pay 150% more money just to get more standing models and basically throw out the prone ones? It looks like people get really aggressive in defense of the strictest RAW.

Yes, it's totally the fault of the players that GW makes models that are not actually appropriate for use in their own games.


Do not confuse people pointing out how the rules work with how people would actually play the game

I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot. And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes. I wouldn't play that person again.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

It's not even remotely the same logic, because the movement rules don't care what pose the model is in, just about where its base is. The LOS rules though use the physical profile of the model on the table.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

That's the thing, though: it's not 'bending the rules' to use the pose of the model for determining LOS. It's what the rules say quite unequivocally to do.

I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

It is how LOS works, though. And GW have had 5 editions now to correct it, if it's not how they intended it to work.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot.

If you were polite about it, you would probably find that most gamers would be happy to treat your prone model as standing, so long as it works both ways (I wouldn't, but that's just a personal preference, and I would expect to apply the same rule to my own models). Your ratlings, though? If they're too short to see over, then they're too short to see over.

And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes.

Modeling for advantage does tend to get people riled... and not just those who prefer to use the correct LOS rules.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:


I think your missing the point. There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way. Even though that is not how TLOS works. I highly doubt GW thought people would loophole hunt on this.

For me personally I'd argue tooth and nail if someone said my ratlings, or prone and crouched couldn't see over an ADL wall to shoot. And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes. I wouldn't play that person again.

In response to the bolded, this is in fact exactly how TLOS works. You take the exact position and pose of the models involved when determining line of sight, hence TRUE line of sight, rather than ASSUMED line of sight.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
TLOS is based on what the model could see realistically

No it isn't. TLOS is determined by what the model can actually "see". All you do is use an imaginary laser pointer from the eyes to the target and see how much, if any, of the target model can be hit by that laser. There is absolutely no allowance for drawing LOS based on what you imagine the models doing, or anything else besides the physical objects on the table at that moment.

I can 'assume' he'd be standing to see his target if he has to, and when troopers are getting their 'cover saves' it's generally because they are hugging that cover like a lover, be it chest high wall, tree, or the edge of trench. It's just a matter of fact. Now if there is a mountain in the way regardless that blocks LOS, or the foot of Titan, or whatever else is on the game board that actually obscures 'true' view.

You're talking about abstracted LOS, not TLOS. Abstracted LOS systems do exactly that and determine LOS/cover/etc based on the model's location and some fluff concept of what a generalized model of that size could do. But that's not how it works in 40k.

As far as pose goes, so your saying if a model is posed running, the model must choose to always run? That's pretty much the same logic.

No, because pose has nothing to do with movement. You're just inventing weird rules that have nothing to do with the ones GW published.

And it's not playing by the rules it's trying to bend the rules to your favor when you see an opponent with a prone or kneeling model. Trying to take advantage of someone's gullibility.

It's not bending the rules at all. There is nothing ambiguous about TLOS. If there's a prone or kneeling model you draw LOS to it just like any other model. It may have a hard time shooting over barriers, but it might also get cover saves more easily (or even get out of LOS entirely). In fact YOU are the one trying to bend the rules by insisting that you can draw LOS based on what you wish your model was doing instead of doing what the rules tell you to do.

There is people on here that are bending the RAW to take advantage of the way a model is posed, and playing the game that way

By that reasoning it's bending RAW to take advantage of a model's pose if you try to shoot at my models behind a wall since you're exploiting the fact that they're modeled standing up instead of crouching behind the wall out of LOS.

And they are the same people that would female dog about it, if I brought an ADL with a raised platform for said ratlings or posed them on boxes.

Yes, because that's textbook MFA. You don't get to modify your fortifications just because it lets you get more of a benefit from them, just like I don't get to modify my ADL to be 12" tall wall that covers the entire length of the table and keeps my entire army safely out of LOS. If your ratlings aren't tall enough to see over an unmodified ADL then put them somewhere else and put a different unit behind the ADL.

Just my two cents but all models are just capturing a single moment in combat. While the sniper is prone in that split brief cross section of time he's been modeled in then it's fine. I bet no one here would have a problem with that prone model running? Even though that would be impossible. As long as he can be treated as standing when being shot at for Los it's fine in my opinion sense in that case the new tactical marine is forever loading his bolter and can never shoot or my grey hunters who have ccw and pistol can't use their bolter because they don't have it modelled all I'm saying is each model is just that a quick snap shot of him during a battle not what he is doing the whole time. If 4 out of 5 guys are standing and one prone they should all be considered standing in my opinion.

Why do people keep making these completely wrong analogies?

Running doesn't depend on the model, shooting doesn't depend on the model, Close Combat doesn't depend on the model. Line of Sight does, it's the rules. Please stop comparing it to things it's nothing like.

For you guys rabidly defending RAWxinthis manner...

I think you are missing the point.

We are playing a game. We are not arguing a case in the Supreme Court.

If I slapped down my army an you started quoting RAW and "you don't have TLOS".

I would pause for a moment., give you a funny look and then pack my whit and leave.

Life is too short. That kind of dogmatic adherence to the rules is crap I put up with at work.

I don't need it in my leisure time.

jamesk1973 wrote:
For you guys rabidly defending RAWxinthis manner...

I think you are missing the point.

No, I think you are. This is not the forum for house rules, that's the next one down. This is the forum for discussing what the rules actually say. I don't think anyone here has said they weren't willing to be somewhat flexible on the issue, but the rules say what they say and you can't expect anyone to adhere to your house rules. If you just expect me to let you use standing LoS from a prone model I'm going to tell you to get bent, and if you pack up and go good riddance. If you discuss it with me first, then I can be flexible. It's important to know what the rules actually say, not what you wish they said.

Good riddance then.

It's threads like these that I pull up on my smart phone and hand to who ever is trying to recruit me into a tournament as I say "No thanks", or hand to new players that are asking questions at the game store with the friendly "Just be warned, you may run into..." In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely. The problem is that the game is a scrapheap of concepts portrayed in the abstract by artist sculpted models and (as this sub-forum states) concrete rules that are in actuality no better written than by a three-year-old ham-fisting a crayon, drawing stick figures, on their parents freshly painted walls.

Please remember newer posters that this sub-forum is strictly for concrete interpretations. RAI is 'permitted' as is HIWPI but as some would remind us they are about as welcome as a flaming brown paper bag full of dog feces on your front porch, so please make sure if it is one of these interpretation styles to denote that in your post. For safety from back lash, you might want to put in a sentence agreeing with whoever wrote the rule interpretation correctly in their reply too. Despite whatever logic you use the book of rules is the law here. And the rules for TLOS are clear enough and take half a page in the BRB(p 8). It may be helpful to read the two insets on that page titled 'Spirit of the Game' and 'Madels Eye View', and as it's not permitted here I recommend you read the insert on p2 of the BRB in your own time. Remember that what you do in your games is up to you and your opponent, just not welcome here. You could always be a TFG and point out that the rules use the words "Eyes" specifically, and they also use "body". So in magical 40k land the only infantry models that can fire are ones that have their own ocular organs sculpted on the model (Guards men, SM Sergeants, Tyranids). Obviously you never would do that of course, but it does highlight what we're working with here, eh?

The rule book says to this question: No, See TLOS
RAI: God only knows, if you really care you can make a Difficult terrain test and move your model on to the terrain feature(ADL in this case) as your base will kinda count as being in the terrain feature he will/should still get cover from the ADL and should have no ADL blocking it's TLOS
HIWPI: Pack up my things and chuckle on my way out the door, as I have 99 problems but a rulesaint one, and I'm obviously not at the right game store

Personally, I'd be fine with letting people count their prone guys as standing when shooting if they let me count my standing guys as prone when being shot at.

You know, I've never seen people who just want to play by the rules get demonised in any other game as much as in WH40k.