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.

Hi,

me and my friend had a discussion on LoS concerning Eldar skimmers. What happened is : he had pathfinders right behind his Falcon to get them a cover save. Then he wanted to shoot at my csm but I told him his falcon was blocking the LoS off of my unit (starting from the eye of a pathfinder model, there was no way to make a straight line to a csm model). Then he told me that the falcon was considered to be higher than an average model's height so they could see under it. Finaly, we resolved that by a 4+ die roll (4+ allowing him to shoot throught, 3- no LoS possible).
What you guys would have do?

Also, in the same set up, my csm had the LoS on the pathfinders' legs even with the falcon in front of them.... So from my point of view, my csm had a LoS, but his pf had no LoS but were still in cover. What do you think of it?

LOS is TLOS. If the model cannot see you then he cannot shoot at you (typically). The skimmer is exactly where it is on the board for all intents and purposes for LOS.

Use True Line of Sight. Models are never 'considered' to be somewhere they're not.
It's entirely possible to have LOS to a model, that doesn't have LOS in return.
You were right in this case, your friend sadly wasn't.

ty for responding that fast... I think my fiend and I will be able to agree on something now

Well if he wants it to fly tell him to put it on the flying stand.

The only way for him to use the falcon as cover and still be able to shoot with his pathfinders would be to have the falcon be out of the way in the movement phase, then shoot with the pathfinders and either flat out or use star engines with the falcon in the shooting phase to move it in front of the pathfinders. This way however he could not shoot with the falcon.

Ahhh...True LOS. What a fickle mistress she be. Next time have him using the kneeling Pathfinder models and his Eldar Skimmer on a flying base and problem solved. However if one was to be so finicky about true LOS I would also make sure that anytime you were firing out of a Fire Point on a non-open topped vehicle that you measure LOS from the top of the hatch or firing from a Bastion down at the models that are at the front door. It's a slippery slope.

Aycee

... Not that slippery of a slope. I don't see the problem with either if your examples.

 grendel083 wrote:
...............
It's entirely possible to have LOS to a model, that doesn't have LOS in return. .......

I agree with the rest, but I have never seen this, every game I have ever played, if you can see me, I can see you.

 Fido198674 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
...............
It's entirely possible to have LOS to a model, that doesn't have LOS in return. .......

I agree with the rest, but I have never seen this, every game I have ever played, if you can see me, I can see you.

Read the OP. You can see the opponents legs on the other side of the skimmer, but he can't trace LoS though the skimmer to you.

It's pretty easy to have happen - doesn't require a skimmer, that's just the closest example.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fido198674 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
...............
It's entirely possible to have LOS to a model, that doesn't have LOS in return. .......

I agree with the rest, but I have never seen this, every game I have ever played, if you can see me, I can see you.

Read the OP. You can see the opponents legs on the other side of the skimmer, but he can't trace LoS though the skimmer to you.

It's pretty easy to have happen - doesn't require a skimmer, that's just the closest example.

Thats still kinda the "static model" thing I preach. Wouldn't the Pathfinders, in all their experience, just kneel down slightly to get a better shot? Kinda like area cover saves...we see him stadning out in the open with NOTHING within a few inches, but he will still get cover for being in the area (a large hill for example). I would say 5+ intervening cover for the pathfinders and they draw LOS on the chaos.

But... The point is that's not what the rules say.

If you can claim your guys are kneeling to get LoS, I can claim my guys are kneeling behind a wall to be out of LoS instead of taking the 5+ cover save (as long as there's a waist high wall).
"Fudging" LoS goes both ways and leads to more arguments than it solves.

rigeld2 wrote:
But... The point is that's not what the rules say.

If you can claim your guys are kneeling to get LoS, I can claim my guys are kneeling behind a wall to be out of LoS instead of taking the 5+ cover save (as long as there's a waist high wall).
"Fudging" LoS goes both ways and leads to more arguments than it solves.

I could say you are kneeling to hide behind a wall during my shooting, thats in the rules too, its called going to ground. BUT, for the purpose of HIS shooting, I would say they would get in postion to try to get the best shot possible, and get back up. It's less energy to do that than hit the deck because your being shot at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please don't get me wrong now... I know RAW is that the Pathfinders can NOT see the unit. I will agree with that, but IM saying for MY games, I go with the number one rule, which is to just chill about RAW and have fun.

 Fido198674 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
But... The point is that's not what the rules say.

If you can claim your guys are kneeling to get LoS, I can claim my guys are kneeling behind a wall to be out of LoS instead of taking the 5+ cover save (as long as there's a waist high wall).
"Fudging" LoS goes both ways and leads to more arguments than it solves.

I could say you are kneeling to hide behind a wall during my shooting, thats in the rules too, its called going to ground. BUT, for the purpose of HIS shooting, I would say they would get in postion to try to get the best shot possible, and get back up. It's less energy to do that than hit the deck because your being shot at.

No, going to ground would improve my save, not change the fact that a shot would/would not be made. And dropping to the deck takes practically no energy. Kneeling and sighting takes far more.