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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm i remember it so clearly. My friend has the old rule books, ill look through them and see but maybe it was in 4th. Google is of no help.

It was 4th, sort of.

In 4th all models were cylinders

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm i remember it so clearly. My friend has the old rule books, ill look through them and see but maybe it was in 4th. Google is of no help.

It was 4th, sort of.

In 4th all models were cylinders

No, they weren't. Magic Cylinders only came into play if Area Terrain or Close Combats were involved. Otherwise it was True Line of Sight.

3rd ed was the age of "blocking twice your height"

No it wasn't, no where does it say in 4th edition they used true line of sight. That was one of the big things about 5th edition is that it introduced that.

Dat Guy wrote:@ insaniak I am reading the line of sight section out of 4th no where does it say it uses true line of sight. It is line of sight from model to model and yes height elevation plays into it they have size 1- size 2-size 3 I dunno about if there is 4, but it does measure from the models eye view in most cases except when it comes to some area terrain. For instance on page 20 of the 4th edition rule book it states "it is possible to see up to 6"in area terrain. Models further then 6"in cannot be seen at all, nor can they see out, unless they are taller then the terrain." It further goes on to say "Note that although it is possible to see into Area Terrain, you cannot see through it even if it is less then 6" deep."

You're only reading half of the rules. 4th edition included the same 'bend over and look from the model's eye view' mechanic that every other edition has had. The size categories were only relevant for area terrain and close combats. But as I said, this was commonly misunderstood. The LOS rules were by far the most frequently discussed rules around here during 4th edition.

Swastakowey wrote:Im not doing for realism purposes but to get the game moving without hickups. If i wanted a simulator i wouldnt play this. If my opponent stopped to make apoint of saying the lying down model cant shoot because i didnt want to buy multiple packs just for the standing models and showed me rules etc to prove his point, id be pretty annoyed. Why? Because it adds nothing to the game. Its based entirely on the way the model is posed. It should not affect the game at all.

And in a better written game it might not. But posing does have a big impact on the game. It always has... hence the recurrent appearance of crouching Wraithlords in LOS discussions for the last 20 years now.

If you are agreeing to play a game, playing by the actual rules should always be the default, unless those rules are unworkable. By all means ask your opponent if you would rather play differently, but if you're getting annoyed about them not wanting to play by your altered rules, it might be time to stop and remind yourself that it's just a game.


Maybe the problem is that you're looking at it as a penalty rather than simply as a quirk of the game. But it's only a penalty in certain specific conditions. The model being prone or kneeling also has its advantages... like being more able to make use of lower cover that wouldn't help a standing model.

Dat Guy wrote:
No it wasn't, no where does it say in 4th edition they used true line of sight. That was one of the big things about 5th edition is that it introduced that.

It introduced those words, but the mechanic of looking to see what the mini could see is TLoS.

This trip down memory lane about LoS in other editions is great and all, but it doesn't answer the OP's question:

Can a prone model behind an Aegis Defense Line shoot his weapon or not?

RAW- and you have GW to thank for making True Line of Sight AND for making a prone model- no, he can't. Unless there was some huge model that you could draw a line from the model's head that was prone to the model that was looming over the ADL.

Sorry old metal Tau prone Pathfinder with Rail Rifle and various IG Snipers. Just think of the Ratlings who will never get to shoot behind an ADL!.

But hey, on the flip side, they will never get shot at- can't hit what you can't see and all that, right?

Nope, you could not see anyone through an open Window in a ruin if it was area terrain. True line of sight means no matter the situation if you can see it and you have range you can roll dice to hit it, it does use A line of sight but not True line of sight, seeing the models eye level and seeing a target through a forest and your in range but the rules saying you can't see or target anyone through area terrain is not true line of sight.

Dat Guy wrote:
True line of sight means no matter the situation if you can see it and you have range you can roll dice to hit it, ...

That might be what it means to you, but for common usage in the context of GW's games it just means 'draw LOS from the model's eyes to the target'.

The specifics of how that has been applied have varied from edition to edition, but it has always been the core of the LOS rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tamwulf wrote:
But hey, on the flip side, they will never get shot at- can't hit what you can't see and all that, right?

That's not always true. There are a number of situations where a model can be shot at but can not draw LOS to its attacker. Short models shooting under a skimmer, for example.

Not to mention that that definition doesn't even apply to 6th edition, where there are instances where simply being able to see part of a model isn't enough to shoot it (because all you can see is the wing, etc). There are always exceptions, it's just that 4th had more than 6th does.

EDIT:

A sufficiently tall model would be able to shoot the prone sniper behind a defense line as well, by shooting him in the legs. Assuming he's lying with his face crammed right into the line rather than parallel to it.

Thank you bobcatt exactly.

@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

Please tell me you are reading everything and not just skimming because that could be the issue...

I'm sure there is something that in the BRB that says you have to have LOS on a models body, limbs or head. This is in order to prevent players from being penalized for extravagant extra bits, like guns or wings. So if you reverse brain action that action... then yes the prone model can fire as if he were standing. He shouldn't get a bonus to his cover save either. If this came up in tourney play I think anyone would agree to treat the model as if he were standing.

But here is a conundrum. If a player were to build their models with cover in mind and they posed them crouched would it be acceptable to say that the unit would benefit from a better cover save? For example, a crouching Riptide?

edit: or the wraithlord question, haha!

darkcloak wrote:
So if you reverse brain action that action... then yes the prone model can fire as if he were standing. He shouldn't get a bonus to his cover save either.

You're assuming that it works that way. You could just as easily assume that GW wanted to have TLOS give you a tradeoff between modeling a position that gets cover easily but has trouble seeing over obstacles vs. a position that is harder to hide but doesn't risk losing shots because it can't see over something.

If this came up in tourney play I think anyone would agree to treat the model as if he were standing.

That would be a house rule. It might be a popular one, but it's still a house rule.

But here is a conundrum. If a player were to build their models with cover in mind and they posed them crouched would it be acceptable to say that the unit would benefit from a better cover save? For example, a crouching Riptide?

Sure, but MFA is a "player consensus" thing, not something that is found in the actual rules of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:


You're assuming that it works that way. You could just as easily assume that GW wanted to have TLOS give you a tradeoff between modeling a position that gets cover easily but has trouble seeing over obstacles vs. a position that is harder to hide but doesn't risk losing shots because it can't see over something.

But then by that logic some humans are just born lying down and can only ever grow up to be prone IG snipers...

darkcloak wrote:
But then by that logic some humans are just born lying down and can only ever grow up to be prone IG snipers...

Fluff is irrelevant. The game uses abstractions for all kinds of things even though it wouldn't work that way fluff-wise. For example, you (almost) always shoot the closest model, despite the fact that even the worst conscripts can figure out things like "shoot the melta gunner, ignore the random meatshield in front". TLOS works the same way. You can imagine all the fluff you want about what the model could be doing, but in the end you draw LOS to the actual model on the table, however it is posed.

Question...
If you consider the prone model to only being able to shoot, wouldn't you automatically consider it to have gone to ground?

Which would basically...invalidate the ENTIRE model for every game, just by the pose.

I'd consider this the same as adding cover to the base. Since that one is ignored, yet you might liek some for aesthetic reasons, I don't see why this should be different...

That said, I built a kneeling Devastator with a missile launcher just to make the squad a bit more dynamic optic wise. Insisting on that model being unable to shoot strikes me as a bit picklish. RAW, but picklish.
There are many rules which don't apply 100% everytime and aren't hyper accurate.

Thairne wrote:
Question...
If you consider the prone model to only being able to shoot, wouldn't you automatically consider it to have gone to ground?

Theres no rule that states you have to treat prone models as GTG. On the other side there IS a rule that tells you to use TLOS. The rule that you have to lay one model on its side when the Unit is GTG is gone in 6th edition.

So no the model wouldnt be unable to do anything because of its pose but wouldnt be able to shoot over an Aegis. At least RAW. I dont think in friendly games anyone would care about you shooting it. Tournaments may be a different story but thats in the hands of the TO.

True. But it keeps with the spirit.
The same could be said about my "cover"-argument.

So, if you INSIST on playing by the rules, the model couldn't. There are times when insisting on rules is good and necessary, but isn't there even a passage in the BRB that says "Rules can't cover everything, so be nice and play fair!" ?

Edit: Whelp. It actually says "try to find an agreement, if you cannot, roll a dice"

Dat Guy wrote:
@ insaniak again, do I have to quote my own post lol? I said and quoted from the 4th edition rules they have line of sight, true line of sight is different then just line of sight. I really don't get how its that hard. It's like when someone is wrong and they still try to argue against it makes no sense.

I really don't get how it's that hard. If you're tracing a line of sight from what the model can actually "see" that's true line of sight. It's just that 5th actually called it that.

So can we all agree on this:

RAW: it cannot see past the ADL (or any cover taller than 0.5"), but your opponent can also not completely destroy the squad with non-blast, non-template weapons as this model cannot be seen by him likewise.

RAI: you and your opponent can agree to make the model stand up and shoot, but then he can see it too, thus being potentially able to wipe out your entire squad with his conventional shooting.

I have to say, RAW is quite clear, as is RAI. Some people may chose to say the model can stand up but I don;t think you should expect to be able to do this.

There are plenty of models that are kneeling down or have thematic bases with the mini stood on something. For me I insist on playing TLoS in all cases. Both for me, as I have a few minis that are kneeling and some that are on thematic bases. My Belial based on the Chaos Terminator Lord comes to mind. It may be with squads you can say "He is the standard" but when you get unique minis/IC's then what do you do? I also have Orks from different eras that are different sizes, and old termies are slightly shorter.

Secondly, the "why can't they stand up" logic makes no sense. Equally, why can minis that are standing not be counted as lieing down or kneeling behind low cover. It's not like they would stand up ignoring the wall in real life.

For me the rules say TLoS so you stick to that and avoid confusion.

Which would, in my case, prevent me from playing games with you, since I would expect to have these problems with other situations and rules too.
E.g. I stuck my HQ on a double layered cork base to pick him up from "base troop" standard, give him something special and make him visually stick out. Only visually, mind you.
Putting me at an disadvantage because of that (not being in cover e.g) rubs me as wrong.

Minis can't do that because the "standard" posture is standing. You therefore elevate a non-standard to the standard. In your version, you'd do the opposite way (besides that is what GTG is for).

Though I've a number of old Ratling minis and Catachan snipers in the prone firing position, I am in agreement with the bulk of posters. RAW, you must have true line of sight to be able to utilize your prone model. Unless you've placed these models on the very edges of the ADL, you are unlikely to draw LOS, and in return, shouldn't have to worry too much about having them shot to pieces either. Can't shoot what you can't see, barring scatter and template weapons, etc.

On the upside, prone models are easily concealed in all manner of area terrain and benefit greatly from cover saves. My 2nd Edition Ratling models can cover camp the entire game without much thought into their placement. So long as their little heads are able to trace LOS, I can still use them. No ADL for them, but stick them in a bush, and shoot down those MCs. Have a laugh, and then sigh as they run away because Ratlings are fluffy, but mostly overshadowed...

You could use prone or small models as a tactical advantage.

Put them behind an ADL so that they are behind it for its whole length.

They can not be shot, and they can not be assaulted because you can't see them, and you can't come within 1" of them. Then put something that you want to give cover to, and protect from being assaulted behind them, like a Riptide or two.

They now have protection from being assaulted, and get 4+ cover.

 mr_bruno wrote:
Can't shoot what you can't see, barring scatter and template weapons, etc.

As a default, Template weapons do not ignore Line of Sight.

Some blast marker weapons do, but not template weapons.

So technically I could pose a Riptide laying down with his gun sticking up in the air and that would totally be RAW legal? Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

By saying that the model cannot shoot because he is prone and has no LOS is pretty much saying that he has gone to ground. You're saying that he cannot shoot because he is laying down, but the only way a model can actually "lie down" is when they go to ground, THUS the model should be treated as having an extravagant pose, which is clearly not meant to be penalized.

As for Modelling For Advantage... Well this is probably the real root of the schism. We have players modelling larger stuff so as to be more compact and thus get better cover, with the excuse that "in real life a battlesuit would duck" but really and truly there is already a mechanic in place for dealing with this, Going To Ground! lol

Doesn't help when GW is making models that technically break their own rules, or that things just seem to be getting larger. Centurions anyone? How the hell does that dive behind a sandbag?

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

darkcloak wrote:
So technically I could pose a Riptide laying down with his gun sticking up in the air and that would totally be RAW legal? Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

For the Riptide, you still measure LoS from the head, not the gun, so it such a position almost everything would have cover against your shots. Also, since a Riptide is only about 6" tall, it can hide behind a fair amount of cover safely. A Wraithknight on the other hand is a little harder to get cover since it is massively tall.

darkcloak wrote:
Also, how in the hell does a Riptide get a 4+ cover save from anything? Unless said cover is 8 inches tall, in which case you have to ask why you're putting a 8" tall building on the battlefield. Is it for scenery or is it for you to hide your silly battlesuit behind?

The rulebook actually tells you to use a mix of different terrain, including some that completely blocks LOS.

The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

GTG has nothing whatsoever to do with how a model is posed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thairne wrote:
Which would, in my case, prevent me from playing games with you, since I would expect to have these problems with other situations and rules too.
E.g. I stuck my HQ on a double layered cork base to pick him up from "base troop" standard, give him something special and make him visually stick out. Only visually, mind you.
Putting me at an disadvantage because of that (not being in cover e.g) rubs me as wrong.

Then don't do it...?

If you alter a model's physical profile in a game that revolves around LOS, then that model will have a different LOS profile. If you want to avoid that, don't alter the model's physical profile. Simple.

Minis can't do that because the "standard" posture is standing.

Page reference, please?

 DeathReaper wrote:

darkcloak wrote:
The GTG rules are what should really show us how to call this one. Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge. They are pinned. Going to Ground is when models "hit the deck" or dive into better cover.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is not 100% true, you may want to re-read the Gone to Ground rules, The page number is in the Index.

No need for that. Everyone knows that page numbers are found in the index, thank you.

Anyone interested in reading how the GTG rule actually works can go and get their codex. Not arguing how GTG works though, just using the implied theory of the rule to explain why the prone sniper isn't actually laying down, and thus unable to get a cover bonus. This in turn explains why he can shoot.

Seriously though if any opponent would try to argue this one on the table, either way, I'd just replace the model.