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.

darkcloak wrote:

 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.

Which is 100% patently wrong.

A Prone Sniper is actually Lying Down, has LOS Limited by any/all terrain both to and from him.

Thius is How TLOS works, This is how 40k works.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

darkcloak wrote:

 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.

Which is 100% patently wrong.

A Prone Sniper is actually Lying Down, has LOS Limited by any/all terrain both to and from him.

Thius is How TLOS works, This is how 40k works.

Also he said that "Models gone to ground cannot move shoot, move or charge" when clearly models that have G2G can shoot...

^ snapshots. It's a hiccup from 5th I assume.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy wrote:
Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

4th edition stil drew actual LOS from the model's eyes. It just abstracted area terrain and close combats. The rest of the time, it was true LOS.

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

What does the age of the model have to do with anything?

This isn't some big conspiracy to get people to buy new models... prone models have always drawn LOS differently to upright models. It's just the model design guys making models that look cool with no regard for how they function on the table.

Not a conspiracy at all, I don't believe in those. Also it applied to your own units and shooting also you had to shoot at closest enemy or take a leadership test to fire at something else.

Well if you look at old school vehicles and ork trucks they are significantly smaller to effect certain things.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

darkcloak wrote:

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.

Whether or not the plastic pieces that we call models are sculpted in a way that resembles a humanoid laying down has nothing to do with the GTG rules in the BRB.

Same issue with all my vostroyan heavy Bolger teams we just treat them as being able to shoot over low level cover as the only thing the can see over is other models bases

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

Sounds great.

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.

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

I think there should be a rule that hiding behind a wall that isnt higher than 20mm can allow the guys to shoot (and can be shot at) regardless of how they are posed, unless the models themselves are less than the standard 28mm trooper height, but I guess for something like that we need to wait till 7th edition.

 Sir Arun wrote:
I think there should be a rule that hiding behind a wall that isnt higher than 20mm can allow the guys to shoot (and can be shot at) regardless of how they are posed, unless the models themselves are less than the standard 28mm trooper height, but I guess for something like that we need to wait till 7th edition.

Or better... FAQ and errata... Take it over with it GW!

With years of Tau shooting UNDER skimmers for cover... Screw you and your 'My kneeling/prone should have LOS of standing models.'

And as an ork player, I am always on the hunt for Gorts who claim to be shooting over an ADL. I own every got model GW ever made for 40k, not a single one of them can see over a stock ADL without a cinematic base. Not even 'head honcho' which is the tallest gorkamorka grot.

ADL is TrueLOS. If you don't like it, put the prone guy next to the ADL or further back so he can shoot up at an angle. Or retire the model.

You want to shoot under a skimmer and over an ADL all at once. Too bad.

Isnt there a rule in 6th that says friendly units do not block LoS?

There is and has been for a while now a rule that members of your own unit don't block your LoS. I can't think of something army-wide

 Sir Arun wrote:
Isnt there a rule in 6th that says friendly units do not block LoS?

Just your own unit. 4th was where friendly skimmers didn't block own line of sight

Actually, 4th was where all skimmers didn't block LOS, unless they were wrecked or immobilised. Neither did infantry, unless they were in close combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book. Yes in certain situations they measured from the models eye view and if it wasn't area terrain or certain height levels, even if they could draw a line of sight they could still not target and shoot it.

5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range. 4th edition did not have that. If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs and that is not true line of sight.

Its like 5 people to 1 and all 5 people are wrong lol.

Dat Guy wrote:
You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book.

No, Im fairly sure that was mentioned.

Again, the fact that the rulebook didn't call it 'true line of sight' doesn't change the way people have been using that term for the last 15 years or so.

5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range.

Well, except for the situations where that isn't actually true, yes.

Just as every other edition has done. It's just the specifics of how you determine whether or not you can see it that changed.

If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs...

Uh, yes you could...

Dat Guy] wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Um duh, 4th did not use that mechanic, because even if you drew line of sight from the models eyes and you saw a target through a forest for example or through a window on a ruin that was treated as area terrain you could not roll to shoot at it hence why it was not true line of sight, gosh.....

In this case these people are correct b here because RAW for tlos is being applied correctly here, even though I do not think it is GW's intention for older models to be penalized for older prone positions.....oh wait I am wrong that is exactly GWs intention so people have to waste more money on updated models that receive a disadvantage....doh

Dat Guy - again, you are listing exceptions and claiming they are the rule.

In 4th, UNLESS you were interacting with Area Terrain or Combats, you DID use true line of sight, which is defined as using the models eye view. This is a fact.

They did not CALL it "true" line of sight, but it is tyhe same mechanic as 5th and 6th.

^th and 5th just have far fewer exceptions, and 4th edition LOS and terrain rules were often misinterpreted - hence if you recall the debats on DAkka over the "magic cylinder" 4th ed interpretation of a model.

Again: you are failing to differentiate the exception and the rule.

You're failing to differentiate that the rule and words "true line of sight" never once appeared in the 4th edition rule book.

Apart from where I mentioned it. I have added the bold tags to hopefully help you find it.

Dat Guy wrote: Yes in certain situations they measured from the models eye view and if it wasn't area terrain or certain height levels, even if they could draw a line of sight they could still not target and shoot it.

Yes, the exceptions around ICs and shooting at the non-closest models needing a leadership test. That still did not alter that determining IF you coudl see them was dont using the models eye view, which it was. Another rule then stopping you shooting at that model does not alter this use of true line of sight.


Your definition of "true line of sight" is NOT one supported by any edition.

Dat Guy wrote:5th edition is when they made it "true line of sight" as long as you can see it you can shoot it if in range. 4th edition did not have that. If we were still in 4th you could not shoot between a wraithknights legs and that is not true line of sight.

I have bolded a bit where you got it wrong - you could indeed shoot between a wriathlord legs, just not if it was in combat. You're erroneously claiming 4th was a magic cylinder edition, which was ONLY true with combat

Dat Guy wrote:Its like 5 people to 1 and all 5 people are wrong lol.

Nope, just the 1 person being wrong. If you disagree further, please hook out your 4th ed rulebook, and post up citations. Your memory, and definition of "true line of sight", is faulty.

Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

Seriously bro? You just like to see me type lol

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

Dat Guy wrote:
Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

If you shoot between a model's legs, you're not shooting through the model. You're shooting through empty air near the model.

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

The LOS rules lay out a number of things that don't count as a part of the model, so don't allow you to target the model even if you can shoot them.

Dat Guy wrote:
Where? It says on page 20 in the 4th edition rule book, "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures, and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them."

Seriously bro? You just like to see me type lol

Also insaniak where are the cases you can't in 5th?

Yes, and as per the 4th ed rulebook, the space occupied by the model counts as the model, not the gap between its legs. So if I draw LoS through the gap between the models legs, I can draw LOS.

Again: you are making a classic 4th edition cock up, namely the "magic cylinder" theory of models. It was a common mistake, as the LOS rules in 4th were amazingly badly written, but it is still a mistake.

I cannot shoot a non-vehicles wings, even though I can draw LOS to them "truly", meaning 5th and 6th do not have full "true" LOS

Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

Dat Guy wrote:
Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

Yes, the base is used for measurement - same in 5th and 6th. However that has no bearing on the Line of Sight, and hasnt done in any edition yet. You are the one who is wrong.

If you modelled a kneeling wraithlord, such that LOS could not be drawn through its legs, then LOS through its legs would not exist. That was true in 4th, and is true in 5th and 6th as well.

I am not "shooting through the base", i am "shooting through the space unoccupied by the model". the model was NOT defined as occupying the entire "cylinder" measured upward from the base (e.g. 60mm based MC model did NOT have a 60mm wide cylinder that blocked LOS)

Again: you are making the "magic cylinder" claim. This was not the rule in 4th. You are making the same mistake thousands did during 4th edition

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.

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).

No, it would prevent you from using a house rule. Nothing wrong with putting him on a higher, scenic, base. As long as you play LoS from that. What you seem to be saying is that when the model is lower you want to raise it up to the LoS but when it is higher you want to lower it to gain cover. That is wrong.

There is no disadvantage by enforcing this. The gain/loss in LoS is balanced by an opposite loss/gain in cover.

There is no standard posture. There is a majority, but no standard. All I am doing is saying that I want to play as per the rules. RAW and RAI. It's quite clear from the rule book how LoS is intended to work. Using an imagined "standard" for the mini means swapping minis around or just guessing.

You can use that house rule if you want, but that is all it is, a house rule. And this is YMDC. Questions about the rules. The rules are quite clear on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dat Guy wrote:
Ok I can see the point of the wing reference, but you are wrong about the monstrous creature situation, the base of the model is the model because you can position a non-vehicle unit any way you want its the base everything is measured from, by what you are saying if I modeled my wraithknight to crouch and take a knee you wouldn't have line of sight in 4th edition then? You were playing it wrong and so was anyone else being able to shoot through a monstrous creatures base.

No, it's quite clear. If you can see you can shoot. You can, and always have been, able to shoot between legs, round heads, etc. Equally if the minis arms stick outside the base then you can't shoot through them.

The point of the TLoS rules is that they don't need you to imagine things, just look (Although this falls apart when dealing with flags, wings etc, but that was done because people were abusing it with giant flags shielding large areas and the like).

Ok I can see it now, thank you for explaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Again: you are making the "magic cylinder" claim. This was not the rule in 4th. You are making the same mistake thousands did during 4th edition

That was the rule in 3rd. 4th Edition was often a weird bastard edition because it didn't get quickly adopted, they had done chapter approved 3.5 with the experimental rules in 2003 and some people simply never made the leap. I think a lot of people remember 3rd edition rules as 4th edition.

In 3rd edition, "magic cylinder" was the rule, and that dead space did block LOS as there was no 'cover'. It was LOS or no LOS.