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.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely.

Except that it's generally not.

We argue for how the rules actually work here so that people can make informed decisions when they actually play the game.

And a player choosing to stick to RAW on one particular rule, even when it's a rule you personally may think is silly, doesn't mean that they will stick rigidly to RAW in every situation.

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, ...

This is a gross misrepresentation. There is absolutely no problem around here with presenting how you choose to play the game so long as you are clear what you are doing.

Where people run into issues, as amply demonstrated by this thread, is when they start complaining that those arguing in favour of the actual rules are being absurd for doing so, when the actual rule is clear and functional.


Just to point it out again - The interpretation of LOS being presented as RAW here (ie: use the actual model) is the way LOS has worked in this game in every single edition. This isn't some crazy argument that people are just throwing out there to mess with you. It's a basic principle of the game that has always been there, and likely always will.

If that's not something you're keen on, then feel free to change it in your games, so long as your opponent agrees. But casting aspersions on those who don't see a problem with just playing it the way the rules say to do it, and have always done so? That's not cricket.

What does hiwpi mean?

Stop being reasonable, insaniak, you'll ruin YMDC's reputation.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
What does hiwpi mean?

How I Would Play It

 insaniak wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
In certain posters semi-defence. it's not WAAC, its absolute adherence, to absolute rules, absolutely.

Except that it's generally not.
And a player choosing to stick to RAW on one particular rule, even when it's a rule you personally may think is silly, doesn't mean that they will stick rigidly to RAW in every situation.

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, ...

This is a gross misrepresentation. There is absolutely no problem around here with presenting how you choose to play the game so long as you are clear what you are doing.
Where people run into issues, as amply demonstrated by this thread, is when they start complaining that those arguing in favour of the actual rules are being absurd for doing so, when the actual rule is clear and functional.

To the first. In the current case, my argument is supported by any number of previous posts that show many will force the use of TLOS to a 'T'. Awesome pun intended. So yes, while on topic, its "absolute". (See citation below.) There was no intentional implication of other rules situations.
To the second, as demonstrably evident by this thread again, many who presented their HIWPI preference were in fact countered by those who said the rule was a rule and they could fong right off for wanting their HIWPI way. As you helpfully point out in "Where people run into issues..." Case in point: Thread p4, Post by PrinceRaven, seconded by Komissar Kel. Unfortunately message review wont go back much further in 'post reply' screen. But I recall a few others earlier basically shunning the house-rulers. It is not that welcoming of a practice, and it does happen. As the sticky points out this place gets heated, worth noting is that it does in fact go both ways between the casuals and the hardcores.

jamesk1973 wrote:
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.

IOW, if your opponent doesn't let you bend the rules and gain an advantage you don't deserve you'll just quit? Do you offer your opponent the same allowance for things like models that "should" be able to duck behind cover and be 100% out of LOS even though the model is clearly visible?

KnuckleWolf wrote:
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.

None of that says anything about "let your opponent draw LOS from a model which clearly doesn't have LOS just because it would be a disadvantage if their model doesn't get to shoot". The "spirit of the game" section is entirely irrelevant, and "model's eye view" refers to being generous in borderline cases of LOS, not cases where LOS is perfectly clear but doesn't give one player the result they want.

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?

That's not at all the same. Interpreting "eyes" as strictly as possible breaks the game entirely and is so obviously absurd that nobody will ever play it that way. Drawing LOS to a prone model is just playing the game exactly according to RAW and RAI. Whether you like it or not GW deliberately made a game where the exact shape/pose of a model matters.

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

This is incorrect. An ADL is not area terrain and does not give a cover save unless the model is actually obscured. It would be theoretically possible to have both LOS and a cover save depending on the exact situation, but you don't automatically get it just because your model's base is touching the ADL.

House-rules should be agreed on pre-game. My post on page 4 was assuming that there was no pre-game houserule discussion, and I went into the game assuming we were playing 40k by the rules, then someone tried to use abstract LOS.

Closed due to incorrect titling.