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.

 insaniak wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...

Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.

?

WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?

(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."

Saldiven wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...

Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.

?

WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?

(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."

It did use TLoS with a few exceptions. It just never called it True Line of Sight.

Saldiven wrote:
WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?

Yes, it actually did. Sure, there were other things to take into account but you absolutely used the model's eyes to determine what it could see. They just didn't call it "TLOS".

Saldiven wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...

Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.

?

WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?

(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."

100% incorrect. You have simply listed the exceptions to the rule, while omitting the rule. It is a common misconception though - 5th was simply much more explicit in calling it TLOS

Check out pages 114-117 in the rulebook. you will see that each of the 'fortifications listed all have separate rules and statistics. The same goes for the newer ones that come with the datasheets in the box. You cant compare one to the other in many ways (seeing over them for example) because it is comparing apples to oranges. a grotmay not be able to see over a ADL while a a ogryn could. neither could see over a bastion. so in this case even mentioning the bastion is ireelevant as again, it is apples and oranges two toally different fortifictions and two totally different sets of special rules to go with them..

there comes a popint where you can go too far with the tlos in my opinion. I'll give a random example, I model a marine holding a meltagunwith a hand shading his eyes. now going by the tlos, he would be unable to snap fire at a flyer going overhead because you could draw a line from his eyes to the flyer (his hand is in the way).The same could be said about aguardsman wearing a cap with a bill on it. How do you handle banners? if a model in a unit holds a banner that is blocing los from a guy do you let him fire of not? los says he cant see the target while units ignore models within their own unit for purposes of shooting. These areples of why winning is just not THAT important to me where I am going to fool with it. At some point in time along a line, you eventually get to an extreme end where it may sound silly but it is still the same line of reasoning.
not saying which way it should be ruled, just pointing out the reason why I say (personally), if its that importat to them, I am not going to ruin everyone's day, I'll just let them do it.

It's not irrelevant - the questions was why not allow a Grot to see over something it normally can't. The response was why not allow an Ogryn to see over something it normally can't.

Apples to Apples comparison.

Terrain seems like the best option. Maybe if you have a box or something nearby, one grot could see over the wall. Then maybe that would count as the unit being able to see over the wall for the purposes of firing the gun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:

 earlofburger wrote:
Total bummer man, anyway around this travesty?

Play with a reasonable player, allow the grots to shoot over the ADL and in turn allow them to be shot at.

So my marines can fire over the bastion in front of them? After all, it's crazy for them to bring a fortification they can't shoot over....

if using a fortification such as the bastion)you cant shoot over is so 'crazy", why was it included as one of the fortifications allowed to be taken.
You would bring the bastion, even though you cant shoot over it) because ithas other purposes and roles to play than serving as a wall to hide behind and shoot over. The reason it is a matter of apples and oranges.

Edit to add a few more examples of why it is apples and oranges.
1 the wall you are either behind or not. You can either see over it of your too short
2.the bastion you can actually deploy into or stand on top.
3. the bastion itself can be targets for shooting/ assault while with the wall, only the gun can.
4.in the bastion, the heavy bolters can be 'manned" regardless of how shot the gunners are. If there were snotlings, they could fire it. Unless I got a bad set of bastions, they don't come with levels inside to measure ho tall you have to be to use a firing port os man a heavy bolter., you as assumed to be able to fire it. the roof holds a lil semblance as to man the gun you need to be able to see the target (which makes deep striking REAL close to it can prevent an effective interceptor shot if the gunner cant see you. I've done this work mordrak.)
5. the bastion is designed to be taller in order to give a bettwe view or coverage of los across the battlefield than an ADL.

This is still going? I thought this was the exact same question as the "prone-sniper" thread.

Speaking of TLoS shenanigans, I've got a game of killteam on hold downstairs right now... in my next shooting phase I plan on firing at a scout through a toilet paper tube halfway across the table. Mwuhahahaha!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
If the WAAC player is gonna be like that, ...

Expecting an opponent to actually draw LOS in order to shoot, in a game that uses TLOS (and has done for 20 years) is not exactly most people's definition of 'WAAC' behaviour.

?

WH40K didn't use TLOS in 3rd or 4th, though I assume you mean that you draw LOS from the model doing the shooting?

(What I mean is that in previous editions, any width of forest blocked LOS from one side or another, you could only see a certain distance into or out of area terrain, vehicles and such were given variying "heights," and other things that trumped out whether or not one model could actually draw TLOS to another."

100% incorrect. You have simply listed the exceptions to the rule, while omitting the rule. It is a common misconception though - 5th was simply much more explicit in calling it TLOS

I humbly contend that if there are any exceptions, then it is not TLoS.

Though, I apologize for derailing the thread with irrelevant discussions.

Saldiven wrote:
I humbly contend that if there are any exceptions, then it is not TLoS.

Then 5th and 6th aren't TLOS either.

darkcloak wrote:
This is still going? I thought this was the exact same question as the "prone-sniper" thread.

It's a little different. In the case of the prone sniper, there is at least some sort of justification (on the grounds of 'models being stuck in the same pose for the entire battle is a little silly') for allowing them to see what an otherwise identical, upright model could see...

In the case of the grots, people are, for some inexplicable reason, declaring it 'unfair' or 'unfun' for the grots to not be able to shoot over an obstacle that is taller than they are.

It's not an issue of posing, as the sniper discussion was... It's an issue of people thinking that small models should be exempt from following the LOS rules, just because.

just put a grot on the edge of the aegis to see around, or on top of the quad gun to see over...


FFS whats the big deal

thats RAW, they cant see over stuff they cant see over, and it works in your facor as only one grot per turn can be killed.... and you can still have ways to shoot your quad gun or artillary...

slightly taller models dont get to see over slightly taller walls now do theyÉ

rigeld2 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I humbly contend that if there are any exceptions, then it is not TLoS.

Then 5th and 6th aren't TLOS either.

Agreed - models firing through members of their own hint, for one example

Why would it be such a bad thing to make "orky" walls and gun/ they already have barricades (that I am assuming grots can see over).
It would be a great modeling project to make your wall match your army. After all, how many ork factories are there that mass prouce mperial walls and guns?
it would also only make sene that the ork mechs would be more worried about making bigger and louder guns and faster trucks thanmaking weedy walls for hidin behind. his means that the wall building would be left to the grots as it is not an important enough job for the orks to fool around with. I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army. In instances like this, I think it would be a matter of perspective where both sides wouhave valid reasons for their views. In that particular instance, I think the ork player would have the better agument because itwould hav been an effort to make the game amore aetheticallypleasing view y having your equipment match your army.
again, ths is only an opinion and not meant to be any sort of authority.

Please stay on topic. Thanks

 EVIL INC wrote:
Why would it be such a bad thing to make "orky" walls and gun/ they already have barricades (that I am assuming grots can see over).
It would be a great modeling project to make your wall match your army. After all, how many ork factories are there that mass prouce mperial walls and guns?

Making your own themed ADL isn't a bad thing at all. But if you are making your own ADL specifically so that models can se over it when they wouldn't be able to see over the proper ADL, then that is the very definition of modelling for advantage.


Grots can't shoot over an ADL. Dreadnoughts can't shoot over a rhino. Marines can't shoot over a Bastion. A player enforcing any of those things is not being unreasonable, because that is just how the game works. Insisting that models not shoot over something that blocks their LOS is no more unreasonable than insisting that models don't move 6 and a half inches instead of 6.


I'm really not seeing why this is being turned into such a big deal.

So what if I made 'themed' ADLs which were larger which blocked LOS to all my units so I can guarantee not be shot turn 1? It would be awesome to deploy all my Trukks and Battlewagons behind an ADL which blocks LOS so you can't even target me, and then I can speed forward with no fear of my vehicles being disabled in my own backfield.

I mean, it is perfectly orky right? It is themey to have orks build bigger is better walls! Theme is all that matters and we don't need consistent application of the rules and there is no such thing as MFA right? It is only MFA when you do it, and when I do it, it is 'cool theme!'

My Custom ADL will be based off a hollowed out stompa and will be 8" tall.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army.

And this is where you apply the MFA test: are you willing to count your custom model as being the same size/shape as the standard model if there is any situation where you would gain an advantage over the standard model? If so, you're making a cool model because it looks cool. If you insist on gaining the advantage then it is MFA. And based on your description of the process it's pretty clear that you are intending to gain an advantage from the non-standard size/shape of the model.

I have ask about this. Everyone said that was model for advance and they will said this wall was not aegis defence line but a pre-place terrain that they would want go to their side or remove it.. Look like everyone in this topic love say "model for advance"

And if you made your homemade aegis defence line that was match theme and match scale as real aegis defence line they would say this still not aegis defence line.. Even if it was cardboard. Silly I know...

All I know if you and your opposition are disagree with each other, I would just roll off to see who right.

Solidcrash wrote:
I have ask about this. Everyone said that was model for advance and they will said this wall was not aegis defence line but a pre-place terrain that they would want go to their side or remove it.. Look like everyone in this topic love say "model for advance"

And if you made your homemade aegis defence line that was match theme and match scale as real aegis defence line they would say this still not aegis defence line.. Even if it was cardboard. Silly I know...

All I know if you and your opposition are disagree with each other, I would just roll off to see who right.

About 10:30...?

 Peregrine wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I think that in cases like this, it would not be mfa tmake peepholes or lower parts or steps for grots to see, it would be modeling for the cool factor of actually making the wall match the fluff and image of the ork army.

And this is where you apply the MFA test: are you willing to count your custom model as being the same size/shape as the standard model if there is any situation where you would gain an advantage over the standard model? If so, you're making a cool model because it looks cool. If you insist on gaining the advantage then it is MFA. And based on your description of the process it's pretty clear that you are intending to gain an advantage from the non-standard size/shape of the model.

They don't have an official (or standard) ork ADL, they produced an imperial one but there are no stats (beyond the gun) for an ork one. So , no it would not be MFA at all. Modeled purely for coolness value that happens to have advantages and disadvantages over/worse then the imperial one.
I don't even play orks but feel that an ork player could say that and be correct.

No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?

A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
you might want to keep in mind that th bastion is a separate fortification. it is a building that can be entered and fired out of (as far as I know even grots may fire out of the specified locations or 'man" the heavy bolters but you may want to check the rules on that becausethey may be too short). likewise fortifications such as the fortress of redemption and the landing pad and so forth are all separate fortifications all with their own individual rules and specs.

His Point is that the grots have no LOS at all, and to grant them LOS should allow me(or him, or whatever) to fire over LOS blocking terrain as well.


The reason it is not unreasonable to hold grots an prone models to TLOS is 2-fold:
1; they should not be able to shoot and not be shot at; which is the logical extension.
2; You had full control over where those models were deployed, you are just trying to gain a benefit.

We had to cross this bridge at the LGS concerning Guard HWT which are all kneeling. We allowed the HWT to shoot over and in turn be shot at. It may not be "by the rules" but we decided that not allowing units to shoot over the Aegis line was not in the spirit of the game. Someone acutally had one of the old prone sniper models.... its absurd that he cant stand up to shoot over it. its not like hes crawling all over the table during the game, the prone model just looks cool for a sniper and it seemed unreasonable that he should not be allowed to take up a sniper position behind an aegis and shoot his sniper rifle. I also have original metal ratlings... they cant see over the wall either. makes me think of the scene in The Two Tower when legolas says to Gimli ; "Do you want me to describe it to you, or shall i find you a box?" welll maybe his grots brought boxes with them to stand on.

since there is only one Aegis kit available it really strains its in game uses. If an ork commander wanted to set up a picket line manned by grots wouldnt he make sure the orkish defense line would be an appropriate height to allow his grots to fire over it? We dont apply this rule to ruins or any other part of the terrain, but a purchased defense line should be appropriate for the army / units that are going to be using it. I know a lot of people stack several layers of cork under their models for a dynamic base. If he did that to all his grots, giving them TLOS, would that be MFA ? remember the sword cuts both ways, if he can see you, you can see him.

One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.

So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?

rigeld2 wrote:
No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?

A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?

Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?

JinxDragon wrote:
One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.

So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?

GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army. Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.

As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?

A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?

Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?

And how much of that is relevant?
If there's no stats for an ork one, how are you paying points for an ork one? How are you getting an ork quad gun? How are you claiming a 4+ cover when there's no rule to allow it?

Do you have a rule to discuss on the rules forum?

 EVIL INC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No stats for an ork one?
So the ADL stats in the BRB don't exist? If you build your holey wall with steps, etc are you also going to claim the 4+ cover from an ADL?

A model exists. You are attempting to make/use a different model specifically because you'll get an advantage compared to the stock one. And that's not modeling for advantage?

Maybe I don't remember orks very well. It has been a few weeks since I last played them. Do they now use imperial Aquilas as part of their iconography? I also seem to remember their vehicles and guns and armot and buildings being a little on the ramshackle side of life. When did they do the 180 turnabout?

JinxDragon wrote:
One of the curious things I keep thinking about is the requirement for 'citadel models' and how this requirement relates to Terrain. If I am remembering pages correctly, the line informing us that models have to be produced by Citadel is on page 8. This is also the section which informs us what a 'model' is, creating a list of requirements that much be achieved before a model can be considered official by any rule sense. Figurines that do not meet the requirements to be 'models' can only be placed and interacted with using unique rules and there are many precedents found throughout the book, most of them found in the Terrain section.

So the question I keep pondering is:
If Terrain is not an official model why then would it be bound by a restriction that 'official' models have to be produced by Citadel?

GW just does not make models for everything they have rules for or versions of the models they have rules for for every army. This leads us to the use of non-citadel models, conversions and so forth. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open to those who will disallow models and such that are built/converted that way for coolness value or just to have something that actually matches the army. Sometimes, it will be for personal vendettas (eh, rigeld2 I see you tracked me down to yet another thread) or because they are perfectly fine with the 9 disadvantages that happen to come with it (9 is a random numberused to demonstrate that there would be more disadvantages than advantages) and exploit those disadvantages but the second it inadvertently shows the slightest side effect of one of those disadvantages have a non-debilitating effect, they scream fould and insist that only the negatives be applied.

As I said before, I don't play orks so don't really care. I am only pointing out that I would personally not be a jacka...and tell someone that the conversion they labored for untold periods of time purely for coolness value and for the sake of actually having something match their army is unusable to gain an unfair advantage in a game.

Quote the entire post instead of cherry picking what you want out of it.
But yes, The part you quoted was indeed relevant. Has GW produced an "ork" version of the ADL? If not, players are forced to use an imperial one that is not designed for their army or to design their own based upon the fluff of the orks and how they would design it. the only "standards" that would apply would
1. number of sections
2. width of sections (but not the height) as end to end they can only cover a set length
3. stats of the gun and that the gun be a separate part.
4. Deployment and requirement that the sections touch.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Quote the entire post instead of cherry picking what you want out of it.

Your post:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 10:34:00
My post:
2013/12/04 10:29:30

Don't accuse me of cherry picking because I respond quickly. I'm not being hostile - the rest of the post wasn't there when I clicked quote.

But yes, The part you quoted was indeed relevant. Has GW produced an "ork" version of the ADL? If not, players are forced to use an imperial one that is not designed for their army or to design their own based upon the fluff of the orks and how they would design it. the only "standards" that would apply would
1. number of sections
2. width of sections (but not the height) as end to end they can only cover a set length
3. stats of the gun and that the gun be a separate part.
4. Deployment and requirement that the sections touch.

Why is the height not "standard" but everything else is? Can you cite a rule that defines that? It seems pretty arbitrary but I'm sure you wouldn't say that without a rule defining it, so please cite it.

This thread... it is making me angry.

I'm not the Hulk, but I'm thinking that possibly I too am not very likeable when angry, but then, who is?

Anyway...

IF users are unable to communicate amiably or at least politely with each other, as the rules of this site insist, then users would be better served ignoring each other, literally - as is possible here - thanks Lego!, or just not responding.

Does this count a a general in thread warning?

Yes, I believe it does!