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.

Gretchen stand on 1 inch rock? Flying grot? Stand on dead space marine? If they try gain outrage line of sight, then I can against that.

Normal un-mod grot on nice texture base? That fine it look cool. Act just like normal imperial guard. I am accept that.

Except a grot doesn't act just like a guardsman, because it's shorter.

Every model isn't supposed to have the same profile as every other. If a model can't see over am obstacle, and another model can, that's exactly how the LOS rules are supposed to work.

Tell that to heavy team guardsman.

Solidcrash wrote:
Tell that to heavy team guardsman.

Okay? Is that supposed to be some kind of retort?

The IG HWT dilemma is easily solved using Mordian HWTs. Sadly you'll have to find them from alternative sources since they seem to have been removed from the GW site. The Assistant Gunners on the ones I have are standing and came that way. So definitely perfectly legal to use unless someone wants to claim they aren't 40k miniatures. I did pick mine up years ago so no one can even claim they were bought specifically to use with an AGL.

Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.

Solidcrash wrote:
Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.

If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine. It's just not how the rules actually work.

As for the kneeling guardsmen, GW have had 5 editions now to clarify that kneeling, squatting, sitting or prone models should have the same LOS as their standing counterparts. They haven't. The process for establishing LOS from the model's eyes has remained more or less the same for 20 years now.

But that still has nothing to do with models that are simply too short to see over an obstacle.

 insaniak wrote:

Solidcrash wrote:
Nah, I find it that few of you rather model as static or lacking movement AKA chess...
While me and my friend like it to be fixable and more live and realist. More like gamer with full of imagine.

If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine.

Thank you, yeh I like how it work. And more fun as space hulk.

 insaniak wrote:

It's just not how the rules actually work.

Your rule you mean. I've play at Middlesbrough, Teesside, Aberdeen, Scarborough, Highlander , north island and Nottingham are using same rule as mine...
Cool... There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.

Solidcrash wrote:

Your rule you mean.

I'll have to have another look at the rulebook... I don't remember seeing an author's credit in there, but maybe I wrote it under the influence of something that also removed all memory of it...

There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.

No doubt there are. But only one of them is how the rulebook actually says to do it. The other is a house rule.

Again, that's not a problem... it's just always a good idea to know and acknowledge when the rules you are using are different to how the game actually works, to reduce the potential for confusion when you play someone new.

Solid - stop appealing to authority. The tlos rule is clear, you're playing a house rule.

Solidcrash wrote:
Tell that to heavy team guardsman.

You mean the ones that are still tall enough to see over the line to begin with?

Solidcrash wrote:
Your rule you mean. I've play at Middlesbrough, Teesside, Aberdeen, Scarborough, Highlander , north island and Nottingham are using same rule as mine...
Cool... There are two version of how to play warhammer 40k.

Show me the rule that overrides TLoS and allows models to use a 'dynamic moving pose' rather than the model's actual pose to determine their LoS. Page number and paragraph from the Warhammer 40k rulebook, please.

DoW

Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.

In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.

Turn out that few people do not imagine or creative.. Then this "spirit of the games" do not apply to them.

And someone in this topic said that Games Workshop can made up their mind about rule. Then I am with GW side..

"You have no power in here!"

Maybe that is why I am use their house rule from GW store since 1991.

Then there are 50/50 who are correct. I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.

And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line, that may mean you can made up your mind about this and agree with your player.

Have a fun with wargame. Do not made enemy at game board is my motto.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.

I know.. Bingo.

Solidcrash wrote:
In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.

Please follow the rules of YMDC. GW's various statements about "don't take it seriously" are completely off-topic in a forum dedicated to understanding what the rules actually say.

I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.

No, you just don't understand what you're talking about. If someone asks "what do the LOS rules say in this situation" then saying "the spirit of the game says you should let me shoot with everything because it isn't fair if I don't get to win" is missing the point.

Also, you're making a big assumption in claiming that "spirit of the game" applies at all. I could justifiably claim that YOU are ignoring the spirit of the game by trying to rules lawyer your way out of following the LOS rules, and the spirit of the game would be to just accept that the grots behind the ADL don't get to shoot and move on.

And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line

There aren't any rules about it because no additional rules are needed. The standard LOS rules cover this situation just fine. You only "need" extra rules if you need to invent a reason why your models get to shoot through a solid wall despite not having LOS, but that's about as relevant as my "need" to make my lasguns STR 10 AP 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Well, there IS the 360 degree fire arc of infantry models, Obviously if the model is not 'facing a target they would not be able to see it as you cant draw a line of sight from the eyes to the target.
Just figured I'd toss that into the ring because it IS on topic. I don't actually propose denying the 360 degree fire arc, just pointing out that it doesn't follow TLOS.

Nope. Models in the firing unit do not block LOS, and the rule doesn't say anything about limiting it to other models in the unit. A model can draw LOS in all directions from its eyes, including through its own head to shoot behind itself.

Claiming that the spirit of the game allows you to be a WAAC player and bend the line of sight rules when it suits you is a bit of a stretch, I highly doubt that's the sort of spirit they're talking about.

Solidcrash wrote:
In page 8, notepost - spirit of the games. At top left, there are said use your imagine.

Turn out that few people do not imagine or creative.. Then this "spirit of the games" do not apply to them.

And someone in this topic said that Games Workshop can made up their mind about rule. Then I am with GW side..

"You have no power in here!"

Maybe that is why I am use their house rule from GW store since 1991.

Then there are 50/50 who are correct. I can't win against you guy because you just repeat it about true line of sight and haven't claim you has been read about "spirit of the games" we just go in loop.

And there are no restrict or permission in FAQ, codex and in rulebook about shorter model using deploy defence line, that may mean you can made up your mind about this and agree with your player.

Have a fun with wargame. Do not made enemy at game board is my motto.

Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the forum rules and especially the difference between arguing RAW, RAI and HYWPI.

Nobody here is expecting you to change how you play the game. Nevertheless the actual rules are very clear. You can either see your target or you dont shoot. Theres no magical "but my model can be on his tippy toes" just because your house rules say so.

Additionally where does this house rule end? Can i put my dreadnought half obscured by the corner of a ruin so it gets a cover save when you shoot at it and claim its leaning around the corner to fire both its weapons (although one doesnt have LOS) or wouldnt that be okay for you? Afterall its a dynamic dreadnought that is able to move and not a static plastic model.
Or what about a flyer that is behind a ruin. Couldnt i legitimately claim that its "HIGH HIGH UP IN THE AIR" and therefore it can see everything? And when you start to complain i direct you to the spirit of the game and tell you that "where i played the last 10 years we always played it that way" and start rolling my shots.

So where do you draw the line when you assume that models are not actually in the pose/setup that they are as models on the table? And what do you do when you have a rules dispute? Do you discuss what the spirit of the game says or do you read the rules involved? What when you and your opponent have different ideas of what the "spirit of the game" would say?

Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.

That what I would said.

Flyer.. Someone has been cheating on me in the past... I have lack of knowledge in flyer.

If it happen to me...

Maybe I will have to let them. Because flyer do not affect ground base and flyer are work out as two layer ( one for ground and one for sky)

I haven't read flyer fully because this was new to me. Maybe I would ask my opposition "how high" and measure their weapon range? Way up high may be out of range already.

Both of those are topic of line of sight..

Since someone said this is "you make da call" forum and say I shouldn't allow to affect it then I will have to stop now and keep read this topic and see where it going.

Solidcrash wrote:
Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.

That what I would said.

Flyer.. Someone has been cheating on me in the past... I have lack of knowledge in flyer.

If it happen to me...

Maybe I will have to let them. Because flyer do not affect ground base and flyer are work out as two layer ( one for ground and one for sky)

I haven't read flyer fully because this was new to me. Maybe I would ask my opposition "how high" and measure their weapon range? Way up high may be out of range already.

Both of those are topic of line of sight..

Since someone said this is "you make da call" forum and say I shouldn't allow to affect it then I will have to stop now and keep read this topic and see where it going.

This dreadnaught wouldnt fall over.


Additionally ... if you claim he falls over i claim that a tippy toe grot cant shoot either because jeah ... its on tippy toes. Ever tried shooting? If yes - imagine doing it on tippy toes. This can go on and on and on OR we look at the actual rules. They say neither can shoot. My dreadnoughts arm mounted weapon AND the grots both cant. Solved.

House rules are fine. We have some too. But they are not the RAW and they are certainly not free of problems.

Solidcrash wrote:
Dreadnought lean over 45 degree? It would fell over until it move their footwork. Once move, they cannot change their footwork... No you can't I am sorry.

That is completely missing the point of the example, so here's a better one; my Warpsmith is completely obscured in cover and out of Line of Sight. Can we therefore assume that he can slip his mechadendrites/mechatendrils around the cover (they're tentacles, after all) to shoot the meltagun and flamer arms? That's not interpreting the rules in a "dynamic" way, that's doing them wrong.

Can a Space Marine in cover actually take cover, crouching down behind the wall? It's a dynamic character, after all - therefore, Line of Sight is completely obscured and they can't be fired upon. Can the same Space Marine make Snap Shots as he blind-fires his bolter over the wall like in Gears of War? Down this road lies madness.

Also, good to see that the issue of "can a model that can't get LoS shoot" is still going on strong since last I checked. Threads like this are good. They show how passionate players are about this game, so much so that this insignificant issue has gone back and forth for almost ten whole pages now.

there not tall enough to see thur the gun port?

Marine is behind a wall that covers his knees. Why can't he dove to the ground and get a cover save? Why are models only dynamic when trying to shoot?

rigeld2 wrote:Marine is behind a wall that covers his knees. Why can't he dove to the ground and get a cover save? Why are models only dynamic when trying to shoot?

Because that is not how the rules work. This is represented by the 25% coverage stipulation of cover - if 25% of the model is obscured, we assume that it is able to "take cover" against incoming shots, rather than simply standing there while enemies shoot at it. However, unlike in most cover-based shooters, cover is not invulnerable, which is why cover saves can vary.

However, if we were to play it "dynamically", a Marine going prone behind cover would be out of LOS and therefore unable to be shot at. In the actual rules, this is represented by Going to Ground behind said cover.

insaniak wrote:
If you're happy to play that way, that's perfectly fine. It's just not how the rules actually work.

As for the kneeling guardsmen, GW have had 5 editions now to clarify that kneeling, squatting, sitting or prone models should have the same LOS as their standing counterparts. They haven't. The process for establishing LOS from the model's eyes has remained more or less the same for 20 years now.

DogOfWar wrote:Show me the rule that overrides TLoS and allows models to use a 'dynamic moving pose' rather than the model's actual pose to determine their LoS. Page number and paragraph from the Warhammer 40k rulebook, please.

Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...


Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...


Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?

Yes you can.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...


Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?

If you are able to physically fit the model in the gun port, go right ahead.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Marine is behind a wall that covers his knees. Why can't he dove to the ground and get a cover save? Why are models only dynamic when trying to shoot?

Because that is not how the rules work. This is represented by the 25% coverage stipulation of cover - if 25% of the model is obscured, we assume that it is able to "take cover" against incoming shots, rather than simply standing there while enemies shoot at it. However, unlike in most cover-based shooters, cover is not invulnerable, which is why cover saves can vary.

However, if we were to play it "dynamically", a Marine going prone behind cover would be out of LOS and therefore unable to be shot at. In the actual rules, this is represented by Going to Ground behind said cover.

So you missed my point then. Cool.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does the whole "dynamic models" thing matter anyway? The only way grots could see over an Aegis without standing on top of something else is by levitating...


Actually, that's a point, can you place them standing IN the gun ports, claiming wobbly model?

If you are able to physically fit the model in the gun port, go right ahead.

10 pages and this is still going? It has been shown that there are Games Workshop Gretchin and IG that can see over an Aegis without modification. If you want to use one pick yourself up some of those models. Problem solved for everyone.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:
10 pages and this is still going? It has been shown that there are Games Workshop Gretchin and IG that can see over an Aegis without modification.

No one has posted a picture of such yet. The closest anyone came to addressing that was someone posted that 2nd ed Grots could see over it, and someone else said they couldn't - hardly definitive.