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.

So I've only skimmed some leak posts and what few battle reports are online, and I still haven't figured out how models can determine if their target is a legal choice or not.
For instance, I watched the intro box playtest that GW held on Friday, and a landraider just unloaded on a hellbrute that seemed to be mostly concealed by a crate sitting between them.
Another instance i saw was where a flyer was had a facing completely away from its shooting target.
Then also, how is cover determined in this new edition? do you have to be in terrain, or does intervening terrain also help?

50% for cover on non infantry
You can see any body part to have LoS

Another related question - can you see past your own squads, or do they block line of sight?
For example, can Tactical Squad B see past Tactical Squad A to fire at a Fire Warrior Squad?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Another related question - can you see past your own squads, or do they block line of sight?
For example, can Tactical Squad B see past Tactical Squad A to fire at a Fire Warrior Squad?

That is my question two. It hints at the answer being no when it says "for the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit." But you would think if that were the case their would be a rule saying so. Also units are suppose to be moving around and stuff and not standing their like its the 1700s so in that case units should be able to fire through another unit.

Everything I read from AoS it seems like unit can shoot through other units unless it was house ruled. Also the battle reports I have seen have that taking place as well.

Throc wrote:hat is my question two. It hints at the answer being no when it says "for the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit." But you would think if that were the case their would be a rule saying so. Also units are suppose to be moving around and stuff and not standing their like its the 1700s so in that case units should be able to fire through another unit.

There doesn't need to be a rule saying so because its true, real line of sight. You get down behind the firing model and if you can see the enemy model then it is 'visible' and can be shot at. The only thing you're allowed to ignore are other models in the firing unit.

So yes, other friendly units do indeed block line of sight, but only if they 100%, completely, totally block line of sight when looking behind absolutely any portion of the firing model. Even the teeniest-tiny gap through a friendly model means you can shoot through them.

In practice, it means you can always fire at your target unless they are completely and totally blocked to the point where you can't see anything at all of them (not even wings, base, etc).

rvd1ofakind wrote:50% for cover on non infantry
You can see any body part to have LoS

This is correct, except that for the 50% obscured thing, I'm pretty sure the intent of the rule is that the non-infantry model has to be entirely in terrain AND 50% obscured by it. They don't just get cover simply for being 50% obscured by random intervening terrain.

 yakface wrote:

Throc wrote:hat is my question two. It hints at the answer being no when it says "for the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit." But you would think if that were the case their would be a rule saying so. Also units are suppose to be moving around and stuff and not standing their like its the 1700s so in that case units should be able to fire through another unit.

There doesn't need to be a rule saying so because its true, real line of sight. You get down behind the firing model and if you can see the enemy model then it is 'visible' and can be shot at. The only thing you're allowed to ignore are other models in the firing unit.

So yes, other friendly units do indeed block line of sight, but only if they 100%, completely, totally block line of sight when looking behind absolutely any portion of the firing model. Even the teeniest-tiny gap through a friendly model means you can shoot through them.

In practice, it means you can always fire at your target unless they are completely and totally blocked to the point where you can't see anything at all of them (not even wings, base, etc).

And it also means you have a firing arc for EVERY model since you go from BEHIND the shooting model, correct?

 Charistoph wrote:
And it also means you have a firing arc for EVERY model since you go from BEHIND the shooting model, correct?

Not a firing arc, but I think you're asking if you need to check visibility from each and every firing model, correct? If so, the answer for that is: yes.

However, its not as laborious as it sounds once you get used to how generous the LoS rules in 8th are, as you're just looking to see if there are any firing models that absolutely can't see anything at all of the target enemy unit.

 yakface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And it also means you have a firing arc for EVERY model since you go from BEHIND the shooting model, correct?

Not a firing arc, but I think you're asking if you need to check visibility from each and every firing model, correct? If so, the answer for that is: yes.

However, its not as laborious as it sounds once you get used to how generous the LoS rules in 8th are, as you're just looking to see if there are any firing models that absolutely can't see anything at all of the target enemy unit.

Yes, a firing arc. If you need to be behind a model to check if it can see a model, then it cannot shoot something behind itself because you cannot see it.

 Charistoph wrote:
Yes, a firing arc. If you need to be behind a model to check if it can see a model, then it cannot shoot something behind itself because you cannot see it.

'Behind' in this case simply means you're behind the firing model in relation to the target.

If the rules had defined fronts and backs to models then you might be able to make a solid argument for what you're proposing, but since they don't, a model's facing in the game is completely immaterial to the rules.

 yakface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Yes, a firing arc. If you need to be behind a model to check if it can see a model, then it cannot shoot something behind itself because you cannot see it.

'Behind' in this case simply means you're behind the firing model in relation to the target.

If the rules had defined fronts and backs to models then you might be able to make a solid argument for what you're proposing, but since they don't, a model's facing in the game is completely immaterial to the rules.

That sounds like an assumption, I doubt it was written that specifically.

Edit: Let me clear that with very few exceptions (ex: Obelisk, Tyrannocyte), it is very easy to tell what the front of a model is so you can be behind it when you look.

 Charistoph wrote:
That sounds like an assumption, I doubt it was written that specifically.

The opposite actually, I'm saying it is, quite obviously, written generally.

If I were to tell you to get down behind traffic cone A, look over the top of it and tell me if you could see traffic cone B, you would instinctively, without question, put yourself in a position where traffic cone A was in between you and traffic cone B, despite the fact that traffic cones do not themselves typically have a defined front or back.

So the concept of being 'behind' something else in relation to a different object is something that exists in the real world and people naturally understand. Therefore, unless the game rules introduce an actual front/back to models, then people are going to default back to the general way the term is understood.

I mean, its already happened. Every 8th edition battle report you'll find online is already being played under that assumption (a defacto 360 degree line of sight), so barring a FAQ change from GW this argument is really an exercise in futility anyway.

 yakface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That sounds like an assumption, I doubt it was written that specifically.

The opposite actually, I'm saying it is, quite obviously, written generally.

If I were to tell you to get down behind traffic cone A, look over the top of it and tell me if you could see traffic cone B, you would instinctively, without question, put yourself in a position where traffic cone A was in between you and traffic cone B, despite the fact that traffic cones do not themselves typically have a defined front or back.

So the concept of being 'behind' something else in relation to a different object is something that exists in the real world and people naturally understand. Therefore, unless the game rules introduce an actual front/back to models, then people are going to default back to the general way the term is understood.

I mean, its already happened. Every 8th edition battle report you'll find online is already being played under that assumption (a defacto 360 degree line of sight), so barring a FAQ change from GW this argument is really an exercise in futility anyway.

And if I told you to get behind me and see if you can see if I can see something, would you be standing to so you can see my face or my scalp?

Your cone example would only apply if something did not have a defined front, ala the Obelisk and Tyrranocyte. Most other models do have a defined front like any other Infantry or Vehicle, so there is a "behind" to be referenced.

I wish that we could just go back to individual model LoS and cover, instead of using apparent simplifications that just end up with arguments over interpretations.

Whatever GW writes, 50% blocked by intervening terrain means that it is harder to hit, you might hit the cover, and so the target should get a save adjustment or you should get a to hit adjustment or both.

If an individual model is in terrain that affords cover, then that model should get a save adjustment, and if a model is behind a wall and cannot see the enemy then it should not be able to shoot. The other models in the unit should act according to their situations. Simple.

So, if I target an enemy unit that is half in cover, say behind a wall, and half out of cover, say standing in the open in front of the wall, then I should able to target the part of the unit that is visible, only. Any wounds over and above those represented by visible models are useless.

And, if I target a unit that is half in terrain that affords a cover save modifier, and half outside of this terrain, say half in a crater and half in front of the crater, then I should be able to target that unit while half the unit will receive cover saves and half not, with those out of cover in front of the crater and thus more visible to my unit saving first without a modifier and being removed first, and with those in cover benefitting from their cover save before being removed.

Simple realism.
Zero room for argument about how a rule is written.

Zero room for argument.

 Charistoph wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That sounds like an assumption, I doubt it was written that specifically.

The opposite actually, I'm saying it is, quite obviously, written generally.

If I were to tell you to get down behind traffic cone A, look over the top of it and tell me if you could see traffic cone B, you would instinctively, without question, put yourself in a position where traffic cone A was in between you and traffic cone B, despite the fact that traffic cones do not themselves typically have a defined front or back.

So the concept of being 'behind' something else in relation to a different object is something that exists in the real world and people naturally understand. Therefore, unless the game rules introduce an actual front/back to models, then people are going to default back to the general way the term is understood.

I mean, its already happened. Every 8th edition battle report you'll find online is already being played under that assumption (a defacto 360 degree line of sight), so barring a FAQ change from GW this argument is really an exercise in futility anyway.

And if I told you to get behind me and see if you can see if I can see something, would you be standing to so you can see my face or my scalp?

Your cone example would only apply if something did not have a defined front, ala the Obelisk and Tyrranocyte. Most other models do have a defined front like any other Infantry or Vehicle, so there is a "behind" to be referenced.

Well if you stand with your back to, say, a statue and asked if I could see the statue from behind you I'd be standing so I could see your face. You'd be acting oddly, but clearly you'd mean can I see the statue with you intervening, that's what behind means in that context.

Does that mean then that you can bunch up your units together to form a wall and block LOS to units behind them? That's something to try. Maybe as a screen for melee units or artillery.

Drager wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That sounds like an assumption, I doubt it was written that specifically.

The opposite actually, I'm saying it is, quite obviously, written generally.

If I were to tell you to get down behind traffic cone A, look over the top of it and tell me if you could see traffic cone B, you would instinctively, without question, put yourself in a position where traffic cone A was in between you and traffic cone B, despite the fact that traffic cones do not themselves typically have a defined front or back.

So the concept of being 'behind' something else in relation to a different object is something that exists in the real world and people naturally understand. Therefore, unless the game rules introduce an actual front/back to models, then people are going to default back to the general way the term is understood.

I mean, its already happened. Every 8th edition battle report you'll find online is already being played under that assumption (a defacto 360 degree line of sight), so barring a FAQ change from GW this argument is really an exercise in futility anyway.

And if I told you to get behind me and see if you can see if I can see something, would you be standing to so you can see my face or my scalp?

Your cone example would only apply if something did not have a defined front, ala the Obelisk and Tyrranocyte. Most other models do have a defined front like any other Infantry or Vehicle, so there is a "behind" to be referenced.

Well if you stand with your back to, say, a statue and asked if I could see the statue from behind you I'd be standing so I could see your face. You'd be acting oddly, but clearly you'd mean can I see the statue with you intervening, that's what behind means in that context.

Actually, if you were standing behind me to see if I could see something, and then faced something behind me, we would be back to back, and you wouldn't be able to see my face.

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. In the scenario I mentioned I would be standing such that you are between me and the statue. As such when facing the statue I would be facing your face. And I would be behind you with respect to the statue. It's one of those times when behind you and at your back are not synonymous. I can understand the confusion it's quite possible you haven't heard that usage of behind commonly.

Drager wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. In the scenario I mentioned I would be standing such that you are between me and the statue. As such when facing the statue I would be facing your face. And I would be behind you with respect to the statue. It's one of those times when behind you and at your back are not synonymous. I can understand the confusion it's quite possible you haven't heard that usage of behind commonly.

If you get behind the model to see if the model can see it, but then go in front of the model, you really aren't going behind it. As I said, where there is no "front", it can be used in that parlance, but when there is a front, you don't go to the front to get behind something. Does the phrase in the rule actually state that you get the shooting model between you and its target, or that you get behind the shooting model?

 Charistoph wrote:

Drager wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what I said. In the scenario I mentioned I would be standing such that you are between me and the statue. As such when facing the statue I would be facing your face. And I would be behind you with respect to the statue. It's one of those times when behind you and at your back are not synonymous. I can understand the confusion it's quite possible you haven't heard that usage of behind commonly.

If you get behind the model to see if the model can see it, but then go in front of the model, you really aren't going behind it. As I said, where there is no "front", it can be used in that parlance, but when there is a front, you don't go to the front to get behind something. Does the phrase in the rule actually state that you get the shooting model between you and its target, or that you get behind the shooting model?

You are simply insisting that your understanding of the word behind is the only correct one. You are mistaken. As I said your insistence that behind and 'to the rear of 'are always synonymous is not true, at least in British English, my native language and the one the rules are written in. I am aware than in other forms of English it might be the case that behind always means to the rear of, but in BrE that isn't so.

For another example, if I was shouting to you across a road and a van went past I could say to you 'I couldn't see you for a moment because you were behind the van.' This does not mean 'to the rear of', it means that the van was in between the two of us. It is an extremely common secondary usage of behind in BrE. I don't really speak other forms of English well (in fact I probably speak German better than AmE), but I am aware there are often differences. This could be one, I don't know.

Similarly, I could say 'Kevin was hiding behind the car, near the bonnet, then he popped his head out'. The bonnet is at the front, but saying in front, in this case, wouldn't make sense. Behind is both the correct term and, to my ear, the only one to use in this instance. There are many more examples.

I am not saying behind never means 'to the rear of', I am saying in language constructs of this nature in BrE it means 'such that the subject is intervening'.

I'm pretty new, but isn't there a rule about not arguing from real life examples?

I only bring it up because it seems like you are getting lost in a rabbit hole of examples and counter-examples and not making much progress.

In this case, I think we are both trying to nail down the meaning of the sentence. It's pretty hard to explain how you are using an abstract concept without examples. Or at least it is for me, but I could simply be bad at explaining.

Drager wrote:
You are simply insisting that your understanding of the word behind is the only correct one. You are mistaken. As I said your insistence that behind and 'to the rear of 'are always synonymous is not true, at least in British English, my native language and the one the rules are written in. I am aware than in other forms of English it might be the case that behind always means to the rear of, but in BrE that isn't so.

For another example, if I was shouting to you across a road and a van went past I could say to you 'I couldn't see you for a moment because you were behind the van.' This does not mean 'to the rear of', it means that the van was in between the two of us. It is an extremely common secondary usage of behind in BrE. I don't really speak other forms of English well (in fact I probably speak German better than AmE), but I am aware there are often differences. This could be one, I don't know.

Similarly, I could say 'Kevin was hiding behind the car, near the bonnet, then he popped his head out'. The bonnet is at the front, but saying in front, in this case, wouldn't make sense. Behind is both the correct term and, to my ear, the only one to use in this instance. There are many more examples.

I am not saying behind never means 'to the rear of', I am saying in language constructs of this nature in BrE it means 'such that the subject is intervening'.

The quote that was given was that you "get down behind the firing model and if you can see the enemy model then it is 'visible' and can be shot at", which does not fit the examples provided for that definition you are going by.

OK. Well I could have said:

'Get down behind the car and see if you can see the enemy soldier'

'Get down behind the statue and take cover from the paintball shots.'

Or other such things. I think these are closer and still always refer to things being intervening.

This thread is the worst. Seriously, this argument isn't even entertaining like most of the others. This is just miserable.

Drager wrote:OK. Well I could have said:

'Get down behind the car and see if you can see the enemy soldier'

'Get down behind the statue and take cover from the paintball shots.'

Or other such things. I think these are closer and still always refer to things being intervening.

The problem is that the sentence structure, if quoted accurately, does not indicate that the shooting model be an intervening model, but rather a position of placement for the person. If it is not quoted accurately, perhaps you could provide a proper quote to set it to rest?

Lance845 wrote:This thread is the worst. Seriously, this argument isn't even entertaining like most of the others. This is just miserable.

I'm sorry, where does it state that it must be entertaining? If you only come here for the entertainment, then avoid dipping in to the thread.

 Charistoph wrote:

And if I told you to get behind me and see if you can see if I can see something, would you be standing to so you can see my face or my scalp?

A little late to the party, but...

It would completely depend on where I was in relation to you, and where the object (a pie) was in relation to US. If the pie was behind you, and we were face-to-face, I would move behind you AND NOT LOOK AT YOU AT ALL. I wouldn't see either your face or your scalp.

"Behind" is 100% a relational term, not an objective term. Definitely when it comes to objects (like toy soldiers) and EVEN when it comes to persons (like in my example).

When talking about an enemy soldier.

"get down behind the car and if you can see the enemy soldier then they are 'visible' and can be shot at"

Same grammar, but means the car should be intervening.

Drager wrote:
When talking about an enemy soldier.

"get down behind the car and if you can see the enemy soldier then they are 'visible' and can be shot at"

Same grammar, but means the car should be intervening.

So, what is the actual sentence if the one provided is not the proper one? Are we going to bother addressing it at all?

I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. Who said the one provided is not the proper one? I took the sentence you quoted and replaced the nouns thus preserving the structure.

Charistoph, I need to ask, are you trying to argue that the word "behind" cannot be used to describe something intervening in relative to another object?