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.

I have a basilisk where the gun can move up and down. If i raise the gun, it gains LOS over tall hils and other terrain. If I lower the gun however, no point of the model can "see" (and fire at) the units on the other side, and in turn they cannot see any part of the basilisk. So which is it? Do I put it in one position when the battle starts and thats the position it's in for the rest of the battle?
LRBT also have a rotating turrent and have different LOS depending on how the turrent turns.

Ultimately it comes down to what you and your opponent agree to (or a tournament organiser decides). A few ways I might agree are fair, depending on specific model:
1. Choose a fixed position and use it for the whole battle.
2. Choose a fixed position each battle round, so you can change position each round, but if you get to see them on your turn, they get to see you on theirs, and you can't hide without cutting off your own LOS.
3. You decide the position on your turn, opponent decides the position on theirs. Requires an opponent you're more comfortable with moving your model or interpreting how they want you to move it.
4. Ignore moving parts for LOS purposes entirely.

I think it should be a stationary model during the game. Raising it so you get LoS and then lowering it so opponent doesn't is a form of modeling for advantage, and I wouldn't appreciate it. On the other hand I love the turning turrets etc. I think the above post is spot on. Agree ahead of time on a decision that is fair to both players. I once played a game against a player who had a "collapsible" model. On his turn it could fold out into a roughly 6" cube model, and then at the end of his turn he would fold it up into a 3" cube...since it was in a building, true LoS rules meant I could not see it. Fortunately the local game store referee stopped it first turn without me even having to say something. Extreme example, but you really never want to be that guy.
As a note...area terrain rules pretty much eliminate all of this foolishness, so it is understandable but unfortunate GW went the way they did.

Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

Well you move it during the movement phase. Shooting is a different phase.

So Move it how you want, but don't change it when it is not your move phase. So you can raise it but then your opponent might see you too.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

No, the real world doesn't have "turns". This would be right out as far as I am concerned and is the very definition of Modelling for Advantage and being TFG.

A basilisk doesnt need LOS, it can shoot anywhere, its artillery. Whats the point of having LOS for it ? I dont know the exact rules.

p5freak wrote:
A basilisk doesnt need LOS, it can shoot anywhere, its artillery. Whats the point of having LOS for it ? I dont know the exact rules.

So it can shoot it's heavy bolter.

p5freak wrote:
A basilisk doesnt need LOS, it can shoot anywhere, its artillery. Whats the point of having LOS for it ? I dont know the exact rules.

That is true, I used it as it's the only model I've seen where there's quite a big difference between the "size" of the model depending on whether the gun is lowered or raised.

And it has a HB as BaconCatBug mentioned

While it's perfectly fine to leave things modular or movable, there are no rules for changing your model's configuration or stance. In a permissive ruleset, that means you are not permitted to change your model during the game.

If there are no rules for stance i will lay my rhino on the side, or have it stand up vertically, depending on the situation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about this ?

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the
case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of
the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of
the model. It does not include things such as turrets,
sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is
still doubt, we recommend both players agree about
what constitutes the hull of such models before the
battle begins.

This would mean that the gun does not count for LOS.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

No, the real world doesn't have "turns". This would be right out as far as I am concerned and is the very definition of Modelling for Advantage and being TFG.

Wait. So you mean a player shouldn't be able to claim LOS to a target on their turn and then deny that same target LOS back to them because their weapon retracts?
That hardly seems fair to the person who took all the time to make sure the mechanism was built so that it functioned that way.

I suppose I won't be able to claim my kneeling Eldar rangers can shoot over the hedge on my turn but are obscured during my opponent's turn, if you put it that way.
What an incredibly un-fun way to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

p5freak wrote:
If there are no rules for stance i will lay my rhino on the side, or have it stand up vertically, depending on the situation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about this ?

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the
case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of
the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of
the model. It does not include things such as turrets,
sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is
still doubt, we recommend both players agree about
what constitutes the hull of such models before the
battle begins.

This would mean that the gun does not count for LOS.

Then couldn't a player model the hull to be extendable and retractable to match the gun mount's height?
That way you could gain LOS (from the hull) when you're shooting but retract it when you're being targeted.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

I hope your joking because I cant see how anyone playing like this could ever find an opponent willing to waste their time on such a disgusting match.

Soulless wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

I hope your joking because I cant see how anyone playing like this could ever find an opponent willing to waste their time on such a disgusting match.

I second this opinion but if I were your opponent and you insisted on drawing LOS for a heavy bolter from the tip of the howitzer barrel, when you tried to lower it afterwards I would simply remind you that movement is only allowed in the movement phase.

p5freak wrote:
If there are no rules for stance i will lay my rhino on the side, or have it stand up vertically, depending on the situation


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about this ?

Q: When a model does not have a base, as is the
case with many vehicles, what exactly is the ‘hull’ of
the model?
A: The hull of these models refers to the main body of
the model. It does not include things such as turrets,
sponsons, aerials, banners, spikes etc. If there is
still doubt, we recommend both players agree about
what constitutes the hull of such models before the
battle begins.

This would mean that the gun does not count for LOS.

You measure to/from the hull but you draw LoS to/from any part of the model.

Wagguy80 wrote:

Soulless wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

I hope your joking because I cant see how anyone playing like this could ever find an opponent willing to waste their time on such a disgusting match.

I second this opinion but if I were your opponent and you insisted on drawing LOS for a heavy bolter from the tip of the howitzer barrel, when you tried to lower it afterwards I would simply remind you that movement is only allowed in the movement phase.

So you don't move your models during the charge phase?

Moving bits of a model is not 'modelling for advantage'. Has no one ever turned a turret to aim at the unit being fired at because it looks cool?

Given the new LOS rules it seems fairest to say that if you move it you leave it until your next turn. Move it again your following turn if you like. But you can agree this with an opponent and don't need rules for it. If you can't agree and have artillery say in the backfield waving their barrels up and down, well, go kill it with stuff.

Turning turrets to point at the target was actually specified in the rules in some previous editions. The current edition gives no permission to change the configuration of a model at all.

Previous editions dont matter now. 8th edition also doesnt disallow to move any parts of a model. I would discuss it with my opponent before playing.

p5freak wrote:
Previous editions dont matter now. 8th edition also doesnt disallow to move any parts of a model. I would discuss it with my opponent before playing.

It also doesn't disallow me to kill a puppy for a re-roll (What can I say, Dark Eldar players are weird). The rules don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you can do. The rules don't say anything about moving individual parts of models, so you can't.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It also doesn't disallow me to kill a puppy for a re-roll (What can I say, Dark Eldar players are weird). The rules don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you can do. The rules don't say anything about moving individual parts of models, so you can't.

To me the rules arent carved in stone, i have no problem to discuss any changes with my opponent. However, it should make some sense, and it should be logical. For example i would agree that models with JP can hover in midair, within 1". Because they can fly. The rules dont allow that, but i would be ok with it, because it makes sense. I wouldnt allow any normal infantry to hover in midair, because they cant fly.
If he wants to raise the barrel of his gun i would allow it, but only in his movement phase, and it has to stay that way until his next movement phase.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

No, the real world doesn't have "turns". This would be right out as far as I am concerned and is the very definition of Modelling for Advantage and being TFG.

Logic clearly dictates that you choose your turret position during your turn, no one elses.

This means that if you have set the turret up so you could fire, it remains in this position until your next turn.

You have to see the turns in pairs, as if they were being conducted simultaneously.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

p5freak wrote:
Previous editions dont matter now. 8th edition also doesnt disallow to move any parts of a model. I would discuss it with my opponent before playing.

It also doesn't disallow me to kill a puppy for a re-roll (What can I say, Dark Eldar players are weird). The rules don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you can do. The rules don't say anything about moving individual parts of models, so you can't.

The rules are a mix of permissive and prohibitive, lots of May and lots of Cannot also. So your logic doesn't work I'm afraid.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rules are a mix of permissive and prohibitive, lots of May and lots of Cannot also. So your logic doesn't work I'm afraid.

Can you give an example of a 'can not' in the rules which is not revoking an already granted permission?

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rules are a mix of permissive and prohibitive, lots of May and lots of Cannot also. So your logic doesn't work I'm afraid.

Can you give an example of a 'can not' in the rules which is not revoking an already granted permission?

Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Turning turrets to point at the target was actually specified in the rules in some previous editions. The current edition gives no permission to change the configuration of a model at all.

Turning turrets rarely will ever effect LOS.
There still gonna be seen or not..

Plus helps keep track of what's firing on what.

Raising and lowering your gun to exploit LOS... Kinda far, I mean its a game.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Whether or not they've been introduced in the rules yet is inconsequential. Fall Back is putting a restriction on the permission granted to Shoot or Advance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

False. It's putting a restriction on an already established permission, i.e. Movement.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Whether or not they've been introduced in the rules yet is inconsequential. Fall Back is putting a restriction on the permission granted to Shoot or Advance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

False. It's putting a restriction on an already established permission, i.e. Movement.

You ask about 'already granted permissions' then change what you've asked? Eh, this is all off topic anyway. The rules liberally use can and cannot, may and may not. They are demonstrably mixing permissive and prohibitive. You can't show otherwise.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:

Soulless wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Raise it when you want to fire and draw LOS.
Drop it when it's not your turn.
That's how the vehicle would behave in the 'real world'.

I hope your joking because I cant see how anyone playing like this could ever find an opponent willing to waste their time on such a disgusting match.

I second this opinion but if I were your opponent and you insisted on drawing LOS for a heavy bolter from the tip of the howitzer barrel, when you tried to lower it afterwards I would simply remind you that movement is only allowed in the movement phase.

So you don't move your models during the charge phase?

Only if you charge. Are you gonna charge with your artillery?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Whether or not they've been introduced in the rules yet is inconsequential. Fall Back is putting a restriction on the permission granted to Shoot or Advance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

False. It's putting a restriction on an already established permission, i.e. Movement.

You ask about 'already granted permissions' then change what you've asked? Eh, this is all off topic anyway. The rules liberally use can and cannot, may and may not. They are demonstrably mixing permissive and prohibitive. You can't show otherwise.

You have to show that the prohibition isn't on something that you get permission to do normally. It doesn't matter if it's listed before or after in the rules, you still have the basic permission that something being prohibited revokes. Go back and find an example where there's a prohibition for something that isn't said to be permitted normally. Otherwise, to go by your logic the "kill a puppy for a re-roll" would be valid since it's not prohibited.