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.

Hello All,

I'm looking to get a ruling on whether being Obscured affects Visibility and Line of Sight.

In our Kill Team group, we have a player saying that being Obscured affects Line of Sight, but that's not how it's worded in the rules.

Visibility says line of sight is from the shooting model to any part of the target model. Obscure says to not count sticking out bits, but I'm pretty sure that Obscured only affects the Hit Roll. If part of the main body is obscured, it's a -1 to hit rolls, it says nothing about impacting line of sight or visibility.

The player in question plays Tyranids, and is arguing that if the tail is the only visible part, we cannot target that model in the Shooting phase. It is my understanding that this used to be the case in 7th edition and earlier, but was changed in 8th and Kill Team. The wording now for target eligibility says: "see if any part of the target is visible from any part of the shooting model". That sounds like it includes all parts including things like tails, weapons, wings, banners, etc.

Can I get a ruling here? I see both sides of the argument, like shooting at a weapon barrel wouldn't inflict a wound, but on the other hand if a unit sees a set of wings sticking out of a tree he's going to throw a grenade.

Thanks in advance.


For clarification, here are the rules from the Kill Team core book:

Range and Visibility:
In order for a shooting model to target an enemy model, the enemy model must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model to see if any part of the target is visible from any part of the shooting model. Models cannot target enemy models that are within 1" of friendly models – the risk of hitting your own troops is too great.

HIT ROLL MODIFIERS:
Target model is at long range (see opposite) -1
Target model is obscured (see right) -1
Each flesh wound on the attacking model (pg 32) -1
Attacking model’s kill team is broken (pg 36) -1

Obscured:
Other models (even friendly models) and terrain may hide a target from view. If the target of an attack is even partially obscured from the best point of view of the firing model (that is, the point of view from a part of the firing model that gives the clearest line of sight), then it is said to be obscured.
When checking to see if a target is obscured, consider the main body of the firing and target models – do not include a model’s base or parts that are ‘sticking out’ like aerials or weapons, but do include all limbs and a model’s head. If there is still doubt, we recommend the players agree about what constitutes the main body of a model before the battle begins.

From a RAW standpoint, the tail isn't something "sticking out", it's a limb. You are expressly told to count limbs, so you count the tail.

From a common sense standpoint, If all you could see of a Brontosaurus was the tail, would you really not be able to say that you can't see a brontosaurus? A snake is pretty much all tail, except for the head, so you wouldn't be able to see a snake if you can't see its head?

Thanks! So RAW if the tail is behind cover, the target is considered obscured?

Also, what I'm looking for is clarification on whether the Obscure contributes at all towards target eligibility in the Shooting phase. If all I can see is a tail or a barrel of a gun, can I still target them in the shooting phase? My understanding is that if any part of the target model is visible, you can shoot at it.

 Communinja wrote:
Thanks! So RAW if the tail is behind cover, the target is considered obscured?

Also, what I'm looking for is clarification on whether the Obscure contributes at all towards target eligibility in the Shooting phase. If all I can see is a tail or a barrel of a gun, can I still target them in the shooting phase? My understanding is that if any part of the target model is visible, you can shoot at it.

This is correct.

The obscured section is specifically and only the criteria for being obscured.

Line of Sight is any part of the model to any part of the model. However, it does seem to be a fairly common houserule to use the same criteria that's used for obscured for LoS.

Thank you. It sounds like we'll be discussing using that as a house rule as well, but I'm glad to hear that I'm correctly interpreting how it is written.

What is your aim in changing the rule ?
Realism, balance, stopping rules abuse, something other ?

While using the "obscured rules" for LOS might remove some weird feeling situations, it might create some, especially regarding models on different levels.
Imagine a trooper on a higher floor behind a piece of wall (like a parapet or a window ledge). Very often he would not be able to shoot at a model at the base of the wall, as no body part of his protrudes over the edge. Which feels wrong and gives attackers a save haven. Of course we could all change our models, but than the hands are where the weapons were before and we are basically back at the starting point.

Also changing LOS will give models who prefer to hide advantages and models who prefer to shoot disadvantages, generally shifting balance towards CC-troops. Which some players might find great and others might see it differently.

In most cases you could move your model just half an inch further into cover or rotate the model, so it does not protrude in a way to be shot at, and if you do not have enough movement left to do so, so may be it.
If you know the rule you can play by it. Move the model out of sight and if it is not possible for whatever reason - it's not possible.

There are players who abuse the "current" rule by adding banners or poles to shoot from behind cover. On the other side there are players who pose their models in a way that they occupy the least volume possible. No matter how you decide those people will always find a way to counter your rules, e.g. Tyranids or Chaos with a 2 inch arm raised to heaven standing on their toes or simpler an eye on a tentacle or whatever.

I'm not saying don't use a house rule, I just wonder whether it will grant what you hope for.

brumbaer wrote:
What is your aim in changing the rule ?

Same problem as always. If you're model is not in a fetal position, it's not optimal.

Thanks again everyone!

We're going to discuss it at our next game. While I prefer to play with RAW (so there's no debate about it) the player in question is misinterpreting the rules. They think that since Obscured and Visibility are mentioned closely in the book that they are related, but they're not. It specifically says in the Hit Roll section to consider whether the target is Obscured and to check the Obscured description. No where in the Visibility section does it mention Obscure so it does not affect LOS. That's the RAW. I'm willing to play by a house rule if that prevents us losing a player, but I'm glad to hear I'm not wrong about the RAW.

Definitely you can see the model from any point of your or the other model.
Then determine if they are obscured based on how much of the model is visible not including spikey bits, accessories, banners etc.

If you want you can houserule it so that banners, spikey bits etc are not included for LoS.
I also have an agreement with a certain model where it's otherwise quite small but has a chainsword held high that I "intend" to hide the model behind something else and would the opponent consider it not visible even if the chainsword tip is visible from the existing positions.
The importance here is intent and agreeing it before moving. I also do not count that tip of my chainsword when determining LoS when I shoot if the rule is agreed. Of course if anyone moves and changes their LoS that's different. I only say I intend to hide from a certain set of units in their current position.

Accordong to rules it is as you say.

But for example in my group everyone agreed to change that rule. The part of the model that counts is from the crotch to the head. So if you see the whole torso and head you can shoot without penalties. If you see only the head, or half torso is -1 due to obscured. If you only see arm/leg/weapon/backpack you cannot shoot.

We agreed that in this way it becomes more logical.

Khellendr0s wrote:

We agreed that in this way it becomes more logical.

It also makes model pose rather more important. There's a much larger advantage to crouching models with that rule in force.

I notice that you don't suggest that you made that change in order to improve gameplay...

We just use the rules as they should be.
Can’t say there’s ever a problem.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Khellendr0s wrote:

We agreed that in this way it becomes more logical.

It also makes model pose rather more important. There's a much larger advantage to crouching models with that rule in force.

I notice that you don't suggest that you made that change in order to improve gameplay...

It doesn't matter how you do it, the body possition of the mini is going to have a lot to do in how they perform. Choosing whole body or just torso+head may not improve gameplay, but does not deprove it neither. And seems more logic to us.

In my cricle we play for fun. In case someone starts doing models kneeing to hide better, he will receive blame and shame until year 30.000.

We house-rules the visibility-obscure thing by saying that everything that is above the base and lower than the top of the models head counts. Everything above the models' head and outside the base does not count towards the model is visible, including the base itself, unless it's a part of the model's body.

So if only an antenna, hose, backpack or a weapon is sticking out and it's not above the base or lower than the top of the models' head, the model is assumed not visible. If there is, for an example, an elbow or a leg visible, it's obscured.
If the entire model (and all body parts) are visible except part of the base, the model is considered not obscured.

Terrain elements on the base do not count either. You have to see at least a part of the model's body to consider it a viable target.

I don't really care what my opponent wants to count as the actual target and what they want to call as bits sticking out as long as we both generally agree beforehand and if the model has LoS to shoot, it can be shot by those same targets. In Kill Team, I prefer lean toward more targetable area as I generally load the board with terrain making it far easier to completely hide anyways.

Also, A general house rule I have is models on a higher building story automatically have cover to models on lower levels. This is pretty easy with Citadel(TM) Terrain since everything I have is spaced at 5" stories. I like to inform my opponent of that distance, and I find funny that each one checks to find out I am right. I think high ground should be favored, and Kill Team already doesn't do a lot favors with its falling rules to models within 1" of edges.