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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.

Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

I'm 100% sure that GW does not count the size and standard pose of the kit at the time of pricing them. But when you play with random in tournaments some standarization is just needed, and theres no better one than whats GW has done.

As I said, normally we don't have problems with people having cool poses and stuff for their models. We just use the GW "official" silouette if the actual model deviates too much from it. Normally is easy to make the mental abstraction. If theres arguing , it is always visible, tought, to avoid any problem.

I understand the need to have a "standard". I'm just surprised people think that was in any way intended.

"Cylinder the size of the model's base up to its height" (for models with bases) is also a standard, for example.

Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.

There's a difference between being outflanked/forgetting a unit, and your opponent not telling you that you've had an oversight on one model that you fully believed there was no ambiguity over.

Catulle wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.

Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.

Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?

I make the best tank noises . Also, dreadnoughts go "zoot-zoot-zoot" when walking.

When it comes to the LoS question, I think that decorative and posable bits, like arms and aerials and tank commanders, shouldn't be targetable. However, currently they are so right now the Keeper would not be able to hide, unless they turned sideways or you posed them for advantage, in which case they would be able to hide.

One store I play at used "if a shot to that part could kill them, then it's valid for LoS." which is kind of awkward as well. And a vertical column has this issue of being harder to check by going model's eye view.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."

What "playing by intent" is is hard to define with specifics, but generally it meant that when you took an action, you declared your intent and reasons, and your opponent could generally be expected to respect that intent. If I had to define it more accurately, I'd say:

me wrote:Intent Driven Play is gameplay of a wargame with the understanding that the models, while static and lifeless, are actively maneuvering and taking actions on the battlefield. This means that declarations of plausible intent when moving, shooting, etc. with a miniature should be generally respected, and worrying over small details should be done only in cases where there is any doubt as to the plausibility of an action. This serves to speed up play, make the game more gentlemanly and sporting, and facilitate communication and interaction.

Consider the following example:

Player A deploys (or moves!) his Leman Russ behind a building. "My intent is to be hidden from Line of Sight from those units."
Player B: "Well, I can see your radio aerial and a bit of your fender, but that's alright; let's not fiddle over millimetres. Just know that I can move before I shoot with this Predator Annihilator here and will probably see you."
Player A moves or deploys a less important unit. "That's fine; moving degrades your firepower. Thanks for the warning though! Now, these Guardsmen are intended to be more than 1" away from the edge of this woods inside it, but the trees mean that the Heavy Weapon Team base hangs out a bit..."
Player B: "That's fine; it's not a static model in 'real life'; we'll go ahead and declare them out of line of sight. Just remember you can't see, either, except six inches out."
etc. etc.

In that example, you could see two cases of intent that would dramatically impact the game. In 8th edition, that fender and radio aerial would be mercilessly shot at (it feels like) as well as being shot from (it also feels like). A heavy weapons team hanging out the edge of a wood would be an obvious target (though woods don't do what they used to do anyways, but I hope you see the point).

There's nothing in 8th preventing intent-driven play, exactly. You could still declare your intent as you do things. But in my experience this seems much less respected. Do you think this is a result of rules shift, gamer cultural shift, or some other unidentified factor? As a player of other games, I generally don't see 'playing by intent' there either anymore, even in games that historically have embraced it culturally in my experience(e.g. Flames of War). I suppose I'm inclined to think this is a cultural shift, then.

With 9th Edition steaming towards us at full speed and some evidence of changes that will require interacting with an opponent in a 'play-by-intent' manner (e.g. terrain obscuration), what do you all think?

I thought this was the norm for most playgroups, but some of the responses here have proven otherwise

This is very common in historical games. I know my bolt action group does this a lot because our terrain, while pretty, is very fiddly in practice and terrain rules are very important. Flames of war was like this too what with fireteams mounted on bases together meaning it could be very tricky to get teams of men into certain places they clearly would fit in real life.

That said, I've even seen this used in tournament play for 40k. It clears up a ton of arguments early on if you say to your opponent, "hey, I'm moving this guy up, the point is to be X inches from your model for a certain ability, that way we know where it's supposed to be if the table gets bumped or something." That way later when you go to measure and all the sudden it's closer because someone accidentally bumped the model both players can say "ah, he must've been bumped" and fix the issue immediately.

The only flaw with this method is it requires both players to have common sense and not be scumbags, which are traits that are sadly quite rare in today's society. I do agree though that in a hobby involving static models on fiddly terrain while talking, moving things around, and even drinking, statement of intent is crucial to an enjoyable wargaming experience.

I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rahdok wrote:
I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.

If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rahdok wrote:
I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.

If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.

While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer. [Also, like wings are structurally integral to flyers. Aerials and horns are not structurally integral.]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rahdok wrote:
I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.

If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.

While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer.

Unless it's an A-10

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rahdok wrote:
I sort of agree and find it d umb that "I see your Antenna from your tank so all 10 of my snipers are going to shoot it". It's dumb, but at the same time if like 1/3rd of a wing or a tank is peeking out .....im gonna take those shots. Yeah the main body is "hidden" or "out of LOS" but 1/3rd or 1/4th? That gak is getting shot at.

If you can c an antenna, shot an antenna. Won’t damage the tank. Same for custodies spear tips and wing tips and horns.

While getting the tip of an aerial shot off will at most inconvenience a tank, getting the tip of a wing shot off will absolutely degrade the performance of a flyer or outright cause it to crash. Especially a biological flyer.

Unless it's an A-10

Of course. The A-10 is an amazing machine . Though, to be fair, it's probably due for a replacement sometime in the near future.

That, of course, brings up why I think they should have made MC's like Vehicles instead of Vehicles like MC's. Things don't have 12 HP that they get worse when they lose 6 of them. Basically everything, including large and small biological things, dies by critical hits, not by HP. There's a bunch of stuff inside a plane, tank, monster, or even human and some of it is critical to continuing to be able to perform the mission and when those pieces are destroyed [like an ammo rack, pilot, or brain] the object is destroyed.

Airplanes that fly home with impressive amounts of damage are impressive because they're a testament to both a healthy amount of luck and the skill of their aircrews in flying with substantially less controllability than the aircraft was designed with.

@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.

As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.

As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.

when lasers replace 30mm GAU-8 cartridges, then the A-10 will continue to turn tanks/infantry/whatever into pulp.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.

As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.

when lasers replace 30mm GAU-8 cartridges, then the A-10 will continue to turn tanks/infantry/whatever into pulp.

Insectum7 wrote:@A-10: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Especially don't spend billions of dollars fixing it.

It uh, doesn't actually do it with the GAU-8. There's a fairly neat document covering where a GAU-8 Avenger cannon can penetrate a T-62 [which is notably very obsolete and not nearly armored to modern tank standards], and the basics of it basically comes down to only the engine deck is seriously threatened by the rotary cannon. However, the A-10 isn't just a gun with a plane attached to it. It also carries 16000 lbs of bombs and missiles which are very effective against vehicles
The A-10 is a very capable ground support aircraft.

However, I think the policy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" isn't really an entirely good policy. It's important to remain technologically ahead of the opposition, especially for long-development time items like advanced attack aircraft. However, I suspect that the A-10 may find itself in trouble or unable to provide effective ground support and behind-the-lines anti-surface missions in symmetric warfare against a near-peer opponent.

Insectum7 wrote:

As for the rest I mostly agree, but I'm reasonably comfortable with the "swinginess" of D6 damage styles of weapons to represent that. If they knocked the wounding chart back to it's former self you'd get less of the "death by a thousand cuts" scenarios playing out as well. Some adjustment in the Damage and Wound numbers would probably get you the rest of the way, methinks.

Edit: Wow. Katherine fails reading comprehension, I thought this was a different thread.

I guess, restructuring that paragraph: I think wounds just need to go in general, or maybe be the purview of characters exclusively. There are already 2 measures of resilience, there doesn't need to be a third, especially one that doesn't really represent much of anything at all. And a fundamental thing is that where an HP system exists, HP will almost always wind up being the final decider of resilience.

The GAU-8 can kill the entire crew and never penetrate.

It also has no relevance to this thread (nor does the A-10).

Edit: off topic, erased, and replaced with something relatively repeated by largely on-topic.

Anyway, back to the subject of play by intent:

A KT league I played in one time used the houserule of "if the character could die or be incapacitated if shot there, it's a valid target", which let to discussions of whether someone/something could die from taking a shot to the whatever.


I definitely don't think you should accept a claim that something is concealed just because you say that you intend to conceal it. It might just not fit. The building might just not be wide enough, or looking in from above at an angle, or anything. You can't just say you're going to hide and be hidden if the thing you're hiding behind can't hide you.

That said, as I said, I'm willing to take a look if you say "I want to hide here" and tell you if I can still see you.

You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.

My old Sorcerer Lord had a halberd held horizontally, which we ruled as not LoS. Same with the wings on my Possessed sergeant, reasoning that he's the only model with them, they don't provide flying, and are retractable since they fit in a Rhino. The alternative would be that particular bit raises the LoS profile of every other model in the squad by an inch and a half. Clearly, that's dumb, so we agreed not to count it.

Oh, or my Great Unclean One had his sword held aloft. That adds like 2 or 3 inches to the height of the model. It very rarely came up, owing to it deepstriking into close combat, but I remember agreeing to that.

For my opponents, I remember agreeing that a Carnifex's raised scything talons don't count. However, Flyrant's wings did count because they were functional.

 DarkHound wrote:
You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.

My old Sorcerer Lord had a halberd held horizontally, which we ruled as not LoS. Same with the wings on my Possessed sergeant, reasoning that he's the only model with them, they don't provide flying, and are retractable since they fit in a Rhino. The alternative would be that particular bit raises the LoS profile of every other model in the squad by an inch and a half. Clearly, that's dumb, so we agreed not to count it.

Oh, or my Great Unclean One had his sword held aloft. That adds like 2 or 3 inches to the height of the model. It very rarely came up, owing to it deepstriking into close combat, but I remember agreeing to that.

For my opponents, I remember agreeing that a Carnifex's raised scything talons don't count. However, Flyrant's wings did count because they were functional.

That sounds generally pretty fair, but fundamentally dependent on players and expectations.

That's true, but I also find the premise of this thread to be silly. I take cooperation and communication to be the default of any social engagement. And honestly, even in a tournament where you must play and come to an impasse, you just roll off 4+. Like, fine, on a 4+ the winged Possessed counts for LoS (until I pull him as the first casualty). I don't mind doing that for each questionable model in both armies. In 5th, the roll-off rule was on the same page as the golden rule "Have fun". Honestly, that's how we resolved LoS issues in the moment too. 'It's hard to say if that bit of leg is in LoS from the model's perspective, so 4+ for it.'

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I think wounds just need to go in general, or maybe be the purview of characters exclusively. There are already 2 measures of resilience, there doesn't need to be a third, especially one that doesn't really represent much of anything at all. And a fundamental thing is that where an HP system exists, HP will almost always wind up being the final decider of resilience.

That sounded radical to me at first, but then I remembered 3rd and 4th edition, where arguably one of the toughest non-vehicle models was a Wraithlord with T8 and a mere 3 Wounds. Every weapon only did one wound, so you could count on it taking at least 3 hits before going down (hit, wound, cover). It was tough because this was prior to the great escalation of 5th, where special and heavy weapons started going through the roof. Characters had a few wounds too, but most of them were T4 or less, so any hit by a S8 or higher weapon just killed them outright if they failed their save (of which there were many fewer invuls).

Vehicles had their separate damage chart, but a Glancing shot would kill a vehicle on a roll of 6. One Lascannon to your Land Raider could kill it by rolling a 5 for Pen, and a 6 result, or a 6 to pen, and a 4+ result on the damage chart.

I think people didn't like it because a single good hit would just ruin your battle plans, and people really remember the time they deployed a Land Raider and it just blew up immediately. But I think it behaves a lot more like you're asking for. Weapons either worked or didn't, and if they did the results were often pretty dramatic.

Conversely, you could look at 2nd Edition where many models had multiple wounds, but the damage dealt by weapons was often horrific. Wounds capped at 10 (well, except for a named Nurgle Daemon Prince that had 18 iirc.) But a Krak Missile did D10 Damage. A Lascannon did 2D6, and a Heavy Bolter D4, in an environment where a Space Marine Captain had 3W. A single Heavy Bolter round had a 50/50 of killing him. Imagine the uproar these days if a single HB round killed a Captain. I played a game of 2nd last year where I managed to fire a Krak Missile at a Hive Tyrant. I rolled a 7 for damage and I think it only started with 5 wounds. One lucky opportunity for a shot and *pop*, that was that.

These days things are more predictable, but you wind up with this grinding-down system for damage that feels more like video game health bars than an exciting simulation.

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think this? Plenty of games use base-to-base measurements to determine LoS, combined with terrain or model height designations and I've literally never seen it cause a problem. You just draw a line between bases, then once you've established if that line crosses over another model or piece of terrain you have some simple rules to determine if you can see the target and whether it gets some kind of cover bonus.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."

I not only play by the intent but also will point out rule things to help opponent DO what he intends if there's not quite so obvious things to take and if he does something before I get to point out try to sort it out in appropriate order. 2 examples from last game on tuesday.

a) shadowsun fires one fusion weapon vs my rhino and one vs my exorcist. Usually it's irrelevant order he would be rolling so here common way is to roll differently declaring "red is exorcist". Before I got to point he was rolling. Here the order has big effect though. If he fires first at rhino and then exorcist I can use my 1 act of faith per fate with rhino and automatically pass my 6++. Then with exorcist I had triumph nearby that gives act of faith even if already used. The way acts of faith works out if exorcist use first that takes my "1 per phase" despite triumph. It doesn't give one that I can use instead of basic one. Triumph allows another even after base one is used. Thus order matters. Shoot exorcist first, I can only auto pass 1. Shoot rhino first, I pass both. Here I would have saved only rhino and rolled for exorcist(as much as losing exorcist would hurt rhino here was even more essential to cover).
b) I had celestine next to opponent. Opponent declares loud he's moving one(non-troop) model next to objective and kill celestine and thus reclaim objective to fullfil his maelstrom card. I could have stayed silent but...nope not for me. I don't want to neuter plans with "gotcha's!". Lame way so I pointed out celestine will come back alive after shooting phase on 2+(with CP reroll) so he either needs me to roll double 1, need to kill me in melee(near impossible. He had relic weapon that gives 1 S10 Dd6 weapon...but I have acts of faith so single attack is irrelevant since I can auto pass that save anyway) or...move another model to objective. 2 vs 1. So he moved another markerlight spotter near to get the objective regardless of fate of Celestine.

I find playing things reasonably is much more fun. Hell letting opponent do what he forgot is standard for me. Forgot to move unit and we are already shooting? Fine move. Forgot to cast your spell? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't require too much backtracking or heaven forbid redoing attack sequences all is fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?

Yep. Technically speaking the turret moving was illegal anyway unless he did it in movement phase(and that might affect movement rate...) so if tank did that in shooting phase for thematic reasons correct option would be to move it back to original position after shooting anyway. And if opponent claims turret moving outside movement counts for LOS there's no reason he can't move turret again at any point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, the "cylinder" for LOS would be ideal.

No. It wouldn’t. Then we would have incivility concerning imaginary cylinders... not an improvement at all.

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think this? Plenty of games use base-to-base measurements to determine LoS, combined with terrain or model height designations and I've literally never seen it cause a problem. You just draw a line between bases, then once you've established if that line crosses over another model or piece of terrain you have some simple rules to determine if you can see the target and whether it gets some kind of cover bonus.

Yep. Base is very much concrete thing you can measure from and to. It's very easy to measure. It's even easier than TLOS which can have issues getting angle right due to terrain/model for your eyes and even then you can never see EXACTLY from every part of model to see what every point of model see(yes even that tip of a toe)

 DarkHound wrote:
You know, 5th edition handled true LoS and we never ran into these issues. The rules just said 'banners, radios, weapons held aloft, etc. are decorative and don't as part of the model for LoS.' I'll have to get the book in the other room and look at the specific wording. Relevant to this topic, we usually pointed out dramatically posed models to each other and set expectations immediately.

Since you never ran into an issue, tell me this: Is the deff roll part of the hull, or isn't it?

I literally had to discuss which part of my battlewagons were hull with my opponents every. single. game.
There were dozens of threads here on YMDC about whether deff rollas, wave serpent shield spikes, search lights or the rams on trukks were hull or not.
There were issues with entire squads holding their gear up in the air to block LoS to units behind them, despite the unit being out of LoS.

5th edition's ruling might have been cute for immersion (and even failed at that if people were getting gamey), but was horrible from a game play perspective and should never, ever be implemented that way again. So many hours wasted arguing about that nonsense, so many beardy exploits...

The only rule you can implement without having arguments about it every other games is that every part of a model can be shot, no exceptions. I mean, just read this thread about how many different opinions we haven on shooting wings - every other rule would inevitably lead to those subjective opinions to clash when you actually just want to be playing a game.

Every part can be shot is the worst rule.

Use base and size of model(put it in datasheet) to have cylinder. Terrain blocks LOS up to height X.

No arquments, no stupidity of TLOS.

tneva82 wrote:
Every part can be shot is the worst rule.

Use base and size of model(put it in datasheet) to have cylinder. Terrain blocks LOS up to height X.

No arquments, no stupidity of TLOS.

Cylinder fails hard for models that reach out from their base, like every plane and most winged daemons. Not to mention all the geometry issues with uneven boards and ruins.
"Everything can be shot" can be checked with a laser pointer and leaves absolutely no room for arguments.

 Jidmah wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Every part can be shot is the worst rule.

Use base and size of model(put it in datasheet) to have cylinder. Terrain blocks LOS up to height X.

No arquments, no stupidity of TLOS.

Cylinder fails hard for models that reach out from their base, like every plane and most winged daemons.

How? the whole point of measuring base to base is that you ignore everything else. It doesn't matter if there are wings and tails and guns flailing around, the only thing that matters for LoS is the line between bases. There can be problems with units that don't have bases but that's more GW's issue with some of their vehicle models.

Best I have seen sorting the LOS issue was Heroscape (great game and 40K has a similar Keyword system) which defined the bits you could and could not shoot at and even where you drew LOS from as well



Base - to - Base measurement works somewhat but when you start having cover and diffferent levels it can be tricky as it was in Malifaux

That's how killteam works, but that's not what tneva suggested though.

Having LoS decided by the bases doesn't work as long as there are models that still measure to their hull, like hover tanks and unbased vehicles/walkers.

Heroscape what a great, fun, simple but tactical game. I played if before playing 40k (But not Fantasy) and man.

That game rocked! And the miniatures did came prepainted!