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.

Query that comes up in my games lately:

If a model that does not require line of sight to shoot fires at an enemy model, but between my unit and the enemy unit is a dense terrain of 3" in height, does the -1 penalty apply?

Argument 1: Dense Cover states: "If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base (or hull)...".

Thus, the Dense Cover rule requires you to draw a line whether you ignore line of sight or not. If the line doesn't meet the Dense Cover rule, you get -1 to Hit.

Argument 2: Permission to ignore line of sight also means you do not draw a line for Dense Cover.

What does YMDC say?

Im of the opinion these weapons ignore the LOS requirement and therefore the obstruction modifier does not apply.

In the same way if its 5" you can still shoot when you wouldn't be able to if it wasn't for the ignoring LOS rule..

Audustum wrote:
Query that comes up in my games lately:

If a model that does not require line of sight to shoot fires at an enemy model, but between my unit and the enemy unit is a dense terrain of 3" in height, does the -1 penalty apply?

Argument 1: Dense Cover states: "If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base (or hull)...".

Thus, the Dense Cover rule requires you to draw a line whether you ignore line of sight or not. If the line doesn't meet the Dense Cover rule, you get -1 to Hit.

Argument 2: Permission to ignore line of sight also means you do not draw a line for Dense Cover.

What does YMDC say?

Argument 1 is what the rule says, Argument 2 is something people make up because it feels like indirect fire should ignore dense cover.

There's nothing in the LoS rule to imply that ignoring LoS would ignore the line check and there's nothing in line check rule for dense that implies connection to finding LoS.

ERJAK wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Query that comes up in my games lately:

If a model that does not require line of sight to shoot fires at an enemy model, but between my unit and the enemy unit is a dense terrain of 3" in height, does the -1 penalty apply?

Argument 1: Dense Cover states: "If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base (or hull)...".

Thus, the Dense Cover rule requires you to draw a line whether you ignore line of sight or not. If the line doesn't meet the Dense Cover rule, you get -1 to Hit.

Argument 2: Permission to ignore line of sight also means you do not draw a line for Dense Cover.

What does YMDC say?

Argument 1 is what the rule says, Argument 2 is something people make up because it feels like indirect fire should ignore dense cover.

There's nothing in the LoS rule to imply that ignoring LoS would ignore the line check and there's nothing in line check rule for dense that implies connection to finding LoS.

Surely by that merit LOS ignoring weapons aren't able to target anything if they would have to shoot through terrain thats 5" tall.. Because why would they ignore the trait for terrain thats 5" tall but not if if its 3" tall ?

ERJAK wrote:

Argument 1 is what the rule says, Argument 2 is something people make up because it feels like indirect fire should ignore dense cover.

There's nothing in the LoS rule to imply that ignoring LoS would ignore the line check and there's nothing in line check rule for dense that implies connection to finding LoS.

Agreed.

ERJAK wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Query that comes up in my games lately:

If a model that does not require line of sight to shoot fires at an enemy model, but between my unit and the enemy unit is a dense terrain of 3" in height, does the -1 penalty apply?

Argument 1: Dense Cover states: "If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon unless you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of at least one model's base (or hull)...".

Thus, the Dense Cover rule requires you to draw a line whether you ignore line of sight or not. If the line doesn't meet the Dense Cover rule, you get -1 to Hit.

Argument 2: Permission to ignore line of sight also means you do not draw a line for Dense Cover.

What does YMDC say?

Argument 1 is what the rule says, Argument 2 is something people make up because it feels like indirect fire should ignore dense cover.

There's nothing in the LoS rule to imply that ignoring LoS would ignore the line check and there's nothing in line check rule for dense that implies connection to finding LoS.

This, but expect it to be FAQ'd

I'm not sure, but isn't Los ignoring basically "you don't have to draw a line of sight to your target" and when you don't have to draw that line it's not going to pass over anything, obviously.

That's how I play it at least.

LOS means that the target can be seen from the shooter. It has nothing to do with drawing lines from base to base.

LOS is separate from drawing a line through the cover to determine if the model receives the benefit of cover.
In the rules they seem to have been quite particular about avoiding the term "line of sight" when writing the rules for terrain.

As written, 3 checks are needed when shooting:
LOS
Range
Intervening cover

A weapon that ignores LOS doesn't ignore the other two.

I do think it likely that this could be FAQ'd at some point. IIRC there was a FAQ in 8th ed about something similar.

Aash wrote:
LOS is separate from drawing a line through the cover to determine if the model receives the benefit of cover.
In the rules they seem to have been quite particular about avoiding the term "line of sight" when writing the rules for terrain.

As written, 3 checks are needed when shooting:
LOS
Range
Intervening cover

A weapon that ignores LOS doesn't ignore the other two.

I do think it likely that this could be FAQ'd at some point. IIRC there was a FAQ in 8th ed about something similar.

There was a FAQ about something similar I believe also, but I can't even begin to figure out how to find it.

And thank you, everyone. I come down on the side of saying you get the -1 because the Dense Cover rule requires you to draw a line independent of any check for line of sight. So even if you ignore checking for line of sight, you don't ignore dense cover's requirement to draw a line.

nekooni wrote:
I'm not sure, but isn't Los ignoring basically "you don't have to draw a line of sight to your target" and when you don't have to draw that line it's not going to pass over anything, obviously.

That's how I play it at least.

No, it's not. A line of sight line and the line you draw to determine whether Dense Cover applies are two different lines.

For one thing, regular Line of Sight does not require you to see the entire base/enemy model, just any part of it.

the_scotsman wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I'm not sure, but isn't Los ignoring basically "you don't have to draw a line of sight to your target" and when you don't have to draw that line it's not going to pass over anything, obviously.

That's how I play it at least.

No, it's not. A line of sight line and the line you draw to determine whether Dense Cover applies are two different lines.

For one thing, regular Line of Sight does not require you to see the entire base/enemy model, just any part of it.

I second this.

Drawing a TLOS to determine whether a model can shoot or not =! drawing a base-to-base line to determine effect of terrain.

But why would you apply -1 modifier if terrain has 3" in height and apply its trait and but still be able to shoot if the terrain is 5" and not apply its "cannot target if shooting through this terrain"?

Surely you apply the terrain rule in both instances or neither?

 Argive wrote:
But why would you apply -1 modifier if terrain has 3" in height and apply its trait and but still be able to shoot if the terrain is 5" and not apply its "cannot target if shooting through this terrain"?

Surely you apply the terrain rule in both instances or neither?

The way I see it, you do apply the terrain rules in both cases. The obscuring rule says if you draw a line through obscuring terrain that’s 5” tall you can’t see the target. It doesn’t say you can’t shoot the target. Whether or not you can shoot the target is covered in the core rules - the core rules say the target must be visible. If a weapon ignores LOS then that is specified in the rules of that weapon, allowing you to ignore the requirement for the target to be visible.

So, obscuring terrain is still there, but you are specifically allowed to ignore the penalty imposed by the obscuring terrain. You aren’t able to ignore the penalty imposed by dense cover.

so the weapon is more accurate if you cannot see the target at all but less accurate if you can actually see the target... Doesn't seem strange to you ?

I'm sure it will be cleared up by an faq but as things stand it seems very weird.

 Argive wrote:
so the weapon is more accurate if you cannot see the target at all but less accurate if you can actually see the target... Doesn't seem strange to you ?

I'm sure it will be cleared up by an faq but as things stand it seems very weird.

I agree, it’s odd. Hopefully they FAQ this, but as it is now, HIWPI is apply the -1 modifier for dense cover.

FWIW, I think all ignore LOS weapons should have a -1 to hit if they can’t see their target anyway. Especially now that to hit modifiers don’t stack. With the new terrain rules it would be very easy: “when targeting a unit that is not visible, the target unit receives the benefits of dense cover.”

ignoring line of sight, and ignoring cover bonuses are two separate things.

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring line of sight, and ignoring cover bonuses are two separate things.

So if a piece of terrain just happens to 2" taller than 3" it gives no benefit? Okay I guess..
There is no internal logic to this rule IMO.

 Argive wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring line of sight, and ignoring cover bonuses are two separate things.

So if a piece of terrain just happens to 2" taller than 3" it gives no benefit? Okay I guess..
There is no internal logic to this rule IMO.

Because GW wants actual terrain on tables and not paper circles so they added minimal heights that normal terrain should have anyway.

It also helps distinct Ruined Walls from Barricades

 Argive wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
ignoring line of sight, and ignoring cover bonuses are two separate things.

So if a piece of terrain just happens to 2" taller than 3" it gives no benefit? Okay I guess..
There is no internal logic to this rule IMO.

I agree it's not a realistic rule but I don't think there's any room for debate about what the rule actually says. As someone pointed out earlier, GW have been pretty careful not to mix up LoS and drawing of lines for determining cover bonuses.

 Argive wrote:
But why would you apply -1 modifier if terrain has 3" in height and apply its trait and but still be able to shoot if the terrain is 5" and not apply its "cannot target if shooting through this terrain"?

Surely you apply the terrain rule in both instances or neither?

Because that's not how Obscuring is worded. It's worded "can't SEE THROUGH"