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.

hey guys.

Id say that according to my 2020 9th edition mini rule book that the terrain feature, ruins and forests says that if you stand behind a ruin, then you draw LOS to the model, as it states, you use the normal rules for LOS in ruins.

It states:
Area Terrain:
Area terrain can include ruins, Woods, Craters and other terrain features that models can move into and through. Each time an area terrain feature is set up on the battlefield, both players must agree upon the footprint of that terrain feature - that is, the boundry of the terrain feature at ground level. This is essential to define so that players know when a model is wholly on or within that terrain feature, and when it is not. For some Area Terrain features, their footprint will be obvious, especially if the terrain feature has a base or some other well defined boundry, but if not, then agree with your opponent what the footprint is. Models can move up, over and down Area Terrain following the normal rules for movement. A model on or behind Area Terrain uses the normal rules for determining if another model is visible to it, or if it is visible to another model. Area Terrain cannot be chosen as the target of an attack (but units within them can).

If theres any typos then its because i wrote it myself directly from the book (Chapter Approved: Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack and Munitorum Field Manual). I cant find that text in the online core PDF rule book.

But a guy send me this picture and i dont know where it comes from, which states something different (PICTURE BELOW). In fact, it states that you draw LOS to the base instead. So which is it? is the picture ive shown you from an older book or a newer book ive missed? Is it from the large 9th edition Core book? I dont have that book, i took my info from Chapter Approved: Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack and Munitorum Field Manual. Why would those 2 have two different explanations for how vision works near ruins?

The reason i ask is that i had a unit that i felt had vision of an enemy unit, that was standing BEHIND a ruin (thus not inside of it) and i couldnt see its base. but its tentatcles were sticking out from the side so i said i could shoot it, he said i couldnt because you need vision to the base when behind an area terrain called ruins. The tentacles (they were wraiths from Necrons i think) were all i could see, but visibility dictates normally that you just need to draw LOS from model to any part of the enemy model, and not the base. So i dont know what is correct in that situation. I understand that my LOS would be broken by obscurring rule if it passed pass OVER or THROUGH the Ruin, but it didnt, his tentacles were just sticking out at the side. According to the picture below, however, i needed vision of his base? not his model.

The picture is specifically talking about ruins, which have the Obscuring terrain trait (among a few others).

With the Obscuring terrain trait " models cannot see through or over this terrain feature. This means that one model is not visible to another if you cannot draw a straight line, 1mm in thickness, between them without it passing through or over any part of this terrain feature." This applies only of the terrain feature is at least 5" in height.

You do not use "the normal rules for LOS in ruins." (Though you do not measure base to base, I am not sure why that is mentioned in the pic).

 DeathReaper wrote:
The picture is specifically talking about ruins, which have the Obscuring terrain trait (among a few others).

With the Obscuring terrain trait " models cannot see through or over this terrain feature. This means that one model is not visible to another if you cannot draw a straight line, 1mm in thickness, between them without it passing through or over any part of this terrain feature." This applies only of the terrain feature is at least 5" in height.

You do not use "the normal rules for LOS in ruins." (Though you do not measure base to base, I am not sure why that is mentioned in the pic).

I know, and its exactly the "measure to base" im interested in. Because id say you DO NOT measure to the base, so why would it state so on the picture?

Do you know where the picture is from? And how am i supposed to say i can shoot him, if the rules state that it draws to the base in that picture? Because it doesnt state base on my Chapter Approved: Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack and Munitorum Field Manual.

At all.


I dont know the newest large core book for 9th edition, that large book you can get so i dont know whats written there. But do you know where that picture is from? Is it updated for 9th edition or an older picture from an older book?

Looks like it is from the book that came with the Command Edition 40K starter. I would not take these books as any kind of gospel. They are almost their own thing, outside of the 40K rules. They are a very simplified ruleset to start playing the game, leaving out many things. And they tell you to go get the real rules once you’ve burned through the book. In short, I would accept nothing in the books that came with the starter sets as official. The three starters all came with a ‘teaching’ book, and this appears to be from the Command one that came with terrain.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-DK/Warhammer-40000-9th-Rulebook-EN-2020

Is that this book you refer to?

Beardedragon wrote:
I know, and its exactly the "measure to base" im interested in. Because id say you DO NOT measure to the base, so why would it state so on the picture?

Do you know where the picture is from? And how am i supposed to say i can shoot him, if the rules state that it draws to the base in that picture? Because it doesnt state base on my Chapter Approved: Grand Tournament 2020 Mission Pack and Munitorum Field Manual.

At all.

I dont know the newest large core book for 9th edition, that large book you can get so i dont know whats written there. But do you know where that picture is from? Is it updated for 9th edition or an older picture from an older book?

I do not know where that pic is from.

It is never "Measure Base to Base" for visibility.

If you read a little further though, they are just talking about drawing a line from base to base to see if that line crosses the footprint of the ruin.

As you can see it says "If it is not possible to draw such a line without it crossing over the footprint of the ruin, and neither model is within that ruin, then the two models cannot see each other." (This is because of the Obscuring terrain trait).

You don't have to have LoS to the base.

Thats not at all how i read it.
I read it as if you cant draw a line between the two bases without it crossing over or through the terrain, then theres no vision.


In my gameplay case, my base would cross a line through the ruin to his base, if i had to measure to his BASE.

In this case my own "base" was a vehicle with no base. But i couldnt see his base at all, it was behind the ruins. I could only see the tentacles sticking out.

Beardedragon wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-DK/Warhammer-40000-9th-Rulebook-EN-2020

Is that this book you refer to?

NO! It is from the book included with the Command Edition STARTER SET. It is intended to teach people the game, but it is NOT a full rule book, and I would say not even an ‘official’ one. It is only intended to get people going, and simplifies or leaves out altogether many things. It should not be considered a source of any info.

I see.

But this is essentially how we were standing (see picture below).

The Ruin is obscurred, yet i see his hands. Do i draw LOS to the Base or the model in this scenario?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 totalfailure wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-DK/Warhammer-40000-9th-Rulebook-EN-2020

Is that this book you refer to?

NO! It is from the book included with the Command Edition STARTER SET. It is intended to teach people the game, but it is NOT a full rule book, and I would say not even an ‘official’ one. It is only intended to get people going, and simplifies or leaves out altogether many things. It should not be considered a source of any info.

EDIT: this is the book he took it from. i found out. thanks

Can you draw a 1mm straight line from any point of your model to any part of the enemy model without it passing through or over any part of the ruin ? If yes, he isnt obscured. The base is part of the model.

 p5freak wrote:
Can you draw a 1mm straight line from any point of your model to any part of the enemy model without it passing through or over any part of the ruin ? If yes, he isnt obscured. The base is part of the model.

I could yes.

So the exact rules for Obscuring in the 9thEd BRB are as follows:

If this terrain feature is at least 5" in height, then models cannot see through or over this terrain feature. This means that one model is not visible to another if you cannot draw a straight line, 1mm in thickness, between them without it passing through or over any part of this terrain feature. The height of a terrain feature is measured from the highest point on that terrain feature.

Models that are on or within terrain feature can see, and can be seen and targeted normally. AIRCRAFT models, and models with a Wounds (W) characteristic of 18 or more, are visible and can be targeted even if this terrain feature is in-between it and the firing model (note that the reverse is not true).

It does not mention the base. However, I believe the rule for Obstacles would still apply and is as follows:

Obstacles include Barricades, Ruined Walls and other battlefield debris that your models have to move over or around. Models can move up, over and down Obstacles following the normal rules for movement. A model on or behind an Obstacle uses the normal rules for determining if another model is visible to it, or if it is visible to another model. Obstacles cannot be chosen as the target of an attack.

An INFANTRY, BEAST or SWARM model receives the benefits of cover from an Obstacle while it is within 3" of that terrain feature unless, when you resolve an attack that targets that model's unit, you can draw straight lines, 1mm in thickness, to every part of that model’s base from a single point on the attacking model’s base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of this terrain feature.

The rule in the small book is likely a simplified combination of the two rules for new players.

On a side note though, I feel like I recall something about the visibility needing to be part of the main body and not just some random parts sticking out. That may have been something from an earlier edition that is no longer an official rule or it could have been a house rule. The point was that it doesn't make much sense to say "Oh look, that Captain guy is sticking his sword way out in the air and I can see just the tip, so I can totally shoot him." Similarly, "Excellent, I shot a hole in that Callidus Assassin's giant hair braid since it's defying gravity and sticking out above the solid concrete wall, so she dies now." A lot of models have odd and ends sticking way out that would make them artificially worse models using a literal LoS between models which either wouldn't be like that realistically like the Callidus' hair, or would be easily hidden if the model could change pose, like a Captain's sword or Phoenix Lord Fuegan's gun. Of course, the opposite would also apply so even if it makes no sense to say that the Callidus can shoot over a solid wall from the tip of her hair like she was standing on the second floor of a building, a literal use of physical LoS would allow that. Can you imagine people bringing back banners on fully ranged Dreadnought's just for the LoS height advantage? Basilisk would have LoS from the tip of their Earthshaker cannon, effectively third floor view of the map.

Edit: There's also a helpful clarification for Obscuring and Dense Cover on Wahapedia that I have yet to find in the BRB:

Obscuring and Dense Cover are two terrain traits introduced with ninth edition that interact with visibility. These rules do not overwrite the normal rules for determining visibility, though - they are in addition to them. Specifically, even though the Obscuring rules state that AIRCRAFT and models with a Wounds characteristic of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, they are still only visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they are still not eligible targets). Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target (with the noted exceptions). It is not required for a unit to be fulfilling the criteria of ‘gaining the benefits of cover’, as described for Obstacles and Area Terrain, for this penalty to hit rolls to apply (but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty).

 SergentSilver wrote:


Edit: There's also a helpful clarification for Obscuring and Dense Cover on Wahapedia that I have yet to find in the BRB:

Obscuring and Dense Cover are two terrain traits introduced with ninth edition that interact with visibility. These rules do not overwrite the normal rules for determining visibility, though - they are in addition to them. Specifically, even though the Obscuring rules state that AIRCRAFT and models with a Wounds characteristic of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, they are still only visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they are still not eligible targets). Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target (with the noted exceptions). It is not required for a unit to be fulfilling the criteria of ‘gaining the benefits of cover’, as described for Obstacles and Area Terrain, for this penalty to hit rolls to apply (but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty).

You won’t find that in any rulebook - it is lifted verbatim from the Echoes from the Warp column in White Dwarf 462 by Robin Cruddace. Which strangely enough, was about terrain, and had several examples.

 totalfailure wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:


Edit: There's also a helpful clarification for Obscuring and Dense Cover on Wahapedia that I have yet to find in the BRB:

Obscuring and Dense Cover are two terrain traits introduced with ninth edition that interact with visibility. These rules do not overwrite the normal rules for determining visibility, though - they are in addition to them. Specifically, even though the Obscuring rules state that AIRCRAFT and models with a Wounds characteristic of 18+ can be seen through Obscuring terrain, they are still only visible (and hence eligible) targets if the firing model can physically see them (so if the terrain in question is solid and opaque, they are still not eligible targets). Also, in the same way that Obscuring terrain ‘blocks’ visibility when it is in between the firing model and its intended target, Dense Cover terrain imposes a hit penalty whenever it is between the firing model and its intended target (with the noted exceptions). It is not required for a unit to be fulfilling the criteria of ‘gaining the benefits of cover’, as described for Obstacles and Area Terrain, for this penalty to hit rolls to apply (but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty).

You won’t find that in any rulebook - it is lifted verbatim from the Echoes from the Warp column in White Dwarf 462 by Robin Cruddace. Which strangely enough, was about terrain, and had several examples.

Ah, good to know. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire The Rules section of the BRB, while it mentions "line of sight" and "normal rules for visibility", it never actually says what those rules are, making this incredibly frustrating.

 SergentSilver wrote:
Ah, good to know. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire The Rules section of the BRB, while it mentions "line of sight" and "normal rules for visibility", it never actually says what those rules are, making this incredibly frustrating.

You cant find what those rules are? Probably because "Visible" is kind of buried in the Shooting Phase section of the rules under "Select Targets"

Select Targets P.15 PDF rulebook wrote: Only enemy units can be chosen as the target for an attack. In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit. If there are no eligible targets for a weapon then that weapon cannot shoot. If this is the case for all of a unit’s ranged weapons, then that unit is not eligible to shoot with.

(Emphasis mine)

So there is the "definition" of visible, though it leave it widely open to interpretation. E.G. How far behind the firing model can you look from? At what height can you look from? Some models do not have a "Back" (looking at you Necrons – Obelisk, Monolith, Convergence of Dominion, etc...and Space Marine Drop Pod Et. Al.) What then?

I was going to point out that definition, but got edged out. Meanwhile, 40K has operated on the ‘True Line of Sight’ model, that is, if you were in the models place, could you see the target? But deciding where that point is on say a vehicle is a lot harder than deciding what your average human model can or can’t see. There’s probably no part of 40K that causes more arguments than LoS.

At the same time, we accept a lot of the game as abstractions already, like I go-You go, weapon ranges, that a unit that may have been crouching or crawling if they were sensible while moving is standing full upright like cardboard cutouts when they’re targeted...in short, things aren’t perfect, but there are always going to be issues like this in miniatures games, and players have to decide whether they can deal with them, or if it ‘ruins’ the game too much to keep playing.

40K has generally favored ‘playability’ over ‘realism’ throughout the years, and that’s unlikely to change. Sure we could have LoS charts for every vehicle in the game showing where you could see from, and what arcs, etc. But I don’t think most 40K players would actually want that. Or they just think they do...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:
Ah, good to know. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire The Rules section of the BRB, while it mentions "line of sight" and "normal rules for visibility", it never actually says what those rules are, making this incredibly frustrating.

You cant find what those rules are? Probably because "Visible" is kind of buried in the Shooting Phase section of the rules under "Select Targets"

Select Targets P.15 PDF rulebook wrote: Only enemy units can be chosen as the target for an attack. In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit. If there are no eligible targets for a weapon then that weapon cannot shoot. If this is the case for all of a unit’s ranged weapons, then that unit is not eligible to shoot with.

(Emphasis mine)

So there is the "definition" of visible, though it leave it widely open to interpretation. E.G. How far behind the firing model can you look from? At what height can you look from? Some models do not have a "Back" (looking at you Necrons – Obelisk, Monolith, Convergence of Dominion, etc...and Space Marine Drop Pod Et. Al.) What then?

I did see that, and was considering mentioning it, but I couldn't find it again when I went to copy it down. I even reread the Shooting Phase section twice over for it and somehow skimmed right over it both times. In the end though, just like you said, I decided it didn't really explain the rules of visibility clearly enough, so it left it just as frustrating as when I started. If anything, it seems to imply literal physical LoS from models, giving a rather extreme artificial advantage to melee units with compact poses and a similar advantage to ranged models with highly spread out poses. It especially gives a disadvantage to a lot of the new character models with their tall, flashy bases and poses making them taller and more spread out than they need to be even though they are designed for melee only. Melee oriented character's like the Callidus Assassin, Lelith Hesperax, Ragnar Blackmane, Jain Zhar, Drazhar, most Infantry holding a banner of some kind, etc are at an extreme disadvantage for LoS and cover, while models with excellent range can now effectively buff themselves by adding height to their base so they can see over cover. Melee oriented units get nothing but a penalty for height and action poses, while for ranged oriented models it's a bit of a risk/reward between seeing better and being more easily seen in return. Similarly, melee oriented factions such as Orks, DE, and CD get an almost universal artificial debuff, while ranged oriented armies like Tau, IG, and Eldar get an almost universal buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 totalfailure wrote:
I was going to point out that definition, but got edged out. Meanwhile, 40K has operated on the ‘True Line of Sight’ model, that is, if you were in the models place, could you see the target? But deciding where that point is on say a vehicle is a lot harder than deciding what your average human model can or can’t see. There’s probably no part of 40K that causes more arguments than LoS.

At the same time, we accept a lot of the game as abstractions already, like I go-You go, weapon ranges, that a unit that may have been crouching or crawling if they were sensible while moving is standing full upright like cardboard cutouts when they’re targeted...in short, things aren’t perfect, but there are always going to be issues like this in miniatures games, and players have to decide whether they can deal with them, or if it ‘ruins’ the game too much to keep playing.

40K has generally favored ‘playability’ over ‘realism’ throughout the years, and that’s unlikely to change. Sure we could have LoS charts for every vehicle in the game showing where you could see from, and what arcs, etc. But I don’t think most 40K players would actually want that. Or they just think they do...

For me it's more about the extra parts granting artificial buffs or debuffs to LoS than "where can I see out of this vehicle". Sure, there are some vehicles where it makes more sense to check a more realistic view, such as the DE boats which would make the most sense to check from deck height rather than the tip of the sail, but for most closed-top vehicles I would say it's fair to assume they have built in sensors of some kind and have full vision around from the hull and any weapons platforms where it makes sense to have a sensor, like from the center of a Whirlwind Launcher. But with this rule, you could run Basilisks or Manticores and put the weapons up for better LoS. If you wanted to be a dick about it, you could even put them back down at the end of your turn to make them less visible, because the RAW say nothing against changing movable pose models at any time. That would likely make people stop playing with you, but think about the complaints in highly competitive tournaments when you don't get a choice.

 SergentSilver wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:
Ah, good to know. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire The Rules section of the BRB, while it mentions "line of sight" and "normal rules for visibility", it never actually says what those rules are, making this incredibly frustrating.

You cant find what those rules are? Probably because "Visible" is kind of buried in the Shooting Phase section of the rules under "Select Targets"

Select Targets P.15 PDF rulebook wrote: Only enemy units can be chosen as the target for an attack. In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit. If there are no eligible targets for a weapon then that weapon cannot shoot. If this is the case for all of a unit’s ranged weapons, then that unit is not eligible to shoot with.

(Emphasis mine)

So there is the "definition" of visible, though it leave it widely open to interpretation. E.G. How far behind the firing model can you look from? At what height can you look from? Some models do not have a "Back" (looking at you Necrons – Obelisk, Monolith, Convergence of Dominion, etc...and Space Marine Drop Pod Et. Al.) What then?

I did see that, and was considering mentioning it, but I couldn't find it again when I went to copy it down. I even reread the Shooting Phase section twice over for it and somehow skimmed right over it both times. In the end though, just like you said, I decided it didn't really explain the rules of visibility clearly enough, so it left it just as frustrating as when I started. If anything, it seems to imply literal physical LoS from models, giving a rather extreme artificial advantage to melee units with compact poses and a similar advantage to ranged models with highly spread out poses. It especially gives a disadvantage to a lot of the new character models with their tall, flashy bases and poses making them taller and more spread out than they need to be even though they are designed for melee only. Melee oriented character's like the Callidus Assassin, Lelith Hesperax, Ragnar Blackmane, Jain Zhar, Drazhar, most Infantry holding a banner of some kind, etc are at an extreme disadvantage for LoS and cover, while models with excellent range can now effectively buff themselves by adding height to their base so they can see over cover. Melee oriented units get nothing but a penalty for height and action poses, while for ranged oriented models it's a bit of a risk/reward between seeing better and being more easily seen in return. Similarly, melee oriented factions such as Orks, DE, and CD get an almost universal artificial debuff, while ranged oriented armies like Tau, IG, and Eldar get an almost universal buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 totalfailure wrote:
I was going to point out that definition, but got edged out. Meanwhile, 40K has operated on the ‘True Line of Sight’ model, that is, if you were in the models place, could you see the target? But deciding where that point is on say a vehicle is a lot harder than deciding what your average human model can or can’t see. There’s probably no part of 40K that causes more arguments than LoS.

At the same time, we accept a lot of the game as abstractions already, like I go-You go, weapon ranges, that a unit that may have been crouching or crawling if they were sensible while moving is standing full upright like cardboard cutouts when they’re targeted...in short, things aren’t perfect, but there are always going to be issues like this in miniatures games, and players have to decide whether they can deal with them, or if it ‘ruins’ the game too much to keep playing.

40K has generally favored ‘playability’ over ‘realism’ throughout the years, and that’s unlikely to change. Sure we could have LoS charts for every vehicle in the game showing where you could see from, and what arcs, etc. But I don’t think most 40K players would actually want that. Or they just think they do...

For me it's more about the extra parts granting artificial buffs or debuffs to LoS than "where can I see out of this vehicle". Sure, there are some vehicles where it makes more sense to check a more realistic view, such as the DE boats which would make the most sense to check from deck height rather than the tip of the sail, but for most closed-top vehicles I would say it's fair to assume they have built in sensors of some kind and have full vision around from the hull and any weapons platforms where it makes sense to have a sensor, like from the center of a Whirlwind Launcher

. But with this rule, you could run Basilisks or Manticores and put the weapons up for better LoS. If you wanted to be a dick about it, you could even put them back down at the end of your turn to make them less visible, because the RAW say nothing against changing movable pose models at any time. That would likely make people stop playing with you, but think about the complaints in highly competitive tournaments when you don't get a choice.

When are you given permission to move your model? The rules tell you what you can do, not an exhaustive list of what you cannot do.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 SergentSilver wrote:
Ah, good to know. Unfortunately, after reading through the entire The Rules section of the BRB, while it mentions "line of sight" and "normal rules for visibility", it never actually says what those rules are, making this incredibly frustrating.

You cant find what those rules are? Probably because "Visible" is kind of buried in the Shooting Phase section of the rules under "Select Targets"

Select Targets P.15 PDF rulebook wrote: Only enemy units can be chosen as the target for an attack. In order to target an enemy unit, at least one model in that unit must be within range (i.e. within the distance of the Range characteristic) of the weapon being used and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, get a look from behind the firing model to see if any part of the target is visible. For the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its unit. If there are no eligible targets for a weapon then that weapon cannot shoot. If this is the case for all of a unit’s ranged weapons, then that unit is not eligible to shoot with.

(Emphasis mine)

So there is the "definition" of visible, though it leave it widely open to interpretation. E.G. How far behind the firing model can you look from? At what height can you look from? Some models do not have a "Back" (looking at you Necrons – Obelisk, Monolith, Convergence of Dominion, etc...and Space Marine Drop Pod Et. Al.) What then?

I did see that, and was considering mentioning it, but I couldn't find it again when I went to copy it down. I even reread the Shooting Phase section twice over for it and somehow skimmed right over it both times. In the end though, just like you said, I decided it didn't really explain the rules of visibility clearly enough, so it left it just as frustrating as when I started. If anything, it seems to imply literal physical LoS from models, giving a rather extreme artificial advantage to melee units with compact poses and a similar advantage to ranged models with highly spread out poses. It especially gives a disadvantage to a lot of the new character models with their tall, flashy bases and poses making them taller and more spread out than they need to be even though they are designed for melee only. Melee oriented character's like the Callidus Assassin, Lelith Hesperax, Ragnar Blackmane, Jain Zhar, Drazhar, most Infantry holding a banner of some kind, etc are at an extreme disadvantage for LoS and cover, while models with excellent range can now effectively buff themselves by adding height to their base so they can see over cover. Melee oriented units get nothing but a penalty for height and action poses, while for ranged oriented models it's a bit of a risk/reward between seeing better and being more easily seen in return. Similarly, melee oriented factions such as Orks, DE, and CD get an almost universal artificial debuff, while ranged oriented armies like Tau, IG, and Eldar get an almost universal buff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 totalfailure wrote:
I was going to point out that definition, but got edged out. Meanwhile, 40K has operated on the ‘True Line of Sight’ model, that is, if you were in the models place, could you see the target? But deciding where that point is on say a vehicle is a lot harder than deciding what your average human model can or can’t see. There’s probably no part of 40K that causes more arguments than LoS.

At the same time, we accept a lot of the game as abstractions already, like I go-You go, weapon ranges, that a unit that may have been crouching or crawling if they were sensible while moving is standing full upright like cardboard cutouts when they’re targeted...in short, things aren’t perfect, but there are always going to be issues like this in miniatures games, and players have to decide whether they can deal with them, or if it ‘ruins’ the game too much to keep playing.

40K has generally favored ‘playability’ over ‘realism’ throughout the years, and that’s unlikely to change. Sure we could have LoS charts for every vehicle in the game showing where you could see from, and what arcs, etc. But I don’t think most 40K players would actually want that. Or they just think they do...

For me it's more about the extra parts granting artificial buffs or debuffs to LoS than "where can I see out of this vehicle". Sure, there are some vehicles where it makes more sense to check a more realistic view, such as the DE boats which would make the most sense to check from deck height rather than the tip of the sail, but for most closed-top vehicles I would say it's fair to assume they have built in sensors of some kind and have full vision around from the hull and any weapons platforms where it makes sense to have a sensor, like from the center of a Whirlwind Launcher

. But with this rule, you could run Basilisks or Manticores and put the weapons up for better LoS. If you wanted to be a dick about it, you could even put them back down at the end of your turn to make them less visible, because the RAW say nothing against changing movable pose models at any time. That would likely make people stop playing with you, but think about the complaints in highly competitive tournaments when you don't get a choice.

When are you given permission to move your model? The rules tell you what you can do, not an exhaustive list of what you cannot do.

Thank you. I was going down a bit of a pessimistic train of thought and you broke me out of it with that. I had to go back into the BRB and check the rules again and found out that movable pose models are actually considered in the rules and changing the pose is considered a movement action, as described here:

When you move a unit, you can move any of its models (you can also choose
not to move some of the models in that unit if you wish). Whenever you move
a model, you can pivot it and/or change its position on the battlefield along
any path, but no part of the model’s base (or hull) can be moved across the
bases (or hulls) of other models, nor can any part of that model (including its
base) cross the edge of the battlefield. You can also rotate any movable part
of the model (such as turrets and sponsons) when it is moved. The distance
a model moves is measured using the part of the model’s base (or hull) that
moves furthest along its path (including parts that rotate or pivot).

So unless you have a Stratagem, Command, etc. that allows them to move outside of the Movement Phase or something forces them to make a Move action, their poses can't be changed after the Movement Phase. That's a minor relief at least.

Some folks have indeed tried those shenanigans!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Some folks have indeed tried those shenanigans!

Unfortunately, considering the general self-centeredness of some people and occasional cutthroat competitiveness you find in games like this, that doesn't surprise me one bit.

i made a post but it doesnt matter. Its been talked about by you guys.

But yes, according to the rules, you do not draw LOS to the base when behind ruins or Area terrain. And given the picture showing that you DO that came from that command manual, i guess that settles it. Its not core rules.

Has anyone noticed that the ruins in this article are considered "Dense Cover" but the same ruins in the BRB are keyed as having light cover? (They say ruined walls have dense cover, ruins have light)

You can assign any terrain traits to any terrain piece (p.262). Or you can use the ones predefined in the BRB for simplicity (p.264/265).

For sure, I just thought it strange that the game designer himself was saying that ruins were dense cover in an article even though he said they were light cover in the rulebook - like why not be consistent?

 totalfailure wrote:
Looks like it is from the book that came with the Command Edition 40K starter. I would not take these books as any kind of gospel. They are almost their own thing, outside of the 40K rules. They are a very simplified ruleset to start playing the game, leaving out many things. And they tell you to go get the real rules once you’ve burned through the book. In short, I would accept nothing in the books that came with the starter sets as official. The three starters all came with a ‘teaching’ book, and this appears to be from the Command one that came with terrain.

This. Everyone trying to apply the full rules to the Get You By Pamphlet will find it’s not compatible. Don’t even try.