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.

Dudeface wrote:
Sadly tneva is right...

And? If someone is hiding an entire squad to keep a single Lascannon safe, then that seems like a bad use of a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Well, 5 guys to nitpick...

Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.

Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.

Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.

Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.

When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?

 Rihgu wrote:
When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?

TLOS in the sense of drawing LoS from one model to another was present, just like it is in every single LoS system.

However 4th ed explicitly gave permission to disregard weapons / banners / accessories / the odd hand sticking out, and IIRC gave models height characteristics to be seen over / blocked by things.

 Rihgu wrote:
When Rhino sniping was a thing did they not use TLoS or did the rhino model not have the enormous gaps beneath them that allow units to see through them under TLoS?

When you are drawing TLOS from the model's eyes, you can't see under a Rhino.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sadly tneva is right...

And? If someone is hiding an entire squad to keep a single Lascannon safe, then that seems like a bad use of a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Well, 5 guys to nitpick...

Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.

Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.

Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.

Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.

Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.

That's fair

Now if we're really talking about macro weapons in particular they could just have a rule that they can shoot through walls, but I guess now we're doing GW style layering of band-aids on top of band-aids.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sadly tneva is right...

And? If someone is hiding an entire squad to keep a single Lascannon safe, then that seems like a bad use of a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Well, 5 guys to nitpick...

Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.

Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.

Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.

Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.

Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.

It's more of a matter of "yeah, I guess you could do that, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good plan". There's no massive advantage to be gained by this "exploit" (lol). As opposed to the current mechanic's realism of unloading your firepower at the edge of a sergeant's banner and killing their entire squad through cloth ricochets or something?

Why is it always "whatever gw is currently doing is the only way, every other option is ridiculous"?

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Sadly tneva is right...

And? If someone is hiding an entire squad to keep a single Lascannon safe, then that seems like a bad use of a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Well, 5 guys to nitpick...

Not if it's a Tac squad. They're locked at 10 unless the latest Munitorum document fixed thst.

Context, a tac squad would survive 9 warlord titans.

Technically, yes, but like with tneva's example, so what? Who's firing a warlord at a tac squad.

Anyway the larger problem is the completely hidden Tac squad that dies becausr the tip of a gun, chainsword or back banner is sticking out. I'd be far less concerned about being able to kill things out of LOS if LOS was better defined and not so stupidly written as ia has been since 8th.

Of all people I thought you'd be more critical of a clearly bizarre mechanic in concept.

It's more of a matter of "yeah, I guess you could do that, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good plan". There's no massive advantage to be gained by this "exploit" (lol). As opposed to the current mechanic's realism of unloading your firepower at the edge of a sergeant's banner and killing their entire squad through cloth ricochets or something?

Why is it always "whatever gw is currently doing is the only way, every other option is ridiculous"?

It isn't, they're both dumb ideas. The "remove models until the model in LoS is dead is the best idea we've seen in here.

At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.

Its a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.

Why do you feel the need to assume that someone can't criticise an idea without defaulting to GW is correct? If someone disagrees, do they very ironically lose the ability for independent thought?

Dudeface wrote:


At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.

It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.

Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.

You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.

It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.

Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.

You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.

The whole squad dying due to a leg sticking out: the enemy sees movement and pounds the area with fire catching the squad as they move behind the rubble and struggle to pull their colleagues back from the fire

Once you get to "just use fluff and imagination" then almost anything flies.

Dudeface wrote:
The whole squad dying due to a leg sticking out: the enemy sees movement and pounds the area with fire catching the squad as they move behind the rubble and struggle to pull their colleagues back from the fire

Once you get to "just use fluff and imagination" then almost anything flies.

Terrain is not this magical inpeneratable substance. If it was, our armies would be strapping it to their tanks. The lore has gone out of is way to say just how overpowered the weapons within the setting are.

The players have perfect knowledge of where all the units are. Narratively, the units on the table might not. Perhaps that leg sticking out is enough for the enemy to figure there's a squad in those ruins and light the whole thing up. There's bound to be weakened spots that gunfire can punch through, or the ruins are hit with so much firepower large chunks topple off doing the damage instead. Point is, I think players should at least entertain the idea that 40k weapons powerful enough that terrain can be more concealment than cover.

Additionally, maybe that leg sticking out is representing each soldier in the squad (or those that can easily access the spot) bracing against the corner to fire with more stability and changing with other soldiers out to reload and/or as casualties mount. I can't believe how often it has to be said that the way the models are posed is only a representative of a single moment. And that moment may have not even happened in that particular game. A leg sticking out could be a great deal of different things that are simply not possible with static miniatures.

It's probably going to be on a situation by situation basis to make sense of what is happening on the table, how the rule mechanics work and converting that into some sort of story/sitrep. And yeah, there's going to be "fluff and imagination" that is going to have to be twisted into a pretzel to make sense. It's crazy easy to nay say any possible lore explanation for a game mechanic.

***

And to be clear, I'm not much of a fan of the volumetric cylinder approach for determining LoS. Not because it doesn't work, it's more complicated or anything else like that. I think it's a pretty fair system to allow for all sorts of modeling that doesn't benefit or hurt the player in the game. My big issue with it is that it tends to make the hit boxes of stuff gigantic compared to what most people in a firefight are going to do. A lot of that negative space in a silhouette is never going to be occupied with anything if that thing wishes to continue to exist after the battle. Followed by the secondary distaste that it really does mean that the game could be played with wooden dowels with stickers on top of what the cylinder represents.

At the same time, a huge hit box does ensure that things are going to happen. And I'm a fan of things happening in games over nothing happening. So, if it were changed, my Mind's Eye Theater isn't going to like it as much, but I'll probably get over it. And I don't really think people are going to be 40k with wooden dowels. I most certainly won't play games with those do if it did happen (I don't care, call be a gatekeeper on that).

What we have at the moment is the simplest option out of all the abstractions.

 morganfreeman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


At no point was I suggesting there was an advantage to an "exploit", simply that the fact you could fire an endless amount of weapons from a unit at 1 guy with a heavy weapon in the open whilst his 9 buddies cap an objective behind a wall and you would at best, leave the weapon user alive and remove 1 random behind the wall.

It’s a dumb interaction, just as much as killing the whole squad because 1 guy is out of cover is.

Except it’s really not a dumb interaction. Someone else said it: It’s an abstraction for the lascannon guy dying, then the next dude shuffling out and picking up the more valuable piece of kit. GW themselves gave this abstraction across multiple rule books for multiple games, way back when.

You’re playing a game with overpriced plastic dolls. If you’re never willing to let your imagination do a little leg work to plug some of the holes then idk what to tell you.

But the abstraction that you can see the enemy unit and therefore kill it as it is moving through an area is alien?

The reason why I don't find the current rules an abomination the same way you do is because I think they're as hassle free as you're going to get. You either obviously cannot hide, you obviously can hide or it's up in the air and your opponent agrees it's possible and you play by intent. Don't count swords and banners? Fair enough, now some of the situations which would have been clearly impossible become up in the air and some of the situations which would have been up in the air become clearly possible, you still have the same problems, you just change something less arguable for something more arguable (is that part of the hull or not) and way more thematic (although you can get pretty far currently with some theater of the mind). That's not to say the rules are perfect, they merely have some merit and shouldn't be changed for the sake of change. Do a poll and some playtesting, do a beta rules release. I liked remove the closest visible model from a thematic standpoint, I think that was 6th edition, Necrons falling over and teleporting forwards is silly and it was quite prominent in 9th. But that had tonnes of downsides, most notably being really sucky for melee units, that's not an impossible thread to needle (just make squishy melee hordes cheaper), it's just not something you should expect to hammer down in a thread about churn which many people dislike.

This is not saying "GW can do no wrong" it's the only sane take that rules shouldn't be changed on a whim, otherwise, you get unbearable churn, the only thing that is churn-like about 10th is the addition of all the unique abilities on datasheets which was not requested and seems totally at odds with the direction of the edition.

 vict0988 wrote:

But the abstraction that you can see the enemy unit and therefore kill it as it is moving through an area is alien?

oh yeah, my unit that deployed in terrain and didnt move all game sure was shot "while moving through an area"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

But the abstraction that you can see the enemy unit and therefore kill it as it is moving through an area is alien?

oh yeah, my unit that deployed in terrain and didnt move all game sure was shot "while moving through an area"

So your Tactical Squad has been sitting partially inside a ruin for the past 60 minutes before the battle begins with the lascannon sitting outside?

Think about the gameplay for a second, is having a single lascannon standing on one side of a wall and the mooks standing on the other side so you can't ever take more than 1 casualty per enemy unit fun and thematic?

Yes, it is, actually, it's just like when you've got the optics plus mahcine gun on the front foxhole and other people are behind watching your back and taking cover, observing, or reporting back. In the short time span a tunr represents no garantuee that others will see they got shot and do something about it in a timeframe that equals a turn.

In the end, abstraction can pretty much justify anything.

But what we'd like from GW is that they made fun rules, that try to balance reasonavle gameplay and allow for its varied universe to be aptly represented.

It's a tough question and they'll never ever get over it if they don't stop changing stuff in strange fashion or disregard any wiser alternative all the time instead of building it up.

And I mean that even prior to 10th for once because as we stated, not sure 5th edition's introduction of TLoS was a change for the better instead of refining their older LoS system.

GW seems to really discard the value of learning and experience and from a player's perspective that's irritating and frustrating, sort of.

Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

To be fair, it's become as much a conceptual discussion as it is strictly a 40k one.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Well they kind of a have to do that. The destructive power of 10 EC lascanons or 10 IF AssC is gigantic, and most armies don't want to run 20 man tacticals and those that do, don't want to run tacticals, but rather the choppy guy, which GW, in their grace pushed years, to first squish in tanks which "you can use in w40k", so people can buy them and then see them legend. But it is true without certain factions a game of past edition w40k can be very fun. Around here a ton of people cast their armies, and more want to use their classic marine stuff to play the setting.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

Defender allocates. Unless you got a precision shot weapon. So no,not rhino sniping.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?

Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?

Edit: misinformation about 30k removed.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
But what we'd like from GW is that they made fun rules, that try to balance reasonavle gameplay and allow for its varied universe to be aptly represented.

It's a tough question and they'll never ever get over it if they don't stop changing stuff in strange fashion or disregard any wiser alternative all the time instead of building it up.

I feel like your statements contradict. When GW tries to make fun and reasonable rules they get screamed at for changing things too much. At the same time they have to change things because people are always screaming that the rules are unthematic, unfun or unbalanced.

Absolutely criticize GW for changing things that were near-perfect that few disliked, that's silly and GW should stop. Criticize GW for releasing points with new editions and codexes in a broken state that leads to 30% and 70% win rates for different factions and needing half of the edition to fix. Criticize current rules you don't like and ask they be changed next edition and discuss what the best changes could be. But GW cannot make good changes without also accidentally making bad changes going from a 3/5 to a 2/5 is okay and part of the process, criticize the 2/5 rule, not the process of changing rules or the amount of rules changes because 10th is still built on the scaffolding of 8th and that is close enough that GW should be mostly upgrading things. Be specific about problems and send polite and properly worded feedback directly to GW.

It might actually be useful to have a community voting platform for each ability and datasheet to get deeper understanding of what needs to be improved once every codex has been released. 10th is not for me, but I still want GW to slow down by a year or two if it makes 11th that much better on release instead of having to wait for 12th for the game to become good.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?

Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?

The defender can continually send men out to scoop up the Lascannon, but if he chooses not to, the hiding gents don't die, but the Lascannon gets riddled with the remaining fire and destroyed...


Ok maybe not that last bit but it's an abstraction, right? Right?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?

Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?

Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.

So it's essentially one of several variations which multiple people have already presented as a solution (myself included), and which multiple past editions of 40k had.

The claim that it means 'no killing models out of LoS' was probably what caused confusion for people.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?

Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?

Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.

Hold on, you're contradicting each other, you're saying here you can rhino snipe to take out individual models based on field of vision, you and others above are also saying it doesn't work that way and you allocate the wounds into the unit until you're out of line of sight. Which is it?

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Errgghh. I take a while off from the sight only to see that we're still on LoS issues. Lemme throw a bit of rules on you guys:

If at any point while allocating Wounds, there is no model in the target unit that is within line of sight or range of the attacking unit then all remaining Wounds in the Wound Pool are lost.

Absolutely astounding. No "hiding lascannons". No killing models out of LoS. Solid rules writing from gw. Why are all of the competent rules writers over at 30k? Don't know. No idea. But there you go. Have fun with this mess folks.

Isn't that just rhino sniping territory again? Or does it allow you to allocate wounds to any model in the unit?

As Not Online already mentioned, no, as the defensive player allocates the Wounds, as long as they fall within the aforementioned rules. Nice try, though.

But if the lascanon is the only model which is in line of sight because several Rhinos have parked in such a way to make that the case, I'm not seeing a way to read that rule which doesn't lead to Rhino sniping..?

Is the way it works in 30k that the defender can remove models which the attacker can't see?

Sure. If you want to dedicate multiple Rhinos to taking out a single lascannon, which is improbable in 30k, where units with singular lascannons are rare. But, maybe use positioning to avoid such things, that for characters and such? The Dark Gods know that we don't want positioning to matter in a 3D wargame, after all.

Hold on, you're contradicting each other, you're saying here you can rhino snipe to take out individual models based on field of vision, you and others above are also saying it doesn't work that way and you allocate the wounds into the unit until you're out of line of sight. Which is it?

You can't allocate Wounds into anything out of LoS. Period. Can't see it? Can't shoot it. I copied the rule verbatim in my previous post.

Oh. So it IS Rhino sniping then. That isn't a solution to the original problem at all!