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.

Not that i want to drag up some old flame thread, but some maroon i was playing last week tried to tell me that he could target units behind my carnifex between his legs, and used a thread here for reference that sounded bogus (as he couldn't even give me a thread title to look up), but i couldn't find it using search.

I finally had to point out his folley refering him to the appropriate page in the BBB that stated he couldn't he finally relented, but i was curious where the thread he was trying to misinterperet was. Anyone have a link to that thread or was he full of it?

There have been numerous LOS discussions around here... take your pick.

It all comes down to personal preference as to whether tracing a LOS through the space between a model's legs is the same as tracing a LOS through the actual model.

And then of course there's the 'magic cylinder' camp who insist, despite not having any backup in actual rules, that the model blocks LOS in a cylinder the diameter of the model's base up to the model's height.


You're not going to find anything concrete in the rules that says whether or not you can shoot through the model's legs. It's just something you're going to have to sort out with your opponent.

But Page 6 clarified it for me nicely tho, thereby completely negating his argument ..... not sure what the whole cylinder thing is all about hehe, i should read here more often i guess.

Page 6 has nothing to do with LOS.

LOS is explained on page 20.


All Page 6 does is define models, and explain how bases work for measuring.

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base", therefore there is nothing to draw los through, as a model blocks los to its height, and it occupies the area of its base.

No los thru the legs for him that day.

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base",

...so when measuring distances use the closest edge of the base as your reference point."

The area of the base applies to measuring. Nothing more. No reference is ever made to the area of the base having any effect on LOS, and there's a very good reason for that: Area is a 2-dimensional concept, not a 3-dimensional one.

The model occupies the area of its base. What does that mean? It means that the model is considered to have a 'footprint' the size of its base, and so we measure from the edges of that footprint.

The LOS rules NEVER refer to the space occupied by the model, or the area of the base. None of the rules anywhere ever tell us that the model occupies a specific volume of airspace above its base. They instead tell us to use an actual model's eye view to trace actual LOS to the model's body. Not the space around the model. Just the model's body.

I don't see any qualifier there, and they use model, which a model is clearly 3d, so a "model occupying the area of its base idicates that it does indeed require 3 dimensions to apply the wording.

in fact, model height tells us that when determining los, we use models; example :"Size 2: standard targets. basicly every MODEL not included in either of the other catergories."

And we know a model occupies the area of its base. Seems simple enough to me ....

Oh, dammit. 

RUSTY SPOONS AT THE READY!!

(And you magic cylinder people really don't want me to bust out with the magic cylinder dreadnaught again.  Rar!).

Posted By Thunderkiss on 02/27/2006 10:01 PM

Agreed, however, it states that :

"Firstly, a model is considered to occupy the area of its base", therefore there is nothing to draw los through, as a model blocks los to its height, and it occupies the area of its base.

No los thru the legs for him that day.

I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now.  Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?

"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?"


Objection your honor, improper reference and poor grasp of the english language.

Sustained. The defendent will please try to exibit a better grasp of the english language and the usages of words therein, especially in the areas of reading comprehension.

/Humor off

So no, you aren't. you are occupying AN area IN your house, not THE area OF your house. Clearly different.

"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?" -Ghaz

You would have to be really big to do that, or live in a really small house. However it is possible, reguardless of how probable.

Posted By Iorek on 02/27/2006 10:22 PM
Oh, dammit. 

Aaagh! Someone polished my spoons... my poor, poor eyes... however shall I gouge them now?

Gotta love people who selectively read the rules. The rules are quite explicit in stating that an model is considered to occupy the area of its base, so that WHEN MEASURING DISTANCES YOU MEASURE FROM THE BASE. No other relationships are stated or implied.

How people use that to create the magic cylinder is beyond me. I blame it on inability to read the english language.

Now I need to go dig up my rusty spoons.

Thunderkiss wrote:
I don't see any qualifier there, and they use model, which a model is clearly 3d, so a "model occupying the area of its base idicates that it does indeed require 3 dimensions to apply the wording.

That is an improper assumption. If the rule had said that the model occupies the area of its base "up to the height of the model" (or some other determination of height), then you'd have an arguement.

As it stands now, this is what you get (you've made me bust out the old totally awesome picture):




A model only occupies the area of its base (the red and green areas). It does not occupy the area above its base (the blue area).

Don't make me kill this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Play it how you will, but neither side will be able to convince the other that they are right. Both sides claim the rules don't back up the other. However, both sides have been explained here.

There are two camps:

Magic Cylinder (Models take up the area of their base up to the physical model height)

or

Statue (LOS can be drawn through a models legs since they do not move)

Both ways can be abused with modeling (that was for you yak), just talk to your opponent before the game and play it that way.

I mean it, I will KILL this thread.

 

Thanks for the nod, Honkey Bro. . .place nice with the kids now.

This topic always makes me wish I had this guy's job:

 

 

 

Hmmm, you made a good point yak, and now i understand the cylinder thing, altho if i read your picture correcly, that was the cylinder model i was using; not to the model height from the base up, just the model itself and the space between extremities. And now that i mention it, i'm not so very sure how i came to think of it thusly .... mostly because it made the most sense and i wouldn't have idiots trying to target things in the motes between my tyrants wings just because they could see daylight .....

Thunderkiss:

What you have to understand is that this is an area in gameplay that's going to have to be discussed and agreed upon with your opponent beforehand. Personally, I don't prefer to play a game where we're constantly checking to see if models can be seen between legs or underneath tanks, etc.

That is a personal preference. However, the rules state that you cannot shoot THROUGH a model. Shooting between a models legs is not the same thing as shooting through something. If I shot a gun at you, I think we could quickly agree that shooting between your legs and shooting through you are two very different concepts.

The LOS rules state that you take a look from a model's eye view (and provided the LOS is not going over/through a close combat or a piece of area terrain), what you see is what you get.

If I can see models through some legs, or a gap between some wheels, etc, then I should be able to shoot it. That is what the rules state.


Just remember that playing the game to the strictest inerpretation of the rules does not always (usually) provide a fun game. It can make the game stupid, confusing and non-sensical at times.

Like all aspects of the game you have to be willing to compromise with your opponents. If you run into someone who wants to shoot between the legs of your Hive Tyrant, just be aware that he's not doing anything that isn't allowed in the rules. . .although he may not be the kind of player you want to play again.

So finish the game, shake his hand, and don't play him again.

Posted By Elnicko5 on 02/27/2006 10:43 PM
"I'm 'occupying the area' of my house right now. Does that mean that I'm in all of the rooms simultaneously?" -Ghaz

You would have to be really big to do that, or live in a really small house. However it is possible, reguardless of how probable.

No, it doesn't automatically mean that I am, is it?

Posted by Thunderkiss on 02/27/2006 11:40 PM
So no, you aren't. you are occupying AN area IN your house, not THE area OF your house. Clearly different

Yes, I am occupying the area of my house. I'm however only occupying a part of the area of my house, as opposed to me occupying the entire area of my house.

Now tell me where it says that a model "is considered to occupy the ENTIRE area of its base"? It does not. So a model does occupy the area of its base. The area that it is actually in.

Ghaz, I have no idea if you are occuping the whole area of your house, but I doubt you are.

Posted By Elnicko5 on 02/27/2006 11:42 PM
Ghaz, I have no idea if you are occuping the whole area of your house, but I doubt you are.

Although I do have what you might call a "gamer's figure", you would be correct that I'm not occupying the entire area of my house.  Regardless, I am still occupying the area of my house, if only in part.

I have to take exception to that, in order to occupy THE area of your house you would indeed have to be as big as the house, as opposed to occupying area IN your house, where you take up only a small part of it.
The words imply THE, not SOME OF, the object known as the base. The 2 are not the same no matter the semantics.

In fact they don't imply at all, they flat out state what and where, what occupies the base and by how much.

 

The Model (our what), and THE base.

besides, you are an illegal example anyway, GW didn't make any rules for you so we could compare you with a model on a base. Reality did that, and in most peoples reality, THE = the whole thing not part, where you are only occupying a part of the space in your house.

This whole "house" analogy you guys are using is flawed.

Models are not inside their base. They are on top of them.

A better analogy would be to say if you were standing on the roof of your house, and I say that you count as occupying the area of your house. Then, indeed, it could be said that you occupy every inch inside your house (at least we treat you as doing so). However, it cannot be said that any area above the house is actually occupied by you.

And that is exactly what some people are arguing here.

Again, it is entirely possible to occupy an area without physically filling that area. So far there has been no proof given to support the position that you must be physically filling the entire area that you occupy.

Apples and oranges. You are focusing soley on the aspect of occupancy that suits your needs and ignoring the rest. And if we are going to aregue the semantics of the english language which i thought was a forgone conclusion then there really isn't much to discuss; you may feel free to continue to maintain that red=blue because you want it to, but the discussion will halt very quickly.

Again, there is a very LARGE difference between THE area and SOME of the area.
We KNOW you don't, because GW didn't SAY that you do. They DID however say that the model occupies THE base.
My english tells me that that's the whole thing. The roof is certainly a better example, but even still, a moot point here because GW didn't make any rule for models doing such, just models on bases, so your logic still fails ghaz.

No, it's not apples and oranges. You've yet to prove that the model occupies the entirety of the base simultaneous at all times. Prove it instead of just saying 'no, that's not how it is' Because MY English tells me someone can occupy an area and not completely fill that area.

I can occupy my house. What am I occupying? My house. Am I in all parts of my house simultaneously? No.

A model occupies the area of it's base. What does the model occupy? The area of it's base. Is it in all parts of the base simultaneously. NO.

Saying a model occupies the 'area of it's base' is no different than saying 'my car occupies a parking spot' or that 'a tree occupies a yard' or anything else. It in no way, shape or form indicates that it completely and utterly fills that area.

Everyone, stop it!!!! I believe in the last time we discussed this (which was really like the fourth time) people with an open mind decided that it could be interpreted both ways and that the only way to resolve the issue would be for GW to come forward and clarify. I have my opinion and arguments but I will NOT be bringing them up here because the one thing we have proven is that those who believe in one way will not listen to the other and vise versa. So end it!!! My last post said it pretty clearly. Both ways are fair, as long as both parties know about it before the game. Thunderkiss, I recommend you just do that in your next game with this guy. Just decide to change it every other game to be fair, or maybe flip a coin, or winner of last game chooses, or roll off. There are a million ways to decide. I would put more effort into that rather than putting effort into trying to convice others to play it one way or the other. It is not worth me risking getting banned for killing this thread. If we hit page 3, its a goner

Like I said, just ask before the game starts which way people play: Statue or Magic Cylinder

Posted By Ghaz on 02/28/2006 9:07 AM
No, it's not apples and oranges. You've yet to prove that the model occupies the entirety of the base simultaneous at all times. Prove it instead of just saying 'no, that's not how it is' Because MY English tells me someone can occupy an area and not completely fill that area.

I can occupy my house. What am I occupying? My house. Am I in all parts of my house simultaneously? No.

A model occupies the area of it's base. What does the model occupy? The area of it's base. Is it in all parts of the base simultaneously. NO.

Saying a model occupies the 'area of it's base' is no different than saying 'my car occupies a parking spot' or that 'a tree occupies a yard' or anything else. It in no way, shape or form indicates that it completely and utterly fills that area.

The rules for what a model is goes on to explain that a model could be kneeling or standing anywhere on the base as the reason that it occupies the ara of the base. Therefore the model doesn't have to occupy all of the base at the same time to occupy the area of the base for game purposes. The line about measuring distance that yakface quotes is in the model definition section, as an example of how the area is used, ie for measuring distance. Note that the actual rules for measuring distance is in the LOS section on page 20 or so. yakface's crappy drawing is also a misrepresentation of the LOS rules since it does go on to explain that the model is not exactly where it is modeled, it could be anywhere on the base.

yakface's crappy drawing

I believe that is it's official name