Determining visibility

My 2c...

yes, Angst is technically correct. Personally, I would not try and pull that in most games because I believe it to be against the spirit of the game. The wording is...

"In order to target an enemy unit, a model from that unit must be within the Range of the weapon being used (as listed on its profile) and be visible to the shooting model. If unsure, stoop down
and get a look from behind the shooting 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 own unit."

For me - this tells me to "stoop down and get a look from behind the shooting model (as in their own line of sight) and see if any part of the target is visible"

So I would not draw LoS from the tip of a raider sail simply because that's not what I read in the intent and in the spirit of the rules. Line of Sight has always been view from the head or weapon for many, many editions and personally I feel like the hull/body is a far more accurate and fair method of drawing LoS.

But like I said, technically Teenage Angst is correct

Barrywise wrote:

Can I claim Ad hominem here?

"short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
-wiki

The other person did it, so i can and should be encouraged to do so as well.

Your definition is correct. Your example is not.

TeenageAngst has in no way attacked the character of his opponent. He has simply stated that if his opponent interests a rule in a particular way, then he should be allowed to use the same interpretation of said rule.

To use a rather archaic phrase: "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

I actually don´t think that firing from the tip of the sail is literally in the rules. They say "get behind the model" and you are more behind the model if you are behind the bulk of the model. One example. You stand on he floor, stretching your arms to the side as far as you can and tell me to get behind you. Do you intend to get behind your fingertips? I doubt it. Of course you can play it like that but I doubt that it´s intended. On another note: Would you please tell me what tournaments you are playing that are pushing that intention of atenna firing lascannons?

If you play on such a tournament: Please to so too! You don´t have to limit yourself when everone else at those tournaments does, but I have never seen anybody (let alone a TO) using this interpretation. Could you please tell us who does?

Jeah I also go with the emphasis on the first part: "must be visible to the shooting model". Thus as in a place where they could realistically see it from. Now of course the antenna could be argumented to have sonar or something thus being the eyes, but exhaust pipes, part of a flag etc do not.

You know, I could have sworn that GW had clarified this in an faq. However, I looked again and couldn't find any mention of it.

CptMetal wrote:

I actually don´t think that firing from the tip of the sail is literally in the rules. They say "get behind the model" and you are more behind the model if you are behind the bulk of the model.

But the rules don't require you to be 'as behind the model as possible' or 'behind the bulk of the model'. If you are behind the sail of a model, you are still behind the model.

I get what you're saying but I think you're reading too much into the rules.

CptMetal wrote:

You stand on he floor, stretching your arms to the side as far as you can and tell me to get behind you. Do you intend to get behind your fingertips? I doubt it.

Perhaps, but you are still behind me. If I wanted you to get behind my shoulder or such then I should have specified that.

Something else to consider though is that I don't just need to get behind you, I need to get behind you and see something in front of you - possibly blocked by obstacles.

Let's expand your example a bit: Firstly, let's say that you ask me to get behind you and see if I can see a blue car in the distance.

Well, especially if the blue car is partially hidden by other obstacles, I'm going to shift positions a bit and try and find a position that's behind you but which also offers the best vantage point of that blue car.

Now let's expand the example further and say that, in addition to everything else, there is a brick wall in front of you with only one of your hands poking out. Well, now that is literally the only place where I can be both behind you and seeing the blue car.

CptMetal wrote:

Of course you can play it like that but I doubt that it´s intended.

Each to their own but I always think that 'this is what the designers intended' is shaky ground. Unless you speak to them directly I don't think you can really declare what their intent was. Going by faqs and such (especially past ones), the designers seem to have intended some really weird and unintuitive things.


Just to be clear, Cpt, I don't like or agree with these rules and I think it's perfectly reasonable to house-rule them in some way. I'm just not comfortable with blaming people for playing the rules as written.

TeenageAngst wrote:

When the TO allows my opponents to fire lascannons from their antennas, what am I going to do, Jim? Puff out my cheeks and hold my breath? Or do the same thing back at my opponent?

More like *if* the TO allows that. Considering the argument that is occuring in this thread, it seems like that will be purely up to the TO's judgment call, and that will vary from TO to TO.

Barrywise wrote:

Can I claim Ad hominem here?

"short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
-wiki

The other person did it, so i can and should be encouraged to do so as well.

That's absolutly not an Ad Hominem argument.
For good Ad Hominem arguments, read the posts that depict T. A. as a butthurt player that doesn't have any form of sportsmanship and try to make him look as awful as possible to prove that his application of the rules are bad. That is the very definition of an Ad Hominem.
Your attempt to discredit T. A. for his hypothetic argumentative fallacy is, for example, an Ad Hominem. So get out of your shiny armor.

About the rule itself : If I see a ball arriving behind your head, and i shout "Behind you !", are you going to say "That's not behind ME. That's behind my HEAD. Behind me would require for the ball to be behind my torso" ? If yes, then you are what is currently called a nasty nitpicker ^^ If not, then the application of T. A. is perfectly correct.

Being technically correct is the best kind of correct. GW should address it in an FAQ for sure but in the meantime, rules as written.

Also, i don't know what's so inconceivable about Raiders (or flyers in general) being unable to hide behind low-medium buildings. They are space ships flying from outer space. The fact that we all require so much on hiding BOATS behind a pile of rocks is, in my eyes, pure gorgonzola.

In 8th edition, it's very easy to hide infantry models. It's hard to hide tanks, boats, monsters, flyers bikes... all seems very logical to me.
A flying boats shouldn't has its line of sight blocked by a pile of rock. It's a flying boat for wrack's sake.

"but only one of your guys can 'see' my unit! And that's if you're looking through the spike T the top of his helmet!!"

"They jump."

Since models shoot 1 by 1 (which allows the splitfire), if only 1 sees you only 1 can shoot, i think.
Not sure about that.

Is it one by one? Or do you pick a unit, pick all the models that want to shoot a singular target and then pick target and roll dice?

Either way, the scenario I described would perhaps better be fitted to the sail argument.

The entire crew (Kab Warriors) and the Lance fire at the unit visible only from the tippy top of the Raiders sail.

It can be described away as the FLYING BOAT going up for a bit, but then dropping behind rocks to hide from reprisals.

The same excuse cannot be given to my friend, who at the drop of 8th ed modelled a large number of flag and banner bearers onto the top of his tanks.

It turns out that rudimentary depictions of Imperial propaganda hits for S9 AP-3 Dd6 at 48".
Who knew.

Either way, and regardless of circumstance, be it models gunning down opponents dozens of times the range of their guns away because 1 guy is in range, or LoS arguments and the lack of specifics regarding what can and can't shoot. The absence of a "X% obscured" rule or the general flood of typos, loopholes and balance issues that came out of this edition.
I think we can all agree that this rule set needs a MAJOR rework before it can be called "good".

Ikol wrote:

The same excuse cannot be given to my friend, who at the drop of 8th ed modelled a large number of flag and banner bearers onto the top of his tanks.

It turns out that rudimentary depictions of Imperial propaganda hits for S9 AP-3 Dd6 at 48".
Who knew.

Haha, this is gold.
Proceed to pulverize them by aiming Dark Lances at those banners

The part of this that annoys me is that previous editions included specific caveats that extraneous bits, like antennae and banners did *not* count for LOS, because it would be unfair to penalize someone for choosing to model in a more dynamic manner.

Just like with the ditching of USRs, it seems like they really did just try to rebuild the game from the ground up; unfortunately, it means that they're revisiting some of the same mistakes that they had already corrected in some past editions.

Before, antenas could have been a handicap : you could shoot them, but not shoot from them, so they had to cover it with an exception.
In 8th edition, it's no longer a handicap : you're a larger target, but you can shoot at more things, so it balances out.

There were some weird consequences though. For example, the wings of a Bloodthirster didn't count as part of the model (and so couldn't be shot at), but they still blocked LoS to other models.

The Shredder wrote:

There were some weird consequences though. For example, the wings of a Bloodthirster didn't count as part of the model (and so couldn't be shot at), but they still blocked LoS to other models.

Well, true LOS is crap. If you're going to go the full 'what is on the table is an abstraction' route, then it doesn't make much sense to use true LOS either. IIRC, 4th edition probably had the most robust LOS/cover rules.

Some would say that 4th edition has the most robust ruleset ^^

But yeah, what is on the battlefield IS an abstraction. My ork Waaaaagh isn't made of 150 lonely orks...

Hold up.

I need to go and read these rules.

krayd wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

There were some weird consequences though. For example, the wings of a Bloodthirster didn't count as part of the model (and so couldn't be shot at), but they still blocked LoS to other models.

Well, true LOS is crap. If you're going to go the full 'what is on the table is an abstraction' route, then it doesn't make much sense to use true LOS either. IIRC, 4th edition probably had the most robust LOS/cover rules.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I've never been fond of TLoS.

I think it's also the reason why the new Character mechanics are really clunky (somehow neither the greatest warriors in the Imperium nor the most advanced races in the galaxy are able to pick out a Catacomb Command Barge if there are a few Scarabs in front of it).

krayd wrote:

Just like with the ditching of USRs, it seems like they really did just try to rebuild the game from the ground up; unfortunately, it means that they're revisiting some of the same mistakes that they had already corrected in some past editions.

^^^This, very much and very often.
Starting with the stupid layout of rules and indices, that was much better and easier to navigate in 7th.

Marrath wrote:

krayd wrote:

Just like with the ditching of USRs, it seems like they really did just try to rebuild the game from the ground up; unfortunately, it means that they're revisiting some of the same mistakes that they had already corrected in some past editions.

^^^This, very much and very often.
Starting with the stupid layou of rules and indices, that was much better and easier to navigate in 7th.

Honestly, I much preferred the layout in 3rd/4th. I think it was far better than any of the later ones.

Guys also just keep in mind that this is just a game and Games Workshop is not actually your mom.

If there's a rule in question that you think your opponent is exploiting unfairly or against the spirit of the rules have a candid and open minded conversation about it, agree and move on or disagree and roll off to decide who's right, or just stop playing, and then when the game's up decide if that was satisfying for you and if you're interested in continuing to play with that person.

I've watched intent vs spirit debates rage in this game for 15 years and I've never ever seen one side or the other capitulate in toto.

Just choose your opponents wisely and don't waste even more of the time you put into this hobby playing people you can't see eye to eye and have a good time with.

Hopefully GW is legit about their living rules system and weighs in to settle the recurring disputes that can't be resolved amicably by players. Then GW is your mom and you should listen to her.

Or bugger off and run away from home?

Whatever. I feel like I'm writing Dear Lcfr dating advice.

Yep, its just like deathstars.  Sure, they were allowed and people usually abused them.  People hated facing them.  So what happened?  Rules more or less didnt change much, but what ended up happening is that you put your deathstar down and your opponent picked their army up.

Like @icfr said, the game takes two players to play.  If your play style makes your opponent miserable you will find yourself lacking enemies to play against.

Tournaments are a separate story, but traditionally TO's have enough room to change stuff like adding the caveat that LOS comes from the center of the model or base, which would more or less solve this specific problem. You would probably need the "wings/capes/antenna's do not count for LOS or LOS blocking" rule.

If the community takes issue as a whole with the way the rule is, I am sure ITC will FAQ it even if GW never does.

Mppqlmd wrote:

Some would say that 4th edition has the most robust ruleset ^^

I wouldn't go *that* far. It was my least favorite version to actually play, mainly because the game was extremely harsh on open-topped transports, with rerolling wounds for passengers in crashed vehicles, as well as them being auto-pinned immediately after.