|
Post by wstevens on Oct 19, 2008 22:46:06 GMT
Please don't say legs slightly parted with hands on hips in an inane stretch like mode! The book says LoS - get down and have a look - if you can't see it then its hidden. As I don't have much in the way of shooty troops in my VC army I'm usually on the receiving end. However, time and again people say that the unit can be seen behind interloping terrain such as woods. Normally competitors who have played me without talking about this point avant le match usually argue this point when it arrives in-game. To which a d6 or 2d6 is rolled to see how far away from the wood a unit is hidden. This is not about units in a wood... (can see 2 inches blah blah...) but behind them. There has been previous discussion about heights of hills etc... and even better counter ones explaining the height of woods. Then there are those that decree that the hill in question can actually fluctuate in height depending on their potential fortune in the game . So can we have a house rule about this please? Either 1. shooters on a hill must have LoS and that means bend down to get a model's eye view. or 2. roll a 2D6 and this is how far the interposing wood masks the unit. If anybody else has suggestions I would be very interested. ta very much!
|
|
|
Post by paulr on Oct 20, 2008 15:12:53 GMT
Every tournament I have played, woods block LoS from a hill. Similarly buildings etc.
A models eye view is a terrible way of resolving the issue, that can be argued back and forth each game.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Oct 20, 2008 16:19:11 GMT
im affraid i argee with warren thats the way it is. however now in 5th edition 40k we have true line of sight which basily means if you can see the target from the models level you can target it but it would get a cover save
|
|
|
Post by carl on Oct 20, 2008 17:11:35 GMT
if not sure check before the game, otherwise you only have yourselves to blame and the old 1-3 / 4-6 die roll comes into play, which isn't always the best way to resolve issues like this.
|
|
Jon Nicholls
Gates of Antares
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Posts: 403
|
Post by Jon Nicholls on Oct 20, 2008 17:57:50 GMT
Usually, I play that a unit on a hill can see over ALL interposing terrain.
However, as a non-tourny player I'm not overly bothered really and am quite happy to play to whatever seems reasonable. In this respect I agree with Carl and it does actually state that this is what should be done in the HILLS paragraph on page 9 of the small rule book.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 20, 2008 22:24:04 GMT
I'm with Paul here. Woods and Buildings should block LoS regardless of whether you are on a hill or not.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 21, 2008 9:11:09 GMT
Good - ok in this case we shall play as the rule book says (intended) and have to go to the models eye view - without argument. If a unit is behind a wood then it can't be seen if the shooter model cannot see it when you bend down to have a peek yourself.
I think this is resolved now and I hope everybody plays to this rule. Similarly if a large target is behind a wood it will be down to the model size and if the wood can obscure it enough from the model eye view. I hope everybody will play to this rule only now.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 21, 2008 9:49:12 GMT
That's not what I meant. I don't like the model's eye view, mainly as it can be very subjective.
Woods block line of sight, as do hills and buildings. If you can't draw a line to your target model/unit (using a tape measure) without crossing the edge of a wood (or other piece of sight blocking terrain), then you can't see your intended target. If you can draw a line, then you can see it.
I have to admit I don't think this particular issue has ever come up in any game I have ever played. I can't remember any opponent ever claiming they could see over a wood from on top of a hill.
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on Oct 21, 2008 21:50:42 GMT
I should have said LOS if on a hill.
Steve your comment has not made the issue clear at all and I can't see why you don't like this. The point of being subjective now brings us back to the original problem. If one person says "yea" and the other says "neigh" you have two people with different points of view on the same issue - to me these are two comments built on subjectiveness, which I was talking about earlier and was trying to avoid.
So if you are not measuring from the model's eye view (as it says to do on page 9) how would you do this if the occasion arose or how would you draw a line of sight without using the model?
What we agree on is that models behind interposing woods cannot be seen by models on hills for LOS. However if it is far enough behind the wood and one can draw LOS from the hill then its fair game.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Oct 22, 2008 8:39:42 GMT
No.
My view is that wood block LoS period. It doesn't matter if you on a hill or not you can't see through them.
What exactly about my previous post was unclear. If you aren't sure if you can see something or not, use a tape measure to determine if you can draw a direct line from the shooting model (or unit) to the target model (or unit) that doesn't pass through an object that blocks line of sight.
If you can do this you can shoot, if you can't then you can't, it's pretty simple.
I dislike model's eye view partly as it's a pain trying to get into a position over the table to judge what a particular model can or cannot see. Plus it's likely that two people can look from about the same position and come to different conclusions as to whether a target is legal or not.
This is why I prefer to use a tape measure to determine lines of sight. Ok this doesn't take into account vertical positions of models, but if you're operating on the assumption that big stuff (hills, buildings, woods) cannot be seen over then this generally doesn't matter much.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 22, 2008 11:26:08 GMT
if you're operating on the assumption that big stuff (hills, buildings, woods) cannot be seen over Sorry Steve, but I'm afraid I have to take issue with you on this point. Certain large creatures, like giants or dragons, (and I'm talking base mythology here, not neccesarily GW rules) are usually described as being VERY big indeed. So big that thay tower above such puny objects as trees or houses. That being the case it seems unreasonable to me to assume, for example, that a wood automatically blocks line of sight to giant. Obvoiusly some very high terrian feature (like towers and most hills) probably would, but smaller one (like trees or houses) should not.
|
|