To farther explain why I think this new LOS rule is stupid, you can lose a game or an entire unit because you modeled a tall banner, or had a single guy in a squad with one angled up a little too high.
I wouldn't have put these banners on my guys if I knew it would affect the game.
I would like to think that most reasonable people would houserule a 'banners don't count' exception.
Line of sight ignores anything that isn't a limb, torso, head, or similar appendage. Banners, weapons, tails, wings and such are ignored if I'm not mistaken.
All my crisis are on flying stands and I even made some bigger ones so they were higher and almost all of them have some sort of crazy pose with streched arms/legs bad choice it seems.
Line of sight ignores anything that isn't a limb, torso, head, or similar appendage. Banners, tails, wings and such are ignored if I'm not mistaken.
All my crisis are on flying stands and I even made some bigger ones so they were higher and almost all of them have some sort of crazy pose with streched arms/legs bad choice it seems.
Well, that's even better then. I suppose the crisis suit thing could be a double-edged sword though - you could have a shooting advantage too.
Line of sight ignores anything that isn't a limb, torso, head, or similar appendage. Banners, tails, wings and such are ignored if I'm not mistaken.
All my crisis are on flying stands and I even made some bigger ones so they were higher and almost all of them have some sort of crazy pose with streched arms/legs bad choice it seems.
Well, that's even better then. I suppose the crisis suit thing could be a double-edged sword though - you could have a shooting advantage too.
I think their real strenght was moving, shooting and then hiding again. You can usually get a decent line of fire just moving him 6" and then hide again. But yeah I guess they do see over most stuff which would deny some saves from low walls and such.
Line of sight ignores anything that isn't a limb, torso, head, or similar appendage. Banners, weapons, tails, wings and such are ignored if I'm not mistaken
Ok, so while I fully admit that this is better than I originally thought, I'm still going to be pissed off on the day that I lose an entire mob of boys because I modeled one ork to have his arm in the air.
All my crisis are on flying stands and I even made some bigger ones so they were higher and almost all of them have some sort of crazy pose with streched arms/legs bad choice it seems.
And this is where the problem lies. You're being punished for being a little more creative with your models.
I've just remembered an odd rules situation that came up last game I played. A dreadnought and a rhino full of plague marines are right next to each other, and the dreadnought uses its assault cannon to blow up the rhino. Can the dreadnought use its flamer on or charge the plague marines that fall out? We ended up going with no for both, but I am curious if we played it right, as if the rhino hadn't been completely destroyed by the penetrating hit he could have probably managed both.
Technicality on
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
All these retarded arguments about LoS can just stop now.
1. They are retarded. The rules changed, boohoo. You guys sound worse than the D&D guys.
2. Not one iota of the LoS rules has changed, just the definition of area terrain and how it interacts with them. You have always been supposed to use LoS for anything that wasn't area terrain.
3. Guess what, if you modelled your guys with extra tall bases, they yes, they can be seen from further. But guess what else; they can see further too. This is also not a change from 4e.
4. What has changed is how LoS interacts with area terrain; there are now no more size categories. That's it.
5. Also, models give cover too, instead of that dumb "target priority" check.
Basically, if you were playing 4e correctly, you shouldn't actually notice that changes to the LoS rules unless you had a lot of forests.
Mr Rose, something big has explicitly changed from 4th to 5th. Until this morning, I thought the same as you. I've never been one to get up in arms about rules changes. But this is what I learned this morning.
In 4th, drawing line of sight to just and arm of a model did not mean you could see that model. You had to draw LOS to the main body of the model, and that meant you could only target that model.
In 5th, from what I've read, now if you can draw line of sight to any part of a single model's body, arm, leg hand, whatever, You can shoot at the entire unit that model belongs in.
This is the thing I'm upset about. Are you saying this is not a big change?
-edit
To quote the rule...
Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for ‘body’ we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).
and
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire.
So you better make sure you never have an model with an arm poking above cover, or that whole unit can be shot at.
I'll try and drop this whole topic for now, but I'm still quite concerned.
I've just remembered an odd rules situation that came up last game I played. A dreadnought and a rhino full of plague marines are right next to each other, and the dreadnought uses its assault cannon to blow up the rhino. Can the dreadnought use its flamer on or charge the plague marines that fall out? We ended up going with no for both, but I am curious if we played it right, as if the rhino hadn't been completely destroyed by the penetrating hit he could have probably managed both.
Are you playing 5th or 4th? If you're playing 4th you ruled correctly.
SJ on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
How do people plan to draw said line for LOS? Laser pointer?
I've always used my eyes, or, failing that, someone else's eyes. In cases of dispute, whatever you're using to measure distance is usually straight enough.
I've just remembered an odd rules situation that came up last game I played. A dreadnought and a rhino full of plague marines are right next to each other, and the dreadnought uses its assault cannon to blow up the rhino. Can the dreadnought use its flamer on or charge the plague marines that fall out? We ended up going with no for both, but I am curious if we played it right, as if the rhino hadn't been completely destroyed by the penetrating hit he could have probably managed both.
Are you playing 5th or 4th? If you're playing 4th you ruled correctly.
4th, and cheers for clearing that up.
Technicality on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
I've just remembered an odd rules situation that came up last game I played. A dreadnought and a rhino full of plague marines are right next to each other, and the dreadnought uses its assault cannon to blow up the rhino. Can the dreadnought use its flamer on or charge the plague marines that fall out? We ended up going with no for both, but I am curious if we played it right, as if the rhino hadn't been completely destroyed by the penetrating hit he could have probably managed both.
Are you playing 5th or 4th? If you're playing 4th you ruled correctly.
LOS is a problem for me because of all my stupidly huge vehicles. Fortunately, they should survive longer now.
My friends and I may and up house ruling bits here and there. I know that IMHO it's crazy to be able to hit a whole unit if you can only see one model.
Devnoimag on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers.
I agree I should have added that to my original quoted post.
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I'm thinking of going back to my IG army idea of nothing but two legged models in the army. Standard foot sloggers with as many sentinals as possible. Wulf made me remember how much I love sentinals and how much personality they can have.
Also they should be a bit harder to blow up in 5th.
... which means you can take off casualties anywhere in the unit and not just the one that's in LOS.
Which is re-enforced by being in the context of the "removing casualties" section instead of the shooting section.
But if you can see that one guy, and that guy takes 10 wounds, those wounds must be evenly allocated through out the unit since "any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty".
No?
I'm open to admitting I'm wrong, but I just don't see it yet.
Note: the Bolter and Chainsword 5th ed primer, while not any way official, has the same understanding of the rules...
Also, if any model in a unit is visible the entire unit may be hit by incoming fire, even if the rest of the target squad is outside of LoS and the max range of the shooting attack. So one arm of one Bloodletter model is all it takes to provide enough visibility to jeopardize an entire squad of 10+ daemons.
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
KublaKhan on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
... which means you can take off casualties anywhere in the unit and not just the one that's in LOS.
Which is re-enforced by being in the context of the "removing casualties" section instead of the shooting section.
But if you can see that one guy, and that guy takes 10 wounds, those wounds must be evenly allocated through out the unit since "any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty".
No?
I'll need the actual text from the wound allocation section, but my understanding would be since that guy is the only one who can be seen, he would be taking 10 saves.
Which would contradict the previous quote somewhat.
Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.
The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
Wildcat on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.
The player must allocate one wound to each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound to the same model.
(Emphasis Mine.)
Here's the quote explaining it from "Removing Casualties"
Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simply going through covering terrain!
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
Alternately, tall unicycles.
OH HECK NO
Or large, brightly colored balls.
Rend on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
Alternately, tall unicycles.
OH HECK NO
Or large, brightly colored balls.
Or on the shoulders of other marines, or bears.
Astartes Ursus
I can see the Codex entry now.
Wildcat on
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
I can't find the exact reference, but in the 4th ed rule book there is a specific note on converted models and not being able to shoot things like banners, weapons and things like a hand poking out of cover. It keeps it the exact definition a bit nebulous, I assume the 5th ed rule book will have a similar condition. Also, as to tournaments, if it isn't addressed directly in the 5th ed rule book, I imagine any tournament that wants to encourage unique looking models will probably have a stipulation about conversions both related to ones that are unique for aesthetic purposes... and ones that are obviously for game purposes (like devastators on stilts or something).
Oh god
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
Posts
All my crisis are on flying stands and I even made some bigger ones so they were higher and almost all of them have some sort of crazy pose with streched arms/legs
I think their real strenght was moving, shooting and then hiding again. You can usually get a decent line of fire just moving him 6" and then hide again. But yeah I guess they do see over most stuff which would deny some saves from low walls and such.
Ok, so while I fully admit that this is better than I originally thought, I'm still going to be pissed off on the day that I lose an entire mob of boys because I modeled one ork to have his arm in the air.
And this is where the problem lies. You're being punished for being a little more creative with your models.
1. They are retarded. The rules changed, boohoo. You guys sound worse than the D&D guys.
2. Not one iota of the LoS rules has changed, just the definition of area terrain and how it interacts with them. You have always been supposed to use LoS for anything that wasn't area terrain.
3. Guess what, if you modelled your guys with extra tall bases, they yes, they can be seen from further. But guess what else; they can see further too. This is also not a change from 4e.
4. What has changed is how LoS interacts with area terrain; there are now no more size categories. That's it.
5. Also, models give cover too, instead of that dumb "target priority" check.
Basically, if you were playing 4e correctly, you shouldn't actually notice that changes to the LoS rules unless you had a lot of forests.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
In 4th, drawing line of sight to just and arm of a model did not mean you could see that model. You had to draw LOS to the main body of the model, and that meant you could only target that model.
In 5th, from what I've read, now if you can draw line of sight to any part of a single model's body, arm, leg hand, whatever, You can shoot at the entire unit that model belongs in.
This is the thing I'm upset about. Are you saying this is not a big change?
-edit
To quote the rule...
and
So you better make sure you never have an model with an arm poking above cover, or that whole unit can be shot at.
I'll try and drop this whole topic for now, but I'm still quite concerned.
I got this spiffy green laser I plan to use. Bar that, I'll get down and look.
Are you playing 5th or 4th? If you're playing 4th you ruled correctly.
I've always used my eyes, or, failing that, someone else's eyes. In cases of dispute, whatever you're using to measure distance is usually straight enough.
4th, and cheers for clearing that up.
In 5th could you do it the other way?
My friends and I may and up house ruling bits here and there. I know that IMHO it's crazy to be able to hit a whole unit if you can only see one model.
Because I'm seeing absolutely no difference between what's there and what's in 4E.
IE: any models that can draw line of sight to models in the target unit can fire at the models they can see.
I agree I should have added that to my original quoted post.
Which is re-enforced by being in the context of the "removing casualties" section instead of the shooting section.
Also they should be a bit harder to blow up in 5th.
But if you can see that one guy, and that guy takes 10 wounds, those wounds must be evenly allocated through out the unit since "any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty".
No?
I'm open to admitting I'm wrong, but I just don't see it yet.
Note: the Bolter and Chainsword 5th ed primer, while not any way official, has the same understanding of the rules...
Which would contradict the previous quote somewhat.
huh.
(Emphasis Mine.)
At least everything on the table gives a decent cover save now.
I think I have my first conversion idea right there
Here's the quote explaining it from "Removing Casualties"
Alternately, tall unicycles.
Or large, brightly colored balls.
Or on the shoulders of other marines, or bears.
I can see the Codex entry now.
For added height the bears stand on sharks.
No, no, no, The Marines stand on the shoulders of bears. If more height is needed, the bears can stand on the chapter sharks.
Assault Marines stand on the back of Alligators, flying Alligators.