True LOS and Shooting over barriers issue

[Ben_S]

I don't know that that was ever in the rulebooks as such, apart from some provisions covering wobbly models, hiding, etc which dealt with some of the problem issues.

As I said above, I've normally only played with opponents who are happy to declare such things, but that's more a house rule or a convention than a solid rule from the book.

 

[Thorgor]

So no “i can target that model behind the barricades because i can see the weapon up in the air” baloney.

This part is actually addressed in N17 rules. Things like weapons, hairstyle and the model base don't count when checking LoS.

 

[Ben_S]

That's generally the case in most, if not all, GW rules. To see 'the model' you must be able to see something like head, body, or limb(s), not just a spear tip or even the end of a tail or wings.

I remember reading about some real abuse of this in WFB. Someone hid a dragon behind a building, with the wings sticking out, and a wizard behind the wings of the dragon. The dragon couldn't be seen, as only the wings were visible, and the wizard couldn't be seen because of the dragon's wings.

 

[Punktaku]

it may have been waaay back in Rogue Trader that i saw the cover rules using the edge of a building. there was no photo with it, just a graphic... i remember useless things, but lose where they come from some times...

 

[Bilbostomper]

I've always felt that making it relevant how players pose their models will ONLY work if all players are of the same mindset. As soon as you have people with different views on modeling for (dis)advantage, it all collapses. Personally, f I were playing with someone who was less relaxed about the rules, I would insist on having each model take up a standard volume, and use that as the basis for everything.

 

[MusingWarboss]

The dragon couldn't be seen, as only the wings were visible, and the wizard couldn't be seen because of the dragon's wings.

Hmmm. Wouldn’t that be an ideal opportunity to ask nicely if the player with the dragon could mark its position and lift it off the table so that it’s hidden wings didn’t block the line of sight of anything that would normally be visible??

If the answer is no then you could reasonably assume that the dragon was in fact visible as it’s wings were blocking another model and could then be shot at?

Or is that too logical??

 

[UbiquitousFUD]

I hope this is OK, not sure if this forum blocks postings from 'competing' forums, but I found this at Bell of Lost Souls, a really good article on some of the problems with True LOS. Written 8 years ago, but pretty much spot on.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/08/editorial-how-true-line-of-sight-is-killing-our-games.html

I like his point about the fact that True LOS basically assumes you can't use your imagination in any way. And his point that true LOS may be a strategy that forces you to buy or make very detailed (or at least spatially accurate) terrain. Simple? Yes. Efficient? that too, but realistic? Absolutely not. Plus, I don't really think of my hand that way at all.

Another challenge I have with this rule, which is basically what punktaku talks about , is when you place a model next to a door / wall, such that they would be shooting around it, but would also be maintaining full cover. In order to determine firing arc, I was using the rules option where you paint a mark on your base to indicate your forward firing arcs center, and then would position my base such that the model I was going to shoot was within that arc, (with the mark on the front of the base as the point of origin) but again, my models body might or might not extend beyond the cover I was using. My opponent had an issue with this as well. If you look at the firing arc templates, the outer lines would converge to a point on your model's base that is about 2mm from the front (NOT the center of the base but forward of the center). This point of convergence, I think, is the assumed point of vision of your model, not the actual head location but the point at which the line of sight peripheral lines converge. So while its not stated in any rule, the tools they give us to determine the firing arc explicitly assume a point of (vision) origin that is forward of the center of the base. Does this make sense?

This all makes me think about the old pistol duels that European nobility and American upper class employed against each other: they would line up presenting as narrow a profile as they could, turning their bodies sideways with one arm extended. Seems like this would be the ideal pose for a True LOS based targeting mechanic. Very boring to paint and use, (certainly no cartwheeling!) but if you want to win, it's definitely the way to go.

GW used good specificity with regard to determining what is required to determine cover and what must be seen of a model in order to shoot at it, but they really didn't, to my mind, specify exactly how you determine the point of origin of LOS for a model. I think they must know that it's tricky, and problematic given that part of their mission is to sell the best miniatures on the market. We seem to want two contradictory things - dynamically posed models with lots of options for weapons, and models optimized for the rules. Seems there is an inherent contradiction here that can get crunchy every now and then.

 

[KopMcGinty]

Maybe I'm a sucker but I've always been happy to use a bit of common sense when an opponent's weirdly posed guy wants to do a shot that a normally posed guy wants to.

I do like the idea of a cutout or generic standing pose model that can be subbed in for checking these things if your environment is t quite as relaxed. Simple and effective.

 

[MusingWarboss]

We seem to want two contradictory things - dynamically posed models with lots of options for weapons, and models optimized for the rules.

Hello! Welcome to the forum (if you’ve not already been greeted)!

The bit quoted is a good point. It comes into play with TLoS and WYSIWYG.

We all love cool Miniatures and scenery, though there’s often an element of what is practical vs. What has to be abstracted for a game.
A 100% realistic forest is great! But difficult to actually put models in. Likewise a beautifully sculpted mountain offers balance issues and more appropriately a dense underhive can be difficult to actually get access to the middle.

I tend to think of Miniatures as the avatar for the character, who would otherwise be a living, breathing individual. However I don’t expect them to be swapped every move to a more appropriate pose for the situation they find themselves in.

Other games don’t really have this problem when they don’t expect the real world to exist side by side with the in-universe game world.

So a board game for example (generally) doesn’t have this issue. All the rules and mechanics are located in the context of the game - they’re not suddenly expecting you to work with things outside of the mechanics. Like actual appearance of the model, their kit, or what they can see.

Necromunda is a hybrid of real life and virtual and these things require either compromise by players or strict rules in how to interact with actual real world objects other than the subjective “can you actually see it?”. It’s not like we’re firing matchsticks at each other’s models, the shooting phase is abstracted to game mechanics but the targeting is not.

If you want cool dynamic models, maybe the rules need to be a tight as possible to the point that they ignore the actual physical look of the Miniature? If you want more relaxed rules then the models need to reflect the fact that they have to be adaptable to the actual physical environment they’re put in.

They really should partner to make LEGOmunda. It’d help solve a lot of these WYSIWYG/TLoS issues because you can literally pose and equip the models as you wish!

TL : DR They’re wanting you to play nice so they don’t have to write a whole load of rules to deal with an almost infinite variety of scenery you might encounter.

 

[Stoof]

However I don’t expect them to be swapped every move to a more appropriate pose for the situation they find themselves in.

Don't give GW ideas! "By the way, you now need a model for your ganger, armed with each of the weapons they're meant to be armed with, and in the following poses: At ease, Firing, Prone, Kneeling, Standing, Leaning left, Leaning right, Against Wall, Running, Walking, Crawling... £5 each or the bargain price of £54.95 for all 11"

 

[Ben_S]

A discount for the bundle would be a new idea...

 

[Wilhelm Erbauer]

I like the way that LoS/posing thing was sorted out in Infinity. It used to be actual posing which matters in 2nd edition. And that was quiet a problem, since many Infinity miniatures have very dynamic poses. Or contarary: models are sitting/prone etc. Now in 3rd edition every model has a new charachteristic - Silouette size. And you use an appropriate template every time LoS is involved.

This allows miniature to have virtually ANY pose and still figuring out LoS is noc problem.

 

[UncleFester]

I'm the opponent in the original post that said the model could not get LOS on me. And as a few agreed, the rule of thumb is: LOS is a two way street. If you are completely behind something to the point where I cannot see any part of you at all, then you can't see me either.

Speaking as a general rule, and not specific to this situation, is it fair to say that LOS should be taken from center of base and approximate head height? And there is no "model leans out" to get LOS? I mean, You can't be out of LOS behind a wall, and claim your fighter leans out to take the shot, right?

So, if you have two models and model A is behind something that takes it out of LOS of Model B (who is otherwise unobstructed), than Model A can't get LOS on model B, regardless of the logic that a real person could lift their gun up over the edge of the wall and point it down?

 

[Punktaku]

i dunno. with the current alternating activations, why not? for your opponents activation you’re out of LoS, but on your own you move (lean) out to take the shot. if current Move rules are anything like ORB, you could do it in your own activation. move (lean) out and back in and take your shot while “out”.

 

[Thorgor]

Speaking as a general rule, and not specific to this situation, is it fair to say that LOS should be taken from center of base and approximate head height?

I think it's fair. I'm all for this kind of abstraction.

And there is no "model leans out" to get LOS? I mean, You can't be out of LOS behind a wall, and claim your fighter leans out to take the shot, right?

There is no "model leans out" in the rules as written.
However, I would allow that kind of thing for a Pinned model in cover who performs a Blind Fire action. It represents something like this:

if current Move rules are anything like ORB, you could do it in your own activation. move (lean) out and back in and take your shot while “out”.

It doesn't work in NCE. You only get two actions per activation, and you must finish the first one before you make the other. You can't half-move, shoot, and half-move again. Even the Hip shooting skill (that basically gives you a free ranged Attack if you Move twice) doesn't allow it (you must finish your double move before you shoot).
Edit: Overseer and group activation would allow for it, in a sense, since it lets you activate a single fighter twice in a row.

 

[Echo-Five Zulu]

Speaking as a general rule, and not specific to this situation, is it fair to say that LOS should be taken from center of base and approximate head height? And there is no "model leans out" to get LOS? I mean, You can't be out of LOS behind a wall, and claim your fighter leans out to take the shot, right?

So, if you have two models and model A is behind something that takes it out of LOS of Model B (who is otherwise unobstructed), than Model A can't get LOS on model B, regardless of the logic that a real person could lift their gun up over the edge of the wall and point it down?

Agreed. If player A claims their model is not in LOS of player B's model due to the pose, then player A cannot disregard their model's pose for LOS on player B's model.

 

[Punktaku]

ahh. in the ORB and 40k you could fire at any point along your move route. (this is why i hesitated to respond... no N17 experience)

 

[Stoof]

ahh. in the ORB and 40k you could fire at any point along your move route. (this is why i hesitated to respond... no N17 experience)

You must complete any moves before you can shoot in ORB. Moving and shooting are in different phases of play (overwatch excepted) - it doesn't chop and change around. According to ye olde huge hardback anyway.

To keep track of who's doing what and when, your turn is divided into four distinct phases as follows. Each phase is completed before beginning the next. So, begin by moving all your modeis, then shoot with all models that can do so, then fight hand-to-hand, and finally recover any models that have run from the fight.

 

[Ben_S]

And there is no "model leans out" to get LOS? I mean, You can't be out of LOS behind a wall, and claim your fighter leans out to take the shot, right?

You can't be out of LoS behind the wall, lean out to take a shot, then be out of LoS again in your opponent's turn.

But sometimes the pose of the model and/or the base makes it difficult to place them exactly where you want. I've always played that, if necessary, you can declare 'he's just poking round this corner'. Players then assume LoS each way and cover, even if the model isn't quite in the right place.

 

[Punktaku]

You must complete any moves before you can shoot in ORB. Moving and shooting are in different phases of play (overwatch excepted) - it doesn't chop and change around. According to ye olde huge hardback anyway.

i may be remembering Rogue Trader or 2nd Edition rules... probably best if i avoid these types of discussions...