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.

FOR THIS POLL, PLEASE ANSWER HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY THE GAME, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THE RULES AS WRITTEN (RAW) SAY.

Page 6 of the rulebook says: "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."

Page 20 of the rulebook says: "All vehicles, vehicle wrecks, monstrous creatures and artillery, friend or foe block line of sight. A line of sight can still be drawn over or past such models, but not through them. Use a model's eye view to determine if you can see past them."

 

QUESTION: When attempting to draw line of sight over or around a vehicle, vehicle wreck, monstrous creature or artillery, how exactly do you play "over or around" as opposed to "through"?

In the pictures below RED represents areas where line of sight is blocked. GREEN represents areas where line of sight can be drawn. The actual model and its base are considered to block line of sight in all four pictures.

 

MAGIC CYLINDER. Size classification is always used when drawing line of sight, even when not involving area terrain or close combats; therefore all terrain (area or not) is given a size classification. Models always block line of sight from the edge of their base/hull up to their size classification under all circumstances. A size 3 classification model may never have line of sight drawn over it (it blocks line of sight infinitely high).

 

MODEL'S EYE VEIW. Size classifications are only used when line of sight is being drawn over area terrain or an ongoing close combat. A model's eye view (WYSIWYG) is used to determine line of sight otherwise. If an enemy model beyond can be physically seen, then it can be shot at, regardless of if the line of sight is being drawn between a gap in the intervening model.

 

MAGIC CYLINDER "LITE". Size classifications are only used when line of sight is being drawn over area terrain or an ongoing close combat. A model's eye view (WYSIWYG) is used to determine line of sight otherwise. However, a size 3 classification model is considered to block line of sight from the edge of its base/hull up to the highest (substantial) portion of the model. Any line of sight passing through this "magic cylinder" is considered to be blocked. So a size 3 classification model can still be seen over; the target model must be visible above the highest (substantial) portion of the intervening model.

 

"FRIENDLY" MODEL'S EYE VIEW. Size classifications are only used when line of sight is being drawn over area terrain or an ongoing close combat. A model's eye view (WYSIWYG) is used to determine line of sight otherwise. If an enemy model can be physically seen, then it can be shot at. However, any line of sight passing through an enclosed gap in the model is considered to be blocked. An "enclosed gap" would be any space that is surrounded (from a two-dimensional point of view) on all sides by the model, its base or the table. Typical examples of an "enclosed gap" would be in between a model's legs, or the space underneath a wheeled/tracked vehicle.

Here in Phoenix we play either magic cylinder or magic cylinder lite. My crowd uses Magic Cylinder Lite, due to the fairly explicit 'you can shoot over but not through'. It makes rhinos worse than landraiders for blocking line of sight, and in general bigger models block more line of sight. It's open to modeling abuse but not as badly as when you use a model's eye view.

Main reason I don't espouse the 'friendly model's eye view' or pure 'model's eye view' is because of the 'model occupies the area of its base' line. But also due to the huge potential for modeling 'abuse.' Enter the era of the obese wraithlord, the chubby Lord of Change, and so forth. And it involves reading a lot into the rules (e.g. why can't you shoot through the legs? That's not through the model, it's between the model's legs)

The model's eye view opens up the game to "My hive tyrant has four foot wide wings. Teehee."

Here's a little demonstration of why 'true los' is bad for everyone.

Longshot:

I've never really understood that argument. If you play Magic Cylinder "Lite" all that matters is how tall a model is and how big it's base is. Those two things are much easier to change than actually modelling up a Chubby Lord of Change or an Obese Wraithlord IMO.

If you play pure Magic Cylinder that's the easiest of all: You just have to slap something on a gigantic base and presto it blocks a gigantic swathe of the battlefield *completely*.

At least with the model's eye view someone has to spend some time and creativity to abuse the rules, and we all get to enjoy their wacky looking creation.

i wish GW made tyrants like that....

but i go for friendly model view.i take it as fair on both players cause the cylinders make it easy for some armies to be cheaper in game than others.

Sorry, I should clarify a little: We roscoe anyone caught with bases the wrong size for their models. You use the base that comes in the package (now).

The 'true Los' thing also starts arguments. Loads and loads of arguments. I've seen people in the gamestore shouting at each other and pulling out laser pointers. But I can see his foot, his base, a corner of his base, whatever. It gets ugly.

Magic cylinder lite seems to make the most rules sense too - seems to follow the most rules (model is considered to occupy the area of the base + can shoot 'over' but not through a model - through being through the area it is physically intended to occupy). Not trying to get into a raw fight on this, just reasoning out why we play it that way.

Another big concern is that people who use older models (e.g. old carnifexes) get screwed really, really hard by not having the new models, if you play with true LOS. I use a bunch of mix of converted old tyrants/carnies for dakkafexes, and while they are significantly shorter than normal carnies, at least I don't get completely screwed by not buying 135.00 worth of new carnifexes to represent 339 points of my army.

Nothing is going to stop anyone from trying to eke out an edge over the randomness of the game I guess, it's just like Vegas. Some people'll do anything to think they're beating the system.

Posted By Longshot on 09/07/2006 4:23 AM
Here's a little demonstration of why 'true los' is bad for everyone.

No, all that is is a demonstration showing how you can abuse modelling to gain a rules advantage in 40K. This is neither news nor relevent.

BYE

A Magic Cylinder isn't infinitely high, there just isn't anything in the game taller than it. That is why they had the White Dwarf that introduced a Size Level 4 tower as a playable option. Magic Cylinder reduces modelling abuses without giving very godd advantages (bigger base gives equal inconveniences in my opinion)

Because I follow the rules, and also because I understand that the term 'magic cylinder' was coined as a satirical name given to an idiotic rules interpretation, I play by models eye view.

In practice this means friendly model's eye view, mainly because fighting over whether I can see part of a marine between a Dread's legs is silly.

BYE

I think there are levels of modeling abuse. Being able to make your model block an infinite height is, in my view, far less of a problem than being able to make it block an infinitely wide area (horizontal los blocking is of course FAR more important in 40k).

HB, could you cool your bloody jets on the 'idiotic' this and that? There're rules justifications for everyone's view, and that's not what this thread is about (this argument being had a billion times already). Getting into the 'such and such is stupid' is just going to turn this ugly.

At least with the model's eye view someone has to spend some time and creativity to abuse the rules, and we all get to enjoy their wacky looking creation.

HAHAHA! Excellent.

I play magic cylinder lite because it involves the least amount of arguing, but I think Friendly model's eye view is what the rules actually say (though pure model's eye view may be correct as well).

I said MC Lite, for the major reason that if the Avatar (in this case) is between the models in question, but one of the models in question is on higher ground. This treads into the adding levels of terrain issue. I don't think that models are meant to be "Infinitely High".

For monstrous creatures and such I try to not draw LOS over the base. Keyword there is try, sometimes that higher ground shot is the best one, as such, I am one to take that shot.

I hope they faq it to be true LOS. Enter the Era of Very Large Capes and Hats.

My carnifex will look so pretty with a gigantic sombrero and a billowing greenstuff cape.

Yak, I dunno if this is possible, but I'd love you to make a different set of example pictures, specifically with a straight-on view of a Marine Dread on the normal base rather than an Isometric view of an Avatar.

Simple reason for this is that for magic cylinder to have any basis in reality, the people who think it is true will have to admit to not drawing LOS over the empty space on the boarders of a Marine Dread's base, where there is clearly no model.

Better yet, make it a straight-on shot of a Sentinel. They've got heaps of empty space on either side.

On a slightly related note, anyone seen Hawktel recently?

BYE

Posted By Longshot on 09/07/2006 4:59 AM
I hope they faq it to be true LOS. Enter the Era of Very Large Capes and Hats.

My carnifex will look so pretty with a gigantic sombrero and a billowing greenstuff cape.

Again, pointing out that true LOS can lead to modelling abuses is neither relevent nor in any way a new argument or point of view.

BYE

Pointing out that true LOS creates a new avenue for modeling abuse that is not present in my view is totally relevant to the reason why I take the stance I do given conflicting data. And that's what this is about, right?

I prefer magic cylinder light or magic cylinder.  When V4 first came out the local metro manager used that for tourneys and it worked well.  I don't want to get into niggly LOS arguments all the time-it has jack to do with tactics and it makes me just want to flip the table over.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 09/07/2006 5:03 AM

Posted By Longshot on 09/07/2006 4:59 AM
I hope they faq it to be true LOS. Enter the Era of Very Large Capes and Hats.

My carnifex will look so pretty with a gigantic sombrero and a billowing greenstuff cape.

Again, pointing out that true LOS can lead to modelling abuses is neither relevent nor in any way a new argument or point of view.

BYE

HBMC-respectfully- the thread is about preferences, not RAW.  They don't have to support their POV with anything.

 

Yes a sentinel is a good argument point.  Originally when playing sentinels I actually used that.  I'm still of the view of using a cylinder light as it cuts down on the stream of arguments. "You can see me!" "No you can't!"  This standardizes the gaming to an extent. 

Personally if we could standardize further to something along the lines of a BFG standard of using the center stalk for firing and range purposes (or center in the 40K world) I'd be even happier.  The less arguments on this junk the better.

I end up playing friendly model's eye view since that's what the folks I play with prefer. But I think that Magic Cylinder Light would make for a much better game with fewer arguments.

IMHO it's a game, and things like bases are there to allow for game effects to be independent of modeling. Otherwise, Ture/Friendly LOS encourages me to make skirts for my Sentinels...silly.

The only problem with Magic cylinder light is models that are prone, hunched over etc. That's why I stick with the general.

Also this is a 'what is your opinion?' thread, not 'insult those with another view'.

Posted By snooggums on 09/07/2006 6:31 AM
Also this is a 'what is your opinion?' thread, not 'insult those with another view'.

You suck.

Uhh... what I meant to say is I'm not saying that people with that view are stupid, what I'm saying is that view is stupid. There's a difference.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 09/07/2006 6:44 AM

Posted By snooggums on 09/07/2006 6:31 AM
Also this is a 'what is your opinion?' thread, not 'insult those with another view'.

You suck.

Uhh... what I meant to say is I'm not saying that people with that view are stupid, what I'm saying is that view is stupid. There's a difference.

BYE

Your view of other people's views being stupid is stupid. I bite my tongue at you!

Zing!

Really, insulting someone's views is an insult to that person, as much as insulting you for being unable to accept a differing view without calling it stupid would be an insult to you. I think anyone who thinks that the absolute modeling of a model is what it blocks is also illiterate and stuck in the past. I choose not to call that view stupid though, as it is a simply incorrect interpretation. Saying their view is incorrect is not the same as saying it is stupid, it really does make it an insult.

Do you point out that the people who disagree on this have stupid views to their faces, I mean actually say "You have a stupid view about LOS?" If you wouldn't say it in person it probably isn't necissary to say it here either.

But, it's the internet. Insults are a dime a dozen because no one can 'hear' the tone in which something is said or typed.

Take things with a grain of salt and you'll do better...

uhh, wait, ummm... yea back on topic... I like model's that use bases and LoS.

I voted Friendly LOS, since that's how I read it when I look at the LOS section.

Capt K

Awesome thread!

I voted for "Magic Cylinder" not because I think it is "what is intended" or anything, but because I think that other wargames that use this mechanic play a lot cleaner, faster, and with less arguments than wargames that allow the other methods described.

Warmachine & Hordes, for example, use magic cylinder, and I love the fact that we just try to draw lines without crossing bases, and if we make it we make it.  Large bases can be shot if behind small bases, etc.  No haggling over if that back banner makes the guy taller than another, or if the Dire Troll's arm sticking out means I can shoot him past the heavy warjack,  etc.

It has the added advantage of modeling flexibility.  Since the base used is the only thing that matters, modlers can do whatever they please: Huge banners, prone models, giant wings, all without worry that they'll either be taken advantage of (I can see over your prone guy) or accused of cheating (you put on those big wings just to block LOS.)

A REAL pet peeve of mine is when players try to aim 'through' a model (i.e. "Models Eye view" attempting to shoot between legs, gaps in arms, or other such tactics.  As if somehow time has stopped while his model aims, there is no dust on the battle field, and he can clearly see between that 1 foot gap between the Avatars legs and not in any way distracted by the large, intervening flaming incarnation of an Eldar god.   :S   Puleeze.

Posted By RussWakelin on 09/07/2006 8:33 AM

Awesome thread!

I voted for "Magic Cylinder" not because I think it is "what is intended" or anything, but because I think that other wargames that use this mechanic play a lot cleaner, faster, and with less arguments than wargames that allow the other methods described.

Warmachine & Hordes, for example, use magic cylinder, and I love the fact that we just try to draw lines without crossing bases, and if we make it we make it.  Large bases can be shot if behind small bases, etc.  No haggling over if that back banner makes the guy taller than another, or if the Dire Troll's arm sticking out means I can shoot him past the heavy warjack,  etc.

It has the added advantage of modeling flexibility.  Since the base used is the only thing that matters, modlers can do whatever they please: Huge banners, prone models, giant wings, all without worry that they'll either be taken advantage of (I can see over your prone guy) or accused of cheating (you put on those big wings just to block LOS.)

A REAL pet peeve of mine is when players try to aim 'through' a model (i.e. "Models Eye view" attempting to shoot between legs, gaps in arms, or other such tactics.  As if somehow time has stopped while his model aims, there is no dust on the battle field, and he can clearly see between that 1 foot gap between the Avatars legs and not in any way distracted by the large, intervening flaming incarnation of an Eldar god.   :S   Puleeze.

I second that argument in all its dear god its still not friday glory

Posted By RussWakelin on 09/07/2006 8:33 AM

Awesome thread!

I voted for "Magic Cylinder" not because I think it is "what is intended" or anything, but because I think that other wargames that use this mechanic play a lot cleaner, faster, and with less arguments than wargames that allow the other methods described.

Warmachine & Hordes, for example, use magic cylinder, and I love the fact that we just try to draw lines without crossing bases, and if we make it we make it.  Large bases can be shot if behind small bases, etc.  No haggling over if that back banner makes the guy taller than another, or if the Dire Troll's arm sticking out means I can shoot him past the heavy warjack,  etc.

Russ,

Do you actually play 40k with the pure Magic Cylinder approach?

I only ask because, while I can agree that well written rules using solely a "size category" can create a more quick and fun game, the size rules actually written in 40k aren't sufficiently well written to play this way.

Having a Rhino block LOS to a Land Raider behind it is just silly, but it is how the pure magic cylinder approach handles the situation. Since there are only 3 sizes, and size 3 model blocks LOS infinitely high.

If you're into the magic cylinder I would think that the "lite" version still simplifies things enough to make games quick, but doesn't allow wonky Rhinos blocking LOS to Land Raiders action.

I voted magic cylinder light, it doesn't make much sense that the the cylinder goes infinitely high the rules clearly say you can shoot over the vehicles and so forth if you can draw line of sight over the model. The other thing is that shooting through a loin cloth and so forth seems to me just tacky. Not to be offensive, because I understand thats how others play it, and I'm cool with that and i'd play it that way with my opponent if they wanted. But, simply, firing through monster legs and firing through dreadnaught legs because someone didn't put a cloth there seems to me just a little nit picking.

But its all good

Posted By yakface on 09/07/2006 9:08 AM

Russ,

Do you actually play 40k with the pure Magic Cylinder approach?

I only ask because, while I can agree that well written rules using solely a "size category" can create a more quick and fun game, the size rules actually written in 40k aren't sufficiently well written to play this way.

Having a Rhino block LOS to a Land Raider behind it is just silly, but it is how the pure magic cylinder approach handles the situation. Since there are only 3 sizes, and size 3 model blocks LOS infinitely high.

If you're into the magic cylinder I would think that the "lite" version still simplifies things enough to make games quick, but doesn't allow wonky Rhinos blocking LOS to Land Raiders action.

My prefered way to play 40k is pure Magic Cylinder for infantry and walkers and magic cylinder lite for non-walker Vehicles.   I think this is the most "argument free" way to play the game.  Although there is no way to back it up with RAW.  Against most folks I think I usually end up playing "magic cylinder lite" for everything.

The fix might be for GW to create a couple more size categories (4 & 5?) so perhaps a rhino is still size 3, a razorback/whirlwind/Chimera size 4, and a Land Raider/Leman Russ/Battlewagon is size 5.  Something like that. 

Actually ATI, as you can see from the poll, it looks like (at least so far, and from the sample pulled from Dakka) that very few people actually do play that you can shoot through the legs of models (the pure "model's eye view").


@Russ: absolutely on the size 4&5. I wrote house rules (many moons ago) that did just that.

Basically vehicles were split into small (size 3: Rhino/Dreadnought sized) and large (size 4: Leman Russ/Land Raider sized). I absolutely agree that it can work, its just not how the current 40k rules are written (IMO).