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.

If you were to add a Size 4&5 (My group tried it and found it hard to keep track of for terrain so dropped it) you need to add size level 4 and 5 for terrain or the large tanks will never have normal sized trees to hide behind. A Land Raider surely isn't any taller than a 30 foot tree like I have in my back yard. I think it just added unneccessary confusion during target selection myself, and really Warriors are modelled much larger than an IG trooper, shouldn't they be different size levels also?

I think they kept it with three for streamlined playing and I think it was the right decision.

Agreed. You and your friends would have to agree what terrain on the table is what 'size'. Tourney and event organizers could write the size of terrain on the bottom of the terrain piece.

Although this may sound more complicated than the current 'streamlined' version, gamers wouldn't be writting essays on how best to interpret it.

It seems to me that magic cylinder works well for warmachine because the sizes are pretty standard and everything has a base. All the large base stuff is essentially the same size, etc. I know there are exceptions but it's not even close to comparable to 40k, with its myriad tanks, skimmers, creatures, etc.

I voted magic cylinder light, as that seems to be what most people around here prefer. I'd have no problem playing either profile verisons though as long as it was decided before the game starts. Pure magic cylinder just doesn't work IMHO unless you use the LOS rules in CoD and house rules to ensure there's no infinite blocking terrain and models.

mauleed- 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 think Ed has it, I agree, I voted cylinder light.

hmm it is a toss up with an avatar, i'd like to see it with a dread. i kinda use a combination of magic cylinder light and models eye light.

 

a dreads arms for example are just as wide as its base and it is far more blocky. i will not try to shoot between an arm and the leg/torso any more than i would attempt to shoot between it's legs but if i have LOS over the top or past the outside of the arm/leg/base i will shoot.

We use a combination of friendly model's eye view and magic cylinder lite. Generally speaking, we use FME (which is what I voted). If something's absurd, we switch over to MCL (or, more accurately, we just make a judgement call). That is, Sentinels almost never block LoS to anything, but if part of a Marine is just visible past an exceptionally narrow point on the model (a waist, for example), the enemy can't draw LoS to him (or, if it's a squad, they get a massive cover save).

Generally speaking, we try to implement the LoS rules as if the models really were dynamic on their bases and actively moving around. Single characters directly behind Size 3 models are always going to be out of LoS for something on the opposite side of the big model - if nothing else, that IC is going to be crouched down behind the thing's legs, and the big thing itself might well move or position itself so as to better protect the littl'un.

kinda redundant since lone ICs that are not the closest enemy unit to the firer (and not monsterous themselves) cannot be picked out as a target anyway.

I voted MC Lite but often end up playing Friendly MEV. Either seems to work well enough and prevents any real abuses as long as people are using the correct base sizes.

Hey, wasn't MC Lite a rapper?

ender502

I'm in the same camp as Ed.

Friendly Model's Eye View or Model's Eye View seem to be most correct by the rules.

I PREFER Friendly MEV, though in some cases Magic Cylinder Lite makes more sense, and MCL does seem the simplest and most playable.

MEV of any kind just causes so many fights. I hear enough fights about being able to see people's bases as it is - which you would think would be pretty cut and dry.

Question: With "model's eye view" do you have to see the physical model itself, not just its base?

Say you have a really thin space marine crouched down on a base and you can see the base past the monster blocking him but not the model, can you see him?

If so, I'm extremely thankful everyone here uses MCL or MC. Hell, I have to fight it out every time I argue I can shoot over a rhino at a landraider down here, people are so stuck on vehicles blocking LOS.

I'm thankful everyone I've played against in 4th (who didn't already agree with me) has gotten on the same page when I showed them the quote about drawing LOS over or past a vehicle.

Posted By Longshot on 09/11/2006 12:50 AM
MEV of any kind just causes so many fights. I hear enough fights about being able to see people's bases as it is - which you would think would be pretty cut and dry.

Question: With "model's eye view" do you have to see the physical model itself, not just its base?

Say you have a really thin space marine crouched down on a base and you can see the base past the monster blocking him but not the model, can you see him?

If so, I'm extremely thankful everyone here uses MCL or MC. Hell, I have to fight it out every time I argue I can shoot over a rhino at a landraider down here, people are so stuck on vehicles blocking LOS.

Nope. As explained on page 21 in the LOS rules you must see the body of the model to draw LOS to it.

 

Then of course you get into arguments about what constitutes "body." But at that point the "sonney, these models are older than your mamma, shut up and play" syndrome starts to come into effect.

Posted By jfrazell on 09/11/2006 12:59 PM
Then of course you get into arguments about what constitutes "body." But at that point the "sonney, these models are older than your mamma, shut up and play" syndrome starts to come into effect.

True, but any of the methods beyond a pure line of sight require a bit of interpretation and agreement between opponents.

With the Magic Cylinder "Lite" you have to determine what exactly constitutes the "top" of the cylinder (the head, the shoulders, antennae, banner, etc).

With the either of the model's eye view versions you and your opponent have to agree what can actually be "seen" (one guy says: "I can see the Ork Trukk over the Buggy" and the other guy says: "No way, I don't see that at all", etc).

Personally, I don't see defining exactly what a model's "body" as any harder than resolving these issues.

 

Defining the top of the model is easy to be consistent at. I let people call the height whatever they want. If the carnifex has his venom cannon pointing up 5 inches into the air, that is just fine with me. I personally call it the top of my model's body not including weapons, but I would let anyone play it any way they want as long as they're consistent at it.

Figuring out whether you can see the model's big toe between the carnifex's legs is where stuff starts breaking down into absurdity, in my opinion.

There's one fundamental problem with true LOS, and that is that it is completely impossible to determine because of the way the rules work for line of sight. Short of some kind of crazy laser emitting models you're not going to be able to tell for certain whether the requirements for line of sight (a single portion of the firing model's base (or body?) must be able to draw an unbroken line to the target model's body?) are met. In very very few circumstances will you know for sure. A model's eye view does not suffice because models do not need to have line of sight from their eyes to fire. And we really don't even know what the hell 'model's eye view' means exactly.

The consequence of this is that nothing other than carnifexes and vehicles block line of sight in real game terms. I think that's not what was intended by 'monsters block line of sight.'  You then get into the annoying realm of "Is the size of a model a balancing factor?" The size of a model's base is a balancing factor, that is for sure. Terminators are on bigger bases now for gameplay reasons.

However, I'm not sure they made carnifexes bigger than Dreadnoughts in order to give them a game advantage. I think they made carnifexes bigger than dreadnoughts to make them look sweet.

You can however tell exactly how tall a model is. and what the area of the base is, precisely.

Posted By Longshot on 09/11/2006 7:53 PM
Defining the top of the model is easy to be consistent at. I let people call the height whatever they want. If the carnifex has his venom cannon pointing up 5 inches into the air, that is just fine with me. I personally call it the top of my model's body not including weapons, but I would let anyone play it any way they want as long as they're consistent at it.

Figuring out whether you can see the model's big toe between the carnifex's legs is where stuff starts breaking down into absurdity, in my opinion.

There's one fundamental problem with true LOS, and that is that it is completely impossible to determine because of the way the rules work for line of sight. Short of some kind of crazy laser emitting models you're not going to be able to tell for certain whether the requirements for line of sight (a single portion of the firing model's base (or body?) must be able to draw an unbroken line to the target model's body?) are met. In very very few circumstances will you know for sure. A model's eye view does not suffice because models do not need to have line of sight from their eyes to fire. And we really don't even know what the hell 'model's eye view' means exactly.

The consequence of this is that nothing other than carnifexes and vehicles block line of sight in real game terms. I think that's not what was intended by 'monsters block line of sight.'

You can however tell exactly how tall a model is. and what the area of the base is, precisely.

Well, as you can see from the poll very few people (percentage-wise) use the pure model's eye view line of sight. Quite a big margin of people (including myself) use the "friendly" method which means no one is checking to see if you can see between a model's legs.

I also don't see what is so difficult about the concept of a "model's eye view". You are taking the viewpoint as if you were the model (or looking out of the model's eyes). Obviously 100% accuracy is impossible (since we can't get inside the model's head) but the general concept shouldn't be difficult to grasp.

In fact, I have to say that while you may be able to easily determine how tall a model is, if you're using the Magic Cylinder "Lite", you still have to use a "model's eye view" to check if you can see over the top of the invisible Cylinder. And trying to get two players to agree on whether they can see "over" an invisible barrier can be just as difficult as any other concept (if not more so).

 

I voted magic cylinder lite on the grounds that I think it should be assumed the model in question isn't standing stock still in the heat of battle, but doing a heck of a lot of bobbing and weaving.
The only way I'd say a friendly model's eye view should be used is if the object in question is a stationary or immobilized vehicle, like a drop pod, crippled rhino, or something along those lines.

  On the other hand, it could be argued that vehicles are kicking out a heck of a lot of dust, smoke, and other such things in large enough amounts to obscure whatever's behind them, giving credence to the infinatly high magic cylinder.

But that opens the can of worms doesn't it Yakface. Using model's eye view,  you're instantly reduced to stooping and interpreting what some mini can actually see.  It creates a lot of difficulties and slows up the game very quickly.  When playing BFG or cylinder light I rarely have this sort of problem.

Shooting through legs is crazy. Does the trooper/moster/walker stop and pose still so someone can shoot through? No, it moves so shooting through gaps in a model is plain crazy. Equally the idea that a sword sticking out heroically can be shot if it's the only bit of the model visible and the whole body/legs/head is obscured.

Well, it really depends on if the Wraithlord is currently listening to Madonna doesn't it

Pose...Pose...Pose...

Posted By SuperJohn on 09/12/2006 12:36 PM
Shooting through legs is crazy. Does the trooper/moster/walker stop and pose still so someone can shoot through? No, it moves so shooting through gaps in a model is plain crazy. Equally the idea that a sword sticking out heroically can be shot if it's the only bit of the model visible and the whole body/legs/head is obscured.

Who said anything about shooting a sword sticking out? None of the LOS styles presented allow shooting a sword sticking out if it's the only part of the model visible, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone was playing that way.

As for shooting between legs, I'll point out again, only a very small percentage of players play that way and from a "crazy" perspective is it really any more crazy than assuming a model is somehow in all places of his base at the same time, filling up every available area (as both the Magic Cylinder styles do)? I agree don't prefer to play the game that way because it slows the LOS process down too much but I personally don't think it's all that "crazy" an idea.

I guess my assertion here is that "cylinder lite" LOS behind it is less of a practical issue to check. Its much easier to accept/deny that Tac Marine Bob of the Builders Marine chapter can take a shot at the Defiler hiding behind the rhino.

Now back to my horrible Lovecraftian visions of Wraithlords Voguing in front of Austin Powers' new Polaroid, before taking the catwalk onto the gamefield.

"Thats it, thats it, now give me ANGRY, you're an Angry Wraithlord Beast!"

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

Actually, WM and Hordes use actual models for targetting. The center of bases is only to determine intervening models. In fact, there is a large picture in PRIME showing when you can and can't target a model. And you get some silly things like you *can* shoot a 'jack in the weapon or a trooper in his back banner (infantry cannot be targetted by things held in the *hands*).

I agree that the optimal situation would be to trace LOS purely from the base (which should be set by the game rules) at either a fixed height or (better) from top down, checking to make sure it doesn't cross any obstructing feature.

Posted By yakface on 09/12/2006 12:59 PM

is it really any more crazy than assuming a model is somehow in all places of his base at the same time, filling up every available area (as both the Magic Cylinder styles do)?

Actually the reason for the blocking of the area over the base is that throught the game turn (unknown length of real time) the model could be moving anywhere above the base, so it is easier to treat it as it could have been blocking in any of those areas instead of just a static position as it is modelled (this is explained on pages 6 and 7 as the model could be running kneeling or crouching). A walker or dreadnaught/monstrous creature would be walking and swinging it's arms and legs around as it moves to line up a shot, charges an enemy etc. The reason it could be anywhere is because of the length of time that a turn is, you don't just open fire for the split second it is in the modelled pose. This may not normally apply to tanks since they cannot kneel and crouch but hey, tanks aren't modelled to their correct size anyway.

Of course then why doesn't it block for the area that it moved (ie 6" move)? I'm guessing that was considered to be too much of a complication.

Where are my rusty spoons...

I chose magic cylinder Lite. The reason is I imagine this game to be more than static placement of static models. I imagine these little guys running and jumping around, firing and dodging bullets during the turn.

I think if "models eye view"  were to be the correct answer, then people should be penalized for shooting through friendly models. Strictly speaking.

I cannot stress the sentence above enough. If its good for the goose, then its good for the gander as well. It is illogical for the rules to state how closely LOS should be adhered to, when you can simply fire through your own units. Assuming your models jump out of the way of freindly fire, while a sentinel legs wouldnt be blocking LOS is ludicrous.

Magic cylinder lite for the win.

So cylinder lite is the way to go for me and it saves alot of otherwise valuable playing time from arguments about exact LOS being drawn. When people get that nitpicky about the game. I will play just as dirty. No one likes playing with me when it comes time to getting down to me drawing exact LOS from the barrel of my bolter to the barely visible ear of a enemy model.

The rules are bad enough already without adding that element of "A$$holery" to the game.

I really really want to vote friendly models eye view, but I dont see many people conforming to that one here. Perhaps when I move I will change my vote.

Posted By yakface on 09/12/2006 12:59 PM

Posted By SuperJohn on 09/12/2006 12:36 PM
Shooting through legs is crazy. Does the trooper/moster/walker stop and pose still so someone can shoot through? No, it moves so shooting through gaps in a model is plain crazy. Equally the idea that a sword sticking out heroically can be shot if it's the only bit of the model visible and the whole body/legs/head is obscured.

Who said anything about shooting a sword sticking out? None of the LOS styles presented allow shooting a sword sticking out if it's the only part of the model visible, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone was playing that way.

As for shooting between legs, I'll point out again, only a very small percentage of players play that way and from a "crazy" perspective is it really any more crazy than assuming a model is somehow in all places of his base at the same time, filling up every available area (as both the Magic Cylinder styles do)? I agree don't prefer to play the game that way because it slows the LOS process down too much but I personally don't think it's all that "crazy" an idea.

 (God I hate these damned LOS discussions, they have been going on for YEARS AND YEARS to no avail.)


(This isnt towards yakface, it is simply furthering this part of the discussion)

Imagine this scenario, the model on the base is presumed to occupy the area of the base up to the head. That is the theorhetical area that this model could possibly occupy at that point in time, as opposed to sitting there silently still awaiting the enemy to shoot you because thats what the anal people like to play?

I really have a tough time swallowing models eye view of either description. I want to meet you halfway, but I really fail to see how this makes the game fun or playable.

When its dusk and its time to go to bed, thats what matters in my book.

I play the Friendly Model's eye view, because it most closely represents what I Believe to be the designer's intent. Note I said "what I believe". This is important, because here, I am the tournament organiser, and store rules guru. BTW I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone here at Dakka for helping me see all the ways these (horribly) vague rules can be interpereted. (Even you Capt. Anderson :p )

i choose to play with magic cylindar or MCL as I would like to play a game, not quibble.

I really don't like the idea of having to choose which way to face my infantry models so that lines of fire are more favorable.

Games should be fun, not stressful.

Hellfury:
"I really have a tough time swallowing models eye view of either description. I want to meet you halfway, but I really fail to see how this makes the game fun or playable."

Model's eye view is supposed to make the players a little more involved with their army. You're seeing what your miniatures see, rather than using an abstract formula to determine whether they can see something.


cuda1179:
"I really don't like the idea of having to choose which way to face my infantry models so that lines of fire are more favorable."

That's not a requirement under ANY of the various versions of the rules listed here. While model's eye view relies on drawing a LOS from the model's eye, the rules tell us to ignore the model's facing.