Posted By H.B.M.C. on 08/10/2007 7:43 AM
As I think has been stated about a billion times now, that quote only relates to measuring distances.

BYE

Posted By Hellfury on 08/07/2007 8:53 PM
It looks like Magic cylinder lite is RAW.



So the model occupies the area of its base. Clear, no ambiguity and I am soo stupid for not seeing this until just a few minutes ago.

Again, Magic cylinder lite for the win!

That is indeed the argument for the Magic Cylinder (lite or otherwise) but it isn't correct depending on your definition of "area". If you use the term "area" in the mathmatical sense then I believe you are indeed correct, but if you are using the real world definiton of "area" then all this rule means is that a model's base counts as part of him (and he part of it).

You see, a model's base is a 3-dimensional object, and the area over the model's base isn't the same thing as the actual space a base occupies. For example, if I'm standing on the roof of my house and we decide that I count as occupying the area of the house, the air above the house's roof certainly wouldn't constitute the same thing.

Of course, if we agreed that I count as occupying the area of my house up to a given height then you would be correct. But the rules don't say anything like that, they just say that a model occupies the area of it's base and just it's base.

So while a base itself certainly blocks line of sight any area above that base not occupied by the actual model wouldn't block line of sight.

At least that's my interpretation.

While abuses are availible with any of these choices, I think the ones that lead to the least amount of abuse are the magic cylinders and the full blown Magic cylinder being the least breakable of the two. With that, people can model to there hearts content and not worry about gaming issues that it will cause. The only abuse availible is to put things on nonstandard sized bases, but I am willing to live with that one over people making crawling Wrathlords, clipping the wings of the Bloodthirster (er, sorry, no such thing anymore, just "greater daemon", would not want new players to get confused at what I am talking about...), worry about putting their characters on cooler bases because the bases make the model taller than it normally would be, etc.  Ideally, models should be given a size category and a base size, and that creates the magic cylinder, no more, no less. Now it does not matter what you do. I guess for that we will have to wait for v5 or beyond.

The Wraith

Posted By yakface on 08/14/2007 10:46 PM

You see, a model's base is a 3-dimensional object, and the area over the model's base isn't the same thing as the actual space a base occupies. For example, if I'm standing on the roof of my house and we decide that I count as occupying the area of the house, the air above the house's roof certainly wouldn't constitute the same thing.

Of course, if we agreed that I count as occupying the area of my house up to a given height then you would be correct. But the rules don't say anything like that, they just say that a model occupies the area of it's base and just it's base.

So while a base itself certainly blocks line of sight any area above that base not occupied by the actual model wouldn't block line of sight.

At least that's my interpretation.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/07/2007 8:53 PM
So the model occupies the area of its base. Clear, no ambiguity and I am soo stupid for not seeing this until just a few minutes ago.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/15/2007 1:30 PM

Yakface, while the above appears to be logical, I have to say that it is the biggest load of horse excrement I have ever seen you post on dakka.

Really, no offense is intended. But its crap.

Here is why. My explanation, which also happens to be a real world explanation by the way, not just something that nerds and geeks use, is simple. It occupies the area of its base.

Your explanation is so nit picky that I hope I never see someone across the table try and pull that gak. I would be hard pressed not to push them off of the roof of their explanation.

The base's height if 5/16ths of an inch blocks line of sight....

No sir, I am pretty much going to be very fascist and insist that magic cylinder lite be used from now on in any game I play.

 Anything else is simply wasting my precious time over pedantic "OH no! But we must argue for 20 mins over the finer minutae..." feth that. This is a basic rule we are talking about here, not interpretation of Vibrocannons ambiguous LOS.

There is a saying in the army that revolves around the acronym of K.I.S.S.

Its called "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"

The simplest way to play this without having to bend over and make sure that your ankle isnt exposed to enemy fire has to be the best way to play this. Models are dynamic, they dont strike a pose on the battlefield, "vogueing" their way to victory.

Jesus H. Christ on a roman hurt stick! I am glad there are games out there that can adequately explain LOS like AT-43. Clear, concise LOS which is the basis of rules like these.

A Basic rule! A rule which everyone needs to be on board for so that the rules can function and fair play can ensue!

You're of course entitled to your opinion and if we ever play I'm fine with sticking with the magic cylinder-lite as long as you remind me ahead of time. You may want to notice that the poll at the head of this thread shows that most people (just barely) don't play the magic cylinder-lite, so you may not want to "insist" everyone plays your way (perhaps a negotiation is more in order). 

Also, you may want to consider this; you say: "The simplest way to play this without having to bend over and make sure that your ankle isnt exposed to enemy fire has to be the best way to play this. Models are dynamic, they dont strike a pose on the battlefield, "vogueing" their way to victory."

However the line of sight rules on page 21 of the rulebook even say that the best way to determine line of sight is to actually bend over the table to get a model's eye view.

I fully understand that many people prefer to play a game where you don't have to stoop over the table to check line of sight but I do firmly believe that the current 40K rules are not this game.

For me personally, I like the stooping over the table as it is what makes the whole use of 3D terrain and models worthwhile. Once you remove the 'model's eye view' rule from the game you've finally reduced the game to 2 dimensions and really we can be playing it with marked coins instead of miniatures and felt instead of terrain.

Besides, 90% of the time I think line of sight is pretty cut-and-dry. I don't think it is such an inconvience to have to stoop over the table the other 10% of the time.

But again, that's just me.

Posted By yakface on 08/14/2007 10:46 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 08/07/2007 8:53 PM
It looks like Magic cylinder lite is RAW.



So the model occupies the area of its base. Clear, no ambiguity and I am soo stupid for not seeing this until just a few minutes ago.

Again, Magic cylinder lite for the win!

That is indeed the argument for the Magic Cylinder (lite or otherwise) but it isn't correct depending on your definition of "area". If you use the term "area" in the mathmatical sense then I believe you are indeed correct, but if you are using the real world definiton of "area" then all this rule means is that a model's base counts as part of him (and he part of it).

You see, a model's base is a 3-dimensional object, and the area over the model's base isn't the same thing as the actual space a base occupies. For example, if I'm standing on the roof of my house and we decide that I count as occupying the area of the house, the air above the house's roof certainly wouldn't constitute the same thing.

Of course, if we agreed that I count as occupying the area of my house up to a given height then you would be correct. But the rules don't say anything like that, they just say that a model occupies the area of it's base and just it's base.

So while a base itself certainly blocks line of sight any area above that base not occupied by the actual model wouldn't block line of sight.

At least that's my interpretation.

 

Saying you are using the "real world" definition assumes you know that GW actually used the incorrect terms. The rules work fine if the model only occupies the area of it's base (2d) because you only need the base area for that part of LOS or range. The model height is treated differently than the area, the area of the base is literal, the height is variable but treated the same for each individual Size Category. The volume of the model is actually not consistent with the physical dimensions (as magic cylinder lite tries to be). It also doesn't have to be because you can apply all of the conditions to gain LOS determination without using the literal model (just need that base). In your house example you do count as "occupying" your house to a certain height, in your case you would occupy up to level 2 for LOS purposes on the main floor, but would count as 3 flro LOS purposes if you were on the roof.  The pose you are in does not matter.

Your house example is the reason they needed new rules for multiple levels for City Fight, basic 40k really is two dimentional with a work around for additional levels. Yes you can play the game with coins, but that is like saying it that you can play with unpainted models. Finished models allow the players to have a more visual experience, and the current rules allow you to model your units however you want without them giving unfair advantages or detriments.

And for anyone reading the above note, realize that a basic English teacher can explain how the part of the sentence before the comma is independent of the part following. It can be parsed as such:

"Firstly a model is considered to occupy the area of it base. Since the model occupies the area of the base use the closest edge of the base as your reference point when measuring distances."

No change to meaning, but clearer to read. Note that the quote is from the model size area, and the second half of the sentence is an example of how to use the first half of the sentence. It is not a restriction to only use it for that one thing, you also use the edge of the base for close combat because that is the area on the table that the model occupies.

Posted By snooggums on 08/16/2007 10:39 AM

Your house example is the reason they needed new rules for multiple levels for City Fight, basic 40k really is two dimentional with a work around for additional levels. Yes you can play the game with coins, but that is like saying it that you can play with unpainted models. Finished models allow the players to have a more visual experience, and the current rules allow you to model your units however you want without them giving unfair advantages or detriments.

You know that isn't true because there are several examples in the rulebook that specifically state you don't use size classifications and you have to use a model's eye view instead. There is even the part in the LOS rules that states you have to draw LOS to the model's "body" as opposed to its arms or other small appendage. Clearly the rules are not written 100% two-dimensionally (and as indicated by the poll at the top of this thread very few players actually play the game fully 2D, the "pure magic cylinder" method).

The issue is the rules seem to have a split personality depending on who is reading them as is illustrated by the poll results. I think all players need to have a quick discussion with their opponents before the game to decide how they're going to play the game regarding this issue.

Actually Yak, geometrically your house example is demonstrably false. That is to say, your use of terms is incorrect.

Your claim that the model occupies the area of the base, and therefore only the volume of the black peice of plastic it was shipped with, not the air above it. (If I read correctly.) The trouble is, you switched from area (as the rule) to volume (as to the space it takes up in 3 dimensions.)
The rule says it occupies the entire area of the base. Area is a 2 dimensional measurement. The height of the model (in the case of 40k, described as one of 3 different values) when multiplied by the area of it's base, defines the volume of the cylinder it takes up. Since model has a height specified by the rules, it occupies all the area of a base, up to a certain height. Given that the base is round, that describes a cylinder.
So you see, the model taking up the entire area of the base is not mutually exclusive with it occupying the entire area of the cylinder described by BaseArea*HeightValue. It simply means it takes up that entire cylinder, not just the area of it's torso, or legs etc. in terms of LOS blocking. In otherwords, being a certain height, and a certain area of base, requires a cylinder (or a box if on a rectangular cavalry base or some such.)

I would apply this to drawing LOS to the model as well, since if say it is partly behind a peice of terrain, but has some base showing, you can assume it is hiding behind the corner, then popping out to snap off rounds, then hiding again, throughout the course of the turn, and is being shot at while hiding. If you wanted to house rule something to make that action worth while, perhaps you could offer a 4+ cover save if a model's base is 50% hidden.

The rules in the book suggest the torso, but do not show any concern for any other way the model is positioned, such as facing or the like, which seems to me backs up the idea that the model is constantly moving, and not posing or holding a position, which seems to make just the torso sort of pointless. I would accept LOS for targeting around terrain, but require cylinder for shooting through model's bases

Edit: Redundant to Snoogums.

Posted By yakface on 08/20/2007 10:08 PM

You know that isn't true because there are several examples in the rulebook that specifically state you don't use size classifications and you have to use a model's eye view instead. There is even the part in the LOS rules that states you have to draw LOS to the model's "body" as opposed to its arms or other small appendage. Clearly the rules are not written 100% two-dimensionally (and as indicated by the poll at the top of this thread very few players actually play the game fully 2D, the "pure magic cylinder" method).

The issue is the rules seem to have a split personality depending on who is reading them as is illustrated by the poll results. I think all players need to have a quick discussion with their opponents before the game to decide how they're going to play the game regarding this issue.

Actually the main disgreement I have with the way "Model's eye view" is used for "true LOS" is that it is a figure of speech but you are using it literally. Model's eye view is similar to "bird's eye view" which is used to describe looking down from a height. As the rules for models state that the model could be standing kneeling or laying down it is contradictory to the established model definition to literally look through the model's eyes.

From webster.com:

Main Entry: bird's-eye view
Function: noun
1 : a view from a high angle as if seen by a bird in flight
2 : an overall or cursory look at something

It does not mena to literally look through a specific bird's eyes. Leaning over the table for a model's eye view is simply to lean over the table and look from a similar height as the model, not to literally look through thier eyes (or a lot of players need to start drilling out the backs of their skulls). Leaning over allows the observer to easily see if things are between the model and the target (such as the edge of a piece of area terrain's base) that are not as easy to see from a player's eye view because the lower perspective is more easy to see quickly. The use of body in one section and used one time is the only part of the rules that menations a body other than the vehicle rules, and since it contradicts the rules for an infantry model (which by definition can be standing kneeling or rolling in dung) the single use of body (which would have been valid if only talking about vehicles without bases) must be the mistaken terminology.

But really we are just rehashing the same arguments as past threads and the beginning of this thread so people who have decided their view will probably not be swayed. You are correct about agreeing ahead of time with your opponent on how you will be playing.

Posted By Wehrkind on 08/21/2007 7:23 AM

Actually Yak, geometrically your house example is demonstrably false. That is to say, your use of terms is incorrect.

Your claim that the model occupies the area of the base, and therefore only the volume of the black peice of plastic it was shipped with, not the air above it. (If I read correctly.) The trouble is, you switched from area (as the rule) to volume (as to the space it takes up in 3 dimensions.)

I specifically said I was dealing with the non-mathmatical definition of the word "area" in which case my assertion is completely valid.

@ Snoggums: A "models eye view" (if a dictionary definition existed) would be rather similar to what you posted for a 'bird's eye view', something like:  "a view from a low angle as if seen through the eyes of a model"  seems likely.

The point is you do stooop over the table and take the viewpoint of the firing model (as best you can) to try to determine what that model could and could not see.

There are indications in the rules, in the White Dwarf terrain addendum by Pete Haines and in the Rulebook FAQ that all mention the use of a 'true' or WYSIWYG line of sight is used at times during the game as opposed to size categories (which are used when seeing into/through area terrain and ongoing combats).

Honestly, to claim that the rules tell you to play by a pure magic cylinder method really is a case of burying your head in the sand. You just have to ignore too much evidence to the contrary to do so.

Posted By yakface on 08/21/2007 7:18 PM

@ Snoggums: A "models eye view" (if a dictionary definition existed) would be rather similar to what you posted for a 'bird's eye view', something like:  "a view from a low angle as if seen through the eyes of a model"  seems likely.

The point is you do stooop over the table and take the viewpoint of the firing model (as best you can) to try to determine what that model could and could not see.

There are indications in the rules, in the White Dwarf terrain addendum by Pete Haines and in the Rulebook FAQ that all mention the use of a 'true' or WYSIWYG line of sight is used at times during the game as opposed to size categories (which are used when seeing into/through area terrain and ongoing combats).

Honestly, to claim that the rules tell you to play by a pure magic cylinder method really is a case of burying your head in the sand. You just have to ignore too much evidence to the contrary to do so.

There's no sand in my hair at all.

The White Dwarf clarification I cannot comment on. If it is the one that suggests the 4th size level I think it is a decent idea but has noo bearing on the subject. If it is some other "clarification" it doesn't apply as the Rulebook FAQ is the rules, and it supports my side.

From the FAQ:

SHOOTING:

Q: Does an infantry model on a Size 3 hill count as size 3 or as Size 5 (3+2) in regards to LOS into/over Area Terrain and over other models? And what about a Size 3 Tank on a hill?

A. The size of the hill is not added to the model's size, but rather the model counts as being the same size as the hill. Both models therefore count as Size 3 for the purpose of LOS over Area Terrain and other models. Remember, however, that when working out LOS with normal terrain (not Area Terrain), real line of sight is used, so being on a hill is still an advantage for a tank.

Several notes that back my argument. The hill is referred to both as being able to be classified as Area Terrain and also "normal" terrain that it helps the tank (which draws LOS from the mount) use the hill to it's advantage. In these threads I am often told hills are automatically WYSIWYG, but obviously this is not the case (sorry for the sidtrack). It also specifies shooting over models of a certain Size Level (using Size Level terrain) as a blanket statement, not just models in close combat. This is because the rules for models use Size Levels, not WYSIWYG.

The last sentence of the clarification describes shooting over WYSIWYG terrain only, seperate from the first part, and is defined seperately in the rule book from area terrain or models which are described as not being able to use "true LOS" in their section as I noted above. Basically, "normal terrain" rules are completely seperate from area terrain and model sizes. This is consistent with the rule book.

So:

Model shooting over normal terrain (a normal hill) uses "true" LOS to determine LOS. A model on a piece of terrain with a Size Level (possibly including a hill that has been classified as area terrain) can use the terrain's size level to shoot over Area Terrain and other models (not specified as close combat). This means a Size level 2 model on a Size Level 3 hill would not be able to see over a carnifex because 3 is not higher than 3 no matter the actual height. Again, true LOS is used for shooting over normal terrain only. The Size Level increase for shooting only confers an advantage to Size Level 1 or 2 infantry shooting over Size Level 1 or 2 combat, but thems the breaks. This is why there was a suggestion for a fourth Size Level in White Dwarf.

The FAQ stating that the tank can use the height of a WYSIWYG hill to shoot over normal terrain does not confer the ability to do so over models. It specifies Size Levels when referring to models (not restricted to combat). This is consistent to the main rules which only use "body" in the section when talking about shooting around or over normal terrain (the hills crest). This is the only time the body of a model matters, and is the place you can use modeling to your advantage. Normal terrain has no effect on model sizes or how they interact with LOS regarding models or Size Level Terrain. The tank sitting on a 3 inch tall normal terrain hill would be able to shoot over a 2" hill nearby if the crest of the hill does not block the "body" and the 2" hill is normal terrain.

I'm not ignoring a thing. Model's Eye View is only necissary for normal terrain, not for figuring if a model is blocking, which the thread is about. You can't shoot over a rhino even if you are on a hill because it isn't terrain, so you use size levels which the main rule book only lists three of. Thems the rules.

yakface wrote:For me personally, I like the stooping over the table as it is what makes the whole use of 3D terrain and models worthwhile. Once you remove the 'model's eye view' rule from the game you've finally reduced the game to 2 dimensions and really we can be playing it with marked coins instead of miniatures and felt instead of terrain.