What to do about "I can see the tip of your sword" LoS?

[Jukkiz]

Well, cut the sword hand from the wrist and rotate it so it´s not so high. Easy to do and not much needed to stop whimpering opponents

Edited March 26, 2020 by Jukkiz

[Halandaar]

Well, cut the sword hand from the wrist and rotate it so it´s not so high. Easy to do and not much needed to stop whimpering opponents

 

Even if the OP was inclined to do so, bear in mind that on the model in question it's an organic arm, so it's much more difficult to make that join look natural than it would be on say a Space Marine where you can make clear cuts where the armour plates join.

 

In any case, it should not be necessary to disassemble painted models just to stop your opponent being That Guy. 

[Panzer]

I honestly don't think sticking to the rules as written is being That Guy. It's not a well written rule and I personally wouldn't mind a houserule to ignore weapon parts and such, but as is the other guy is not wrong and as long as he's not a dick about it he's not a That Guy.

[Gederas]

I honestly don't think sticking to the rules as written is being That Guy. It's not a well written rule and I personally wouldn't mind a houserule to ignore weapon parts and such, but as is the other guy is not wrong and as long as he's not a dick about it he's not a That Guy.

Newer versions of the Line of Sight rule since 8th have come out SPECIFICALLY call for seeing the model's body and "weapons, spikes and banners" don't count.

 

See: Necromunda and Kill-Team.

 

This is a case of being "That Guy" because later versions of the same rule show the intention of the rule better.

[Panzer]

 

I honestly don't think sticking to the rules as written is being That Guy. It's not a well written rule and I personally wouldn't mind a houserule to ignore weapon parts and such, but as is the other guy is not wrong and as long as he's not a dick about it he's not a That Guy.

Newer versions of the Line of Sight rule since 8th have come out SPECIFICALLY call for seeing the model's body and "weapons, spikes and banners" don't count.

 

See: Necromunda and Kill-Team.

 

This is a case of being "That Guy" because later versions of the same rule show the intention of the rule better.

 

 

Newer versions of different systems. In case you didn't notice, lots of things are different in those systems and GW is not short on opportunities to change how LoS or whatever works for 40k thanks to CA and FAQs/Erratas.

This is definitely not a case of being "That Guy". Imho calling someone That Guy because he sticks to the core rules RAW borders on That Guy territory itself but that's neither here nor there.

 

Let's hope that if we get a new edition this summer they'll change how it works, but officially at this moment right now the intend seems to be to let swords, banners and so on count for Warhammer 40k.

[Dagoth Ur]

Absolutely That Guy behaviour - not only does it not make sense from a realism point of view, nor is it in line with company rules writing across its past and breadth of systems, it is genuinely just poor sportsmanship to think that the *tip of a bloody sword* is enough to draw line of sight. Edited March 26, 2020 by The Observer

[Gederas]

Absolutely That Guy behaviour - not only does it not make sense from a realism point of view, nor is it in line with company rules writing across its past and breadth of systems, it is genuinely just poor sportsmanship to think that the *tip of a bloody sword* is enough to draw line of sight.

Thank you for reiterating my point in a more well-thought out manner.

 

[Jolemai]

Conversely, how is it not The Guy behaviour to assume/demand that everyone use a house rule because a player thinks a rule is bobbins?

[Halandaar]

Let's hope that if we get a new edition this summer they'll change how it works, but officially at this moment right now the intend seems to be to let swords, banners and so on count for Warhammer 40k.

 

As previously mentioned, even an update to 8th Edition itself (Chapter Approved 2018) includes this variant of how Line of Sight works with regard to weapons, banners and so on. You can say "oh it's an expansion it doesn't count" if you like, but it's not an actual rule we're talking about, it's a Designer's Note which exists specifically to clarify intent, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer that this intent applies to the whole game rather than the handful of pages about Cities of Death.

 

Earlier you referenced "Modelling for Advantage", which isn't a rule of the game. "RAW", I can draw LoS from any part of a model, including one I put there myself because the rules don't make that distinction, it's just that to do so is an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage, and is (rightly) discouraged within the community.

 

Well, claiming you can "see" a whole unit behind a solid barrier because one of them has a component with a raised sword is also an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage and effectively punishing your opponent for having the audacity to build their models in a way they find pleasing. Logically, there is no difference between the two positions. You can't be for one and against the other.

[MARK0SIAN]

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

[Gederas]

Let's hope that if we get a new edition this summer they'll change how it works, but officially at this moment right now the intend seems to be to let swords, banners and so on count for Warhammer 40k.

As previously mentioned, even an update to 8th Edition itself (Chapter Approved 2018) includes this variant of how Line of Sight works with regard to weapons, banners and so on. You can say "oh it's an expansion it doesn't count" if you like, but it's not an actual rule we're talking about, it's a Designer's Note which exists specifically to clarify intent, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer that this intent applies to the whole game rather than the handful of pages about Cities of Death.

 

Earlier you referenced "Modelling for Advantage", which isn't a rule of the game. "RAW", I can draw LoS from any part of a model, including one I put there myself because the rules don't make that distinction, it's just that to do so is an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage, and is (rightly) discouraged within the community.

 

Well, claiming you can "see" a whole unit behind a solid barrier because one of them has a component with a raised sword is also an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage and effectively punishing your opponent for having the audacity to build their models in a way they find pleasing. Logically, there is no difference between the two positions. You can't be for one and against the other.

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

Exactly what Halandaar and MARK0SIAN are saying.

 

In other words, Zeph is dealing the worst kind of That Guy:

 

The Rules Lawyer

 

Because to them, RAW is all that matters. Even if RAW makes no sense

Edited March 26, 2020 by Gederas

[Panzer]

 

Let's hope that if we get a new edition this summer they'll change how it works, but officially at this moment right now the intend seems to be to let swords, banners and so on count for Warhammer 40k.

 

As previously mentioned, even an update to 8th Edition itself (Chapter Approved 2018) includes this variant of how Line of Sight works with regard to weapons, banners and so on. You can say "oh it's an expansion it doesn't count" if you like, but it's not an actual rule we're talking about, it's a Designer's Note which exists specifically to clarify intent, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer that this intent applies to the whole game rather than the handful of pages about Cities of Death.

 

Earlier you referenced "Modelling for Advantage", which isn't a rule of the game. "RAW", I can draw LoS from any part of a model, including one I put there myself because the rules don't make that distinction, it's just that to do so is an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage, and is (rightly) discouraged within the community.

 

Well, claiming you can "see" a whole unit behind a solid barrier because one of them has a component with a raised sword is also an immersion-breaking act of needless pedantry designed to gain an advantage and effectively punishing your opponent for having the audacity to build their models in a way they find pleasing. Logically, there is no difference between the two positions. You can't be for one and against the other.

 

 

In case I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about the core rules.

 

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

In other words, the worst kind of That Guy:

 

The Rules Lawyer

 

Because to them, RAW is all that matters. Even if RAW makes no sense

 

 

Saying that your made up rule is worth more than the official rule and is the only way the game should be played is at least if not more That Guy. Being That Guy is all about your attitude and behaviour. You can stick to RAW or prefer Houserules without being That Guy just fine.

[Halandaar]

In case I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about the core rules.

 

Everything after the first paragraph still applies. You can't be in favour of drawing LoS to a sword-tip but not in favour of me drawing LoS from a big aerial because they are two sides of the same coin. Both are "correct" according to the core rules.

[Panzer]

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

 

That's a LOT of interpretation. We know absolutely nothing of the person OP talks about except that he apparently for whatever reason prefers the RAW version of the rules. We don't know why or how he brings that intend across. Nothing. We don't even know whether OP and that person have properly talked about it.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Panzer

[Panzer]

 

In case I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about the core rules.

 

Everything after the first paragraph still applies. You can't be in favour of drawing LoS to a sword-tip but not in favour of me drawing LoS from a big aerial because they are two sides of the same coin. Both are "correct" according to the core rules.

 

 

Well that's a strawman and you know it and the last paragraph doesn't apply at all either considering that being able to shoot a whole unit because you can see the finger of one model makes not any more sense either and is similarly immersion breaking.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I'd like to mention, this isn't the first time he's tried to draw nonsense line of sight, and he hasn't listened either time.

[Gederas]

Okay, so basically, what we're seeing here is an example of even the whole "it's not in the core rules, so it doesn't matter" viewpoint.

 

The Cities of Death rules, WHICH ARE OFFICIAL RULES WRITTEN BY GW'S RULES TEAM, has a designer note that specifically says as such:

 

"When checking to see if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the models' bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularly impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs"

 

Emphasis (bolding and underlining) mine. Which is pretty clear-cut that the intention of the core rule for line of sight, from the rules team themselves, NOT INCLUDING those things.

 

Which again, is also how the Line-of-Sight rule has been written by GW every single time since 8th Edition came out aside from the omission of it in the Core Rules.....

 

I'd like to mention, this isn't the first time he's tried to draw nonsense line of sight, and he hasn't listened either time.

Got a metal Dreadnought or Ghaz? It sounds like he needs a dreadsocking . Or if you want to avoid prison time, just give your Sanctus (since you're playing Genecult, and also an untargetable character outside of sniper rifles....) a nice 36" tall aerial so he can snipe literally everything on the table.

 

In all seriousness.... I'd really not play with this guy. No games is better than bad games. And this guy sounds like he brings nothing but bad games.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Gederas

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

That's a LOT of interpretation. We know absolutely nothing of the person OP talks about except that he apparently for whatever reason prefers the RAW version of the rules. We don't know why or how he brings that intend across. Nothing. We don't even know whether OP and that person have properly talked about it.

If he had a good reason/explanation then surely he would’ve given that to the OP? Granted we don’t know everything but we do know the OP asked for a reasonable adjustment to the game and was outright refused. No attempt to accommodate or work something out being made.

 

We do know that his RAW approach benefited him, we do know that he refused a reasonable request, we do know his opponent is not enjoying the game against him. I believe we therefore do know enough for the interpretation to be a reasonable one. It may well be that he is being ‘That Guy’ and doesn’t realise, hence my first post advising the OP to ask him to change his behaviour.

[Panzer]

Okay, so basically, what we're seeing here is an example of even the whole "it's not in the core rules, so it doesn't matter" viewpoint.

 

The Cities of Death rules, WHICH ARE OFFICIAL RULES WRITTEN BY GW'S RULES TEAM, has a designer note that specifically says as such:

 

"When checking to see if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the models' bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularly impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs"

 

Emphasis (bolding and underlining) mine. Which is pretty clear-cut that the intention of the core rule for line of sight, from the rules team themselves, NOT INCLUDING those things.

 

Which again, is also how the Line-of-Sight rule has been written by GW every single time since 8th Edition came out aside from the omission of it in the Core Rules.....

 

 

No what we are seeing here is a "Both people have to agree on something that's outside of the core rules or it doesn't matter because it's either a houserule or friggin optional".

Your so called clear-cut intention for the core rules is purely derived from an optional add-on to the game that's not the core rules.

I don't get why that's so difficult to grasp for some people here. The kind of logic you are trying to force here blows my mind.

 

 

The ‘That Guy’ element of his behaviour comes not from wanting to use rules as written, it’s the fact that he’s utterly inflexible in refusing to consider a very reasonable amendment (that has precedent in previous versions and other games) because the current situation benefits him.

 

In short, he only cares about his own experience on the table and not that of his opponent. He could even offer to play every other game with the OPs proffered rule but the fact he won’t even consider it is what makes him ‘That Guy’.

That's a LOT of interpretation. We know absolutely nothing of the person OP talks about except that he apparently for whatever reason prefers the RAW version of the rules. We don't know why or how he brings that intend across. Nothing. We don't even know whether OP and that person have properly talked about it.

If he had a good reason/explanation then surely he would’ve given that to the OP? Granted we don’t know everything but we do know the OP asked for a reasonable adjustment to the game and was outright refused. No attempt to accommodate or work something out being made.

 

We do know that his RAW approach benefited him, we do know that he refused a reasonable request, we do know his opponent is not enjoying the game against him. I believe we therefore do know enough for the interpretation to be a reasonable one. It may well be that he is being ‘That Guy’ and doesn’t realise, hence my first post advising the OP to ask him to change his behaviour.

 

 

Not necessarily. Some people are just lacking communication skills. There are plenty of reasons where the communication between OP and that person could have  went wrong. Perhaps that person also simply doesn't like houserules. Such people exist plenty and there really is nothing wrong with that either. It just means OP and that person aren't compatible as far as it goes playing the game. Similarly how casual and competetive players aren't compatible while neither of them is wrong.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Panzer

[Halandaar]

...considering that being able to shoot a whole unit because you can see the finger of one model makes not any more sense either and is similarly immersion breaking.

 

Err, yes? I would agree, and as such in a game I would not claim I could draw Line of Sight to a unit on the basis of a Sergeant's pointing finger. This is kind of the point really; just because it's "RAW", doesn't mean it's "Right".

[Gederas]

EDIT: Nevermind, this, I'm out of this discussion

Edited March 26, 2020 by Gederas

[Panzer]

 

...considering that being able to shoot a whole unit because you can see the finger of one model makes not any more sense either and is similarly immersion breaking.

 

Err, yes? I would agree, and as such in a game I would not claim I could draw Line of Sight to a unit on the basis of a Sergeant's pointing finger. This is kind of the point really; just because it's "RAW", doesn't mean it's "Right".

 

 

So it would be fine if it's the hand? The underarm? The whole arm? When do we reach the point for when it's plausible and not immersion breaking to kill 30 models hiding completely out of Line of Sight?

[Panzer]

 

Okay, so basically, what we're seeing here is an example of even the whole "it's not in the core rules, so it doesn't matter" viewpoint.

 

The Cities of Death rules, WHICH ARE OFFICIAL RULES WRITTEN BY GW'S RULES TEAM, has a designer note that specifically says as such:

 

"When checking to see if a model is obscured, consider the main body of the firing model and its target - do not include the models' bases or parts that are 'sticking out' like aerials, banners, weapons or particularly impressive hairstyles, but do include all limbs"

 

Emphasis (bolding and underlining) mine. Which is pretty clear-cut that the intention of the core rule for line of sight, from the rules team themselves, NOT INCLUDING those things.

 

Which again, is also how the Line-of-Sight rule has been written by GW every single time since 8th Edition came out aside from the omission of it in the Core Rules.....

 

No what we are seeing here is a "Both people have to agree on something that's outside of the core rules or it doesn't matter because it's either a houserule or friggin optional".

Your so called clear-cut intention for the core rules is purely derived from an optional add-on to the game that's not the core rules.

I don't get why that's so difficult to grasp for some people here. The kind of logic you are trying to force here blows my mind.

Okay, let me frame it like this:

 

ITC

 

People seem to think everyone should abide by ITC rules, and only ITC rules. So the Magic Boxes and all that. Which are, house rules. Because they're not official rules written by GW.

 

Like, I can't tell if you're actually being so willfully obtuse for the sake of being a Devil's Advocate or what. Or if this is just a case of GIFT in action.... Seriously, you're coming off like the guy who ignores FAQ and Errata because it's not in the rulebook, therefore its, in your own words "either a houserule or friggin optional".

 

 

Why are you talking about ITC now? Nobody debated that ITC is houserules. When you play a tournament that uses ITC rules or an opponent that wants to play "according to ITC" you obviously agree to that set of houserules. This is completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

I'm not being obtuse at all. I just can't stand it that people like you go around and call others That Guy just because they disagree with them. That's a misuse of the term and a somewhat serious accusation imo. If anything that makes you That Guy in my book because it shows a serious elitist behaviour and a willfullness to judge people without knowing anything about them.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Panzer

[Halandaar]

So it would be fine if it's the hand? The underarm? The whole arm? When do we reach the point for when it's plausible and not immersion breaking to kill 30 models hiding completely out of Line of Sight?

 

If your point is to demonstrate that the entire principle of Line of Sight in 40k as written is stupid, then I agree with you. 

 

It doesn't change the fact that claiming visibility to 30 models on the basis of a stray bit of cloth or an upraised sword is unnecessarily obnoxious. If anything, it makes it even more stark. You can already wipe the unit by just squeaking ONE torso or limb into view; do you really need to insist that a superfluous bit of cloak flapping in the breeze is a viable target too? I guess if you do then you do, but I wouldn't expect a lot of follow-up games.

[Panzer]

@OP

 

Really, neither of you is wrong. You both just have a different idea of how to play the game. You run into the same problem against die-hard competetive players if you run more casual lists. It just means you aren't compatible.

If you can't talk things out there are only really two reasonable options: suck it up every once in a while and play like he wants to or don't play him at all. I wouldn't hold it against him if he isn't a dick or otherwise bad opponent though.