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

[Panzer]

 

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.

 

 

Yes more or less. My point was showing that your last paragraph of that post was well ... pointless. 

I think we can all agree that this editions terrain and LoS rules are lacking. It has been mentioned since the beginning of the edition. No point in arguing about it all over agian. What's important is how to help the OP and calling someone who wants to stick to the RAW 'That Guy' definitely doesn't help nor is it particularly fair.

[Halandaar]

 

Yes more or less. My point was showing that your last paragraph of that post was well ... pointless. 

 

The point, which i stand by, is that for a player to insist that items of wargear or decoration render a unit targetable is an exercise in unnecessary pedantry which exaggerates an already stupid system, and that while it might be permissible under the rules, it will not win you any friends (or regular opponents) to do so.

[Panzer]

 

 

Yes more or less. My point was showing that your last paragraph of that post was well ... pointless. 

 

The point, which i stand by, is that for a player to insist that items of wargear or decoration render a unit targetable is an exercise in unnecessary pedantry which exaggerates an already stupid system, and that while it might be permissible under the rules, it will not win you any friends (or regular opponents) to do so.

 

 

And I think I made it clear that it barely exaggerates an already existing "problem" at all. Fighting over this kind of thing and insisting to houserule it won't win you any friends either.

[tychobi]

The rules say that the line of sight is ok. You did not hide your model properly. Running to the web for validation of your lack of understanding of the rules is "that guy" behavior. This situation is your fault. Next time ask as you move the model "do you have LOS? My intention is to hide it so I will adjust if you can see it." It is not rules "lawering" to insist that LOS is LOS and refusal to play by the rules is cheating. Your feelings about the realism or spirit of those rules is inconsequential. Own your mistakes and become a better player for it.

[Jukkiz]

I feel like this thread now belongs to rules and not in general thing.

All i say is, what i would do. Make same model with same wargear but model it differently. Sure it adds price and time to make another but atleast he can´t whimper about stupid RAW as he likes to.

OR, throw mail at GWs rules email. This should be in core rulebook already but some of you are same as this guy already. RAW this and RAW that.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I feel like this thread now belongs to rules and not in general thing.

 

All i say is, what i would do. Make same model with same wargear but model it differently. Sure it adds price and time to make another but atleast he can´t whimper about stupid RAW as he likes to.

 

OR, throw mail at GWs rules email. This should be in core rulebook already but some of you are same as this guy already. RAW this and RAW that.

It went to rules, then back.

[MARK0SIAN]

The rules say that the line of sight is ok. You did not hide your model properly. Running to the web for validation of your lack of understanding of the rules is "that guy" behavior. This situation is your fault. Next time ask as you move the model "do you have LOS? My intention is to hide it so I will adjust if you can see it." It is not rules "lawering" to insist that LOS is LOS and refusal to play by the rules is cheating. Your feelings about the realism or spirit of those rules is inconsequential. Own your mistakes and become a better player for it.

The OP has already said he owns limited terrain. It’s not a mistake if his terrain is physically not high enough to obscure the tip of an upraised sword or similar. Also, his feelings about realism are not at all inconsequential. That’s how a lot of people enjoy this game and to tell them that’s inconsequential is just rude.

 

The OP is not playing in some hyper competitive tournament. He’s trying to enjoy the spirit of the game. If realism and immersion didn’t matter then why even bother with models? Why not just use a token. Why have true line of sight if it’s not meant to add realism and immersion?

[Kite Senet]

I've seen multiple instances of people claiming this opponent was exploiting the rules for an asymmetrical advantage; was this actually stated by the OP? I see no reason to believe that is the case--he stated his opponent was insisting to use RAW but not that he had modeled for advantage nor wouldn't allow the same rules used against him--and for that reason I wouldn't claim either side is in the wrong here.

 

The RAW prioritize clarity and smooth gameplay--the houserules you want to impose prioritize in-game sense at the expense of smooth gameplay. Both are equally valid priorities. The OP has only as much right to complain about the nonsense of a Sergeant's finger sticking out blowing an entire squad's cover as his opponent has to complain about tedious arguments over how many fingers need to be revealed to blow cover.

 

OP, if your opponent really isn't trying to use RAW for advantage, I think it's possible he may be valuing clarity and smooth gameplay. If you want a houserule, I suggest writing down the rule you want very precisely and suggesting that you both abide by that rule exactly as written--no unwritten rules that can be changed at a whim, no ambiguity, no room for misinterpretation whatsoever. And then play by those rules.

 

If your opponent *is* exploiting RAW for advantage, then...well, trying to get a good game with the fellow will be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Just wait for this pandemic to blow over and keep on hobbying.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Kite Senet

[tychobi]

 

The rules say that the line of sight is ok. You did not hide your model properly. Running to the web for validation of your lack of understanding of the rules is "that guy" behavior. This situation is your fault. Next time ask as you move the model "do you have LOS? My intention is to hide it so I will adjust if you can see it." It is not rules "lawering" to insist that LOS is LOS and refusal to play by the rules is cheating. Your feelings about the realism or spirit of those rules is inconsequential. Own your mistakes and become a better player for it.

The OP has already said he owns limited terrain. It’s not a mistake if his terrain is physically not high enough to obscure the tip of an upraised sword or similar. Also, his feelings about realism are not at all inconsequential. That’s how a lot of people enjoy this game and to tell them that’s inconsequential is just rude.

 

The OP is not playing in some hyper competitive tournament. He’s trying to enjoy the spirit of the game. If realism and immersion didn’t matter then why even bother with models? Why not just use a token. Why have true line of sight if it’s not meant to add realism and immersion?

If you want to play by house rules why ask on a forum? Do your own thing by all means. I don't play true line of sight in my home games either. The difference is the rules that are in place until you agree to a change are RAW. I stand by my interpretation. The game stopped because one player did not want to follow the rules as they stood. I do not have much sympathy for players who pull that kind of move. What about using other rules around disputes? Claim there is no line of sight and do a roll off? The rules are there to serve us and we all interpret them differently. In this case one player wanted a midgame rewrite of the understood rules. This request was denied and instead of moving on and moving the issue to post game discussion and a negotiation about a house rule for next time the game stopped and the OP was written. I waa not there, my interpretation might be wrong.

 

For me stopping that game meant OP was being "that guy". We have all been incorrect, confused, emotional, ignorant and otherwise not at our best on the table top. I want to get that game moving again and get those two talking out how they want to play the next one. I want to encourage the OP to be a better player, how to learn from this. Break your models and never play the opponent again are examples of bad internet advice. I expect better from this forum. This was a friendly house game. Lets support positive outcome focused behavior.

[Panzer]

I don't think the game was interrupted in the middle to ask for help here. At least that's not how I understand the OP.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

I don't think the game was interrupted in the middle to ask for help here. At least that's not how I understand the OP.

Correct, this is after the fact.

[Rik Lightstar]

If you refuse to do "fast rolling" (which is called out as optional in the core rules), then you resolve each attack one after the other.

 

So let him shoot the unit until he kills 1 model and then remove the visible one. At this point he starts the sequence for attacks and the rest of the unit can't be shot right?

 

Rik

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Sadly no.

[Dagoth Ur]

 

 

The rules say that the line of sight is ok. You did not hide your model properly. Running to the web for validation of your lack of understanding of the rules is "that guy" behavior. This situation is your fault. Next time ask as you move the model "do you have LOS? My intention is to hide it so I will adjust if you can see it." It is not rules "lawering" to insist that LOS is LOS and refusal to play by the rules is cheating. Your feelings about the realism or spirit of those rules is inconsequential. Own your mistakes and become a better player for it.

The OP has already said he owns limited terrain. It’s not a mistake if his terrain is physically not high enough to obscure the tip of an upraised sword or similar. Also, his feelings about realism are not at all inconsequential. That’s how a lot of people enjoy this game and to tell them that’s inconsequential is just rude.

 

The OP is not playing in some hyper competitive tournament. He’s trying to enjoy the spirit of the game. If realism and immersion didn’t matter then why even bother with models? Why not just use a token. Why have true line of sight if it’s not meant to add realism and immersion?

If you want to play by house rules why ask on a forum? Do your own thing by all means. I don't play true line of sight in my home games either. The difference is the rules that are in place until you agree to a change are RAW. I stand by my interpretation. The game stopped because one player did not want to follow the rules as they stood. I do not have much sympathy for players who pull that kind of move. What about using other rules around disputes? Claim there is no line of sight and do a roll off? The rules are there to serve us and we all interpret them differently. In this case one player wanted a midgame rewrite of the understood rules. This request was denied and instead of moving on and moving the issue to post game discussion and a negotiation about a house rule for next time the game stopped and the OP was written. I waa not there, my interpretation might be wrong.

 

For me stopping that game meant OP was being "that guy". We have all been incorrect, confused, emotional, ignorant and otherwise not at our best on the table top. I want to get that game moving again and get those two talking out how they want to play the next one. I want to encourage the OP to be a better player, how to learn from this. Break your models and never play the opponent again are examples of bad internet advice. I expect better from this forum. This was a friendly house game. Lets support positive outcome focused behavior.

That is....a bunch of assumptions grabbed out of thin air.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Indeed it is. As soon as an opponent starts this type of behavior I give them one warning. I remember one that three independent people told him he didn’t have los but he kept insisting he did. I told him go ahead and shoot but I’m not taking any saves.

[DuskRaider]

Can you imagine defending the idea that shooting the tip of a weapon would kill the model? Edited March 26, 2020 by DuskRaider

[Dagoth Ur]

Can you imagine defending the idea that shooting the tip of a weapon would kill the model?

I can. I can also imagine the metal dreadnought in a sock swung in response

[Panzer]

If you refuse to do "fast rolling" (which is called out as optional in the core rules), then you resolve each attack one after the other.

 

So let him shoot the unit until he kills 1 model and then remove the visible one. At this point he starts the sequence for attacks and the rest of the unit can't be shot right?

 

Rik

 

No because you check for line of sight only once when you declare the targets you are shooting at and then you simply resolve the shots without checking again. 

[Lord_Ikka]

At my FLGS, we follow the "If I can see you, you can see me" style interpretation. So if your opponent is being super-strict about LoS including stuff that hangs off the model (weapons, banner, etc...), then you get to use that against him as well. The easiest way to curb that sort of thing is to simply talk to your opponent before the game and agree to what degree stuff is considered viable for LoS.

 

As an aside, I've always considered the modeling for advantage idea to be ridiculous- if the model can be shot at because you modelled him differently than normal, such as a Primaris Inceptors off of their flying base, then that model also can't shoot due to not being in LoS. Conversely, if your HQ is mounted on a high pedestal that makes him more visible, well, you get both the bad and the good off of that as well.

[Warhead01]

I think one response, one I would have, is to say things like. "If that's what you have to do to win".  If I were really annoyed. Or just realize the mindset I was playing against and kinda throw the match to have another go and try to out cheese them.  Once upon a time we had this game store kid with a Khorne army that wasn't much fun to play against. These games devolved in slight teasing that if he didn't table me he really didn't win.  But changing the point size of the game, " because I didn't have time for a larger game", created all kind of memorable moments. He had a daemons army and was super freaked when he realized he couldn't charge or something and the marine in front of him had a flame thrower. Good times.  And I think that's my point. If you can manage to get a game set up where you can clown around even though the other player is a try hard then you might have a lot more fun than you had expected and who know maybe they'll come around at some point. 

Sadly in 8th.. The rules are so thin you can see right through them. Not nearly are robust as 4th.  
But I do think knowing the other personality involved in the game will help adjust expectations and maybe you can work with that. 
LOS works both ways after all. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Warhead01

[Vermintide]

So like. Pardon me if this has already been brought up. But can you not simply let him target the sword or whatever, and then only remove that single model as a casualty and then point out that the rest of the unit was not in line of sight therefore he had allocated all his shots into that one guy('s sword).

Is that not RAW too? I don't have them to hand right now but I believe it specifically says model, implying each model must be targetable to be allocated wounds.

Play him at his own game, they usually don't like that in my experience and learn why it's a dick move to play that way. The opponents I've played as an adult basically don't even follow the rules at all, we talk about it first and agree on what we both usually do- Everyone has "house rules" if you want to call it that, but really it's just good sportsmanship.

I mean I dunno about you guys but... Once you know the fundamentals you just go from memory, and it does often turn out you've been doing it wrong if you go back to check :D

Only time RAW matters is at a tournament.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Vermintide

[DuskRaider]

 

 

Can you imagine defending the idea that shooting the tip of a weapon would kill the model?

I can. I can also imagine the metal dreadnought in a sock swung in response

Ahh yes... the Dreadsock is, in fact, a valid counter-tactic.

[Panzer]

So like. Pardon me if this has already been brought up. But can you not simply let him target the sword or whatever, and then only remove that single model as a casualty and then point out that the rest of the unit was not in line of sight therefore he had allocated all his shots into that one guy('s sword).

 

Is that not RAW too? I don't have them to hand right now but I believe it specifically says model, implying each model must be targetable to be allocated wounds.

 

Play him at his own game, they usually don't like that in my experience and learn why it's a dick move to play that way. The opponents I've played as an adult basically don't even follow the rules at all, we talk about it first and agree on what we both usually do- Everyone has "house rules" if you want to call it that, but really it's just good sportsmanship.

 

I mean I dunno about you guys but... Once you know the fundamentals you just go from memory, and it does often turn out you've been doing it wrong if you go back to check

 

Only time RAW matters is at a tournament.

 

 

 

No because you check for line of sight only once when you declare the targets you are shooting at and then you simply resolve the shots without checking again. 

 

[mughi3]

One of those annoying things in the way 8th is written... like my right front tread on my land raider can see you so all my guns can now shoot you.  it really breaks immersion and joy in the game. i enjoy 8th with epic scale since loosing a unit or a half dozen isn't a huge deal when you have equivalent of say 10K on the table.  and the simple rules make the game flow. but i am old school when it comes to normal 28mm play.  so i  still prefer 5th ed or even HH rules. where you have to pay attention to facing for vehicles to draw LOS for the gun to the target and bling sticking off the model doesn't count. 

 

infinity fixed the question of dynamic posing of their models by creating standard silhouette blocks for each size category as gameplay aids. 

 

 

As for the OPs situation, i understand the pain. game night was the highlight of my week. going on week 2 of lockdown, while i am getting loads of painting done, i really miss it. 

 

 

LIke others have said you only have 2 options

.talk to him in a nice way to try and get him to understand he is making the game not fun for you. 

.opt out of gaming for a few more weeks, stay healthy and pick up normal gaming after we are done with this mess. 

[Wulf Vengis]

You could ultimately choose the third tabletop option wherein you continue to play this opponent but you absolutely under no circumstances try to hide your models in cover.

 

This will lead to all sorts of hilarity culminating in your opponent asking just what you're doing and why you've been playing so badly.

 

Or you could choose the fourth option: switch army lists for a few games. You play their list and they play yours. Then blow the hell out of them and see what they think of the overly aggressive LOS rules.