"40K Madness, What the Heck does line of sight even mean?" Topic

Okay so I've been playing 40k after years of avoiding it.
I liked the rules and so far it's been fun.
AS LONG AS I PLAYED MY REGULAR OPPONENTS.
Tried the Konor campaign. Okay I expect the cheese, I grugdingly expect the unpainted eyesores, but what drives me insane is how a lot of the players interpret the rules.
It's a if it doesn't say I can't then I can mindset.
So today the 40k only types were telling me that you could fire through another of your units if you had any line of sight. A sliver of a bootstrap was all that was needed.
So 4 units in line one behind the other were all firing directly ahead. I showed that passage 'only figs in the same unit' Then Line of sight, ridiculous!

Total BS!

Dunno that campaign specifically (like, it has extra rules?) but LoS doesn't (shouldn't IMO) work like that. What was the the spacing between bases?

Zero!

Of course you can fire through your own units! Just apply all "misses" as friendly fire hits.

Is that in the rules or your own rule? It does not sound like guard or elder behavior to me. Orks and chaos maybe.

Shooting through a friendly unit is one thing, but if you can't even see them clearly???

Sounds like the cheating kids would get up to. Game jokes aside, were you playing againct kids? Because they seemed to be acting like it.

You can only see through models in your own unit. If your own models are within 1 inch of target models you cannot shoot. If the target is obscured by other models they could claim a +1 cover save on a model by model basis

One of the ways the 8th Edition rules manage to fit in just a dozen pages or so is by leaving out all the line of sight and terrain rules that fill up 30 pages in other rules sets. :) 'Just do what makes sense' should probably be printed in big letters at the start of the rules.

You should buy one of those 40K laser siters….if they still make them. Perfect for ascertaining LOS

Unfortunately Scott, what "makes sense" for a subset of gamers is winning and they will interpret the rules accordingly. Also Unfortunately, these gamers don't wear badges, so you only find them through trial (and error if that is not your style of game).

I remember the LOS nonsense the last time I played (and I mean last….. like 3-4 years ago). It was claimed that LOS was not impacted by going through windows of two buildings, a tree (modeled without leaves) the see the shoulder of my unit. He was bent out of shape that I thought that was complete BS.

I asked same question at a Games Workshop store and answer was you can shoot through friendly units.

From the core rules pdf:

"for determining visibility a model can see through other models in its own unit"
which would seem to indicate that you can't see through other friendly units.

"In order to target an enemy unit,
a model from that unit must be within
the Range of the weapon being used (as
listed on its profile) and be visible to the
shooting model."

Which I would interpret as every model in the shooting unit needs visibility to at least one model in the target unit.

Agreed Sigwald, my exact phrasing last night,
the question seems to be what is the qualification of LOS/
I would assume that a figure base blocks. But I was getting the if I can see anything I can shoot.

I see now. So their interpretation is I can shoot through any friendly model in my firing unit as well as any other friendly unit if I can see through their legs etc? Oh boy

So that's why they came out with the taller marines! Makes so much sense now!

That is total BS… The rules say figures in same unit.

This is what comes from scale compression and literalist approaches to playing. In defense of the pass through players ignoring blocking units it can be said that the igo/ugo granularity distorts actual moments of firing, when some figs are really prone or maneuvering in some fire and maneuver leapfrog, and the absurdly short range of weapons makes me think that figure scale/footprint should be considered many meters of empty space wider then the mere 2-3meters the fig occupies at a 1:1 scale. I would think the base really represents some 10 meters in my mind and the fig is really only a few mm tall. Anything else lacks any sort of plausibility in my mind. Perhaps this is why I rarely play 40k, preferring fantasy. The range distortion of bows is less radical at literal scale.

And why don't any of these 40k figs have indirect fire weapons?

If interested I posted the question here and got a few varied responses:

link

Thanks Sigwald

Laser siters sound painful.

A good reason not to put extras on your models like pouches and arials. Makes it easier for the enemy to see you and harder for your other units to see them.

"Shot in the heraldry!"

TSOALR joke… a 40k SM Sgt had 100% cover behind a hill, but his back-banner showed over the hill, "any part of the model in LOS and the model is a valid target to be shot at…)

ergo… "Shot in the heraldry!"

It's sad that with all that money GW can't hire a lawyer to write their rules with no holes.
Sam Mustafa should write GW rules, then they would playable!

TSOLAR now that was class and very very funny 😀

With gw stuff being so "spikey". A static posed mini with no junk flailing all over the place has the longer life expectancy it would appear.

I wonder if anyone has tried to model squads of marines using the kneeling legs found in the Devastator kits. With some work you could probably model prone marines as well.

Before the "true line of sight" rules, IIRC models would get the benefit of cover as long as it was between the firer and the targets – the assumption being that the troops are all making use of available cover and advancing in rushes rather than marching upright. However, by modelling your troops in crouching poses under the current rules, you'd be called a cheater or at the very least, unsportsmanlike.

I can see the need for pavizes and smoke grenades in this game.

What about making miniature mirrors or periscopes for the unit to see over other units? Use real mirrors. Or what about a tank with a camera on one side and a little screen on the other. Quick trip to Jaycar and you'll be all set.

I think its nice that a game noted for folks in big and somewhat questionable attire with figures in heroic if somewhat archaic poses for the modern battlefield will now penalize those figures for both their fashion sense and their desire to be easily seen :)

Goblins, halflings, and figures sensibly trying to present themselves as less of a target may well come into their own now…

Bob

Well I played my second game of 8th edition last night and line of sight is pretty much pretty open. We do use a laser pointed but my son who I was playing the game with last night (and knows the new rules pretty well) stated I could fire with all my laz cannon on my Predator Annihilator even though if you followed the line of sight of the side sponson laz cannons I felt I did not have a shot except with the twin turret laz cannons and the storm bolter mounted on the copula. He stated that as long as any part of the tank could draw a line of sight all my weapons could come to bear.

While this seems anathema to all of the other war game systems of similar scale and type I kind of see the logic of what GW is attempting with this edition. Granted I have only played two games of the 8th edition and have watched a few more at my local game store. My take away is that GW have abstracted some things for the sake of speed of play while trying to also bring back some of the flavor that made Rouge Trader and second edition Dark Millennium more in line with the fluff. Have they been successful or failed in this regard will be in the eye of the beholder.

Does 40k have opportunity fire rules?

They used to have over watch where you could shoot in the other players turn if an enemy came into view.

The thing with the tank firing sounds lame. You would think each weapon, or soldier for that matter, would have to be able to see a target to be able to shoot it.

Gw seems to do itself no favors.

you mean a vehicle or soldier couldn't rotate or maneuver within the timespan of a turn to bring most or all weapons to bear? Are you simulating battles fought under strobe lights? Keeping a granular approach to fire and maneuver without any sort of abstraction to cover simultaneous movement and fire throughout the span of a turn while keeping things literal for line of sight just reinforces the wrong things in my opinion. I guess I should expect that from a game wherethe idea of melee weapons being on a battlefield with long ranged guns is normal, and perhaps even being superior.

My take on it is this, it's 40K if you like it fine, if you hate it fine but don't kid yourself that it's an accurate representation of combat in the far future.

Even if such a thing is possible, which I don't think it is. This game ain't it.
However that all said and done, I like it!

Warhammer 40,000 is the marmite of the wargaming world and the age old mantra is if you don't like it house-rule it ☺

Sorry for the slight rant

Glen

I can't agree with mick. If all tank guns or chaps in a squad can shoot with out seeing the target, then why have terrain? Mini games should have at least a sprinkle of strategy and thought. Being able to shoot anything in range kind of kills this idea.

Terrain should block los. Units maybe not so much. Terrain is static. But I would throw out literal los approaches with laser pointers. Scale should be somewhat abstract and a figure or terrain representational. To do otherwise just makes the game too sillly for this old school player who grew up on 60:1 scales.

Fields of fire for vehicles individual weapons have a place much in the same fashion as they do on age of sail frigates or an air to air dogfight game But those games usually recognize that fire may actually occur at points of time and in positions in space not actually occurring at the point of the turn that the firephase is actually resolved and happens to fall. Hence an arc of fire in a game for a fixed mounted mg on a sopwith camel, even though the guns themselves literally can't fire 30 degrees off the path of movement. Literal approaches are actually less "realistic" (plausible in this case) than an abstracted sense of time and scale might provide. Are the hills in a game really only 10 meters in height the literal scale supposes? Why couldn't units go prone?

I could see one sponson not being able to fire if the target was completely on the other side outside of the frontal arc of a vehicle. I can see friendly/units not being able to be fired over/through but only if the scale merits it. Too me 40k just doesn't pass the plausibility test that Fantasy does. Essentially you have sci-fi and las cannon that are just stand ins for bows and crossbows, and maybe an arquebus. The game doesn't interpolate anything different other than the models themselves, if such is the case, why bother?

By the way this should not be considered just a dig at 40k per se, it is just sort a mental exercise about game design, sci-fi, and levels of abstraction. I wouldn't suggest that the game must be altered just for my sake. Don't make it into a fanboy vs Antifanboy conflict. I have enjoyed a game of 40k much I the way I have enjoyed watching "red dwarf"

You may be peeing in the wind on that last bit. Some people are harsh. But with all the money they spend on the figs and rules with no certainty that their world/universe may not be destroyed at a moments notice (carrot) who can blame them for being over protective. It's like a cult. When your in it you fear to speak against it, as they have you and everything you own. If you get out you want to tell everyone how bad it is.

OK guys, I've set them up, now knock them down.

Red Dwarf is awesome. That is all :)

I do not dispute that. Though the replacement of visuale effects with cgi was heresy.

I agree with that completely!

I guess there is no concern about about the concept of plunging fire. I have fired 50 caliber MG where the target is engaged in same way as spraying water from a hose over intervening obstacles. Are 40k bolters such high velocity weapons that this method could not be used to justify firing over intervening units? Is there no equivalent of an M203 grenade launcher within the unit? I would think that even the most operatic of soldiers would discard a chainsword for a M203.

Shotgun flechette rounds are more efficient then any chainsword for point defense.

Cheers Bob.

(Though its not a subject I should get into, especially in regards to other shows, films. Grrr)

40k is fantasy in space. Hence the swords. They could just remove close combat entirely and have weapons with 1" range instead (for nids and the like). But it would not be the same game (so I'm a bit shocked they have not done it yet, aos and all).

Are 40k bolters such high velocity weapons that this method could not be used to justify firing over intervening units? Is there no equivalent of an M203 grenade launcher within the unit? I would think that even the most operatic of soldiers would discard a chainsword for a M203.

Marines have access to M203 equivalents (the auxiliary grenade launcher), but the flashier weapons (combiplasma, melta, flamers, grav) are more popular and effective. The Sternguard employ a variety of advanced bolts, one type even seems to replicate the programmed airbursts of the XM25.
I don't think rocket assisted bolts are appropriate for plunging fire, but then again marines have so many options in the form of organic heavy weapons and air/space support that there shouldn't really be a need for it.

This is an issue that a quick GW FAQ comment would suffice.