View Full Version : Large targets and hills

24-12-2007, 16:42
So playing a game the other night, a question came up as to whether large targets can be seen over hills (i.e. large target on one side of hill, chariot on other side of hill- no one on the hill itself).

I suspect it is a matter of local play styles and that the ruling may be different in various locales but I thought I'd ask for opinions.

We looked in the rulebook under large targets, hills, line of sight etc. and could find no definitive statement to resolve the question after the game, thus the post. I then looked through all of the White Dwarfs released since 7th ed. came out to no avail...

So what say ye?

24-12-2007, 16:44
I says in the book to use line of eye (can't give a page number cause I'm at work)

This can get a bit grey at times with things like odd shaped forrests and buildings so it's best to talk about it with your opponent before hand.

Chaos Undecided
24-12-2007, 16:53
It may come down to if the large target can physically draw a line of sight to the chariot i.e get a models eye view of the situation. Thing is theres alot of variables involved theres not really a standard size for a hill, nor are all large targets anywhere near the same size height wise.

I'd probably play it as above that if the large target can see the chariot model on the other side of the hill then yes it may target it for a charge or whatever else you had in mind, if there was a unit on top of the hill between them I'd be inclined to say its line of sight would be blocked. But I think its like you say there isnt a firm ruling on the situation and its up to you to decide how to play it.

24-12-2007, 17:15
FYI - our club plays it that you can see large targets over hills but can not see them through woods.. Go figure. But that's the way we play it...

24-12-2007, 17:21
Yeah, I'd enjoy an abstracted system of terrain over one using "model's eye view" any day.

24-12-2007, 19:34
We play mountains, trees and buildings as counting as infinately tall, other wise it gives incentives to model crouching giants, slithering dragons etc... Better to reward players for dramatically positioned large monters than punish them for it. No-one wants to see crawling giants.

24-12-2007, 21:33
We probably all play a little bit differently. For example, I've played the infinitely tall forests bit for a long time, even though the rules state a forest is only as tall as it's tallest tree (which really only matters if you're using the model's eye view).

The best of the rules on scenery to me is the last sentence on Hills & Elevated Positions. In a nutshell, just talk it over and agree. Maybe next time my group will play with short trees just so we can see how it affects things. :)

-=- Steve

25-12-2007, 05:41
Ran into that problem with Warmachine. I had a DeathJack, and I modeled him Dramatically swinging his arms, and another guy modeled his looking like the old Metal Terminator models. Reason being, in Warmachine, if you can even see a tiny little piece of a warjack, you have line of sight. However, in Fantasy, I only consider the part of the model over the base as what I can see. And, If I use my Dragon, and a Cannon Ball goes over my tail. That doesn't hit, but if the ball goes over my base, then it's a hit.

25-12-2007, 18:20
Terrain types are typically not consistent in scale. Buildings tend to be the “correct” height, since they are modeled close to the same scale as the miniatures. Trees would be much taller than is normal on the game table, they are usually more than two stories high. As for hills, the ones in my collection are no taller than my 28mm infantry, so that ehy are not too large or too steep. They are really humps, instead of hills. So, taking the model's eye view requires a bit of imagination. We count trees and hills as too tall to see over. Otherwise, Large targets have nowhere to hide, and nothing can hide from them. That takes away too much from tactics.