PDA

View Full Version : Wizards Line of Sight- Casting



sturguard
13-07-2010, 15:36
Hey folks,

I know there have been countless threads already on the merits and disadvantages to True Line of Sight. Being a 40k player, I am already pretty familiar with the concept. However, it noticed people are really worried about the first turn power mage build and hence losing their wizard on turn 1. My question is this- if you leave your wizard behind a block of say spearmen, how the heck would you ever be able to target him? I dont think anyone could claim to see a single infantry model behind a unit of 30 spearmen ranked 5x6.

I guess my question is this, are people playing that you can see through units? Now, I have no problem seeing through a rank or maybe even two (or if one model is substantially larger than the one in front), but a similar sized model behind or even a small unit behind a large unit would be invisible from a model's eye perspective- dont you think? Take a unit of 50 orcs in a 10x5 formation, I would think they would be even suitable height to block LOS 5 squigs behind.

Anyhow, I would really like to hear peoples interpretations of the rules. From the posts I read, it seemed people were claiming there was no place to "hide" on a battlefield, now I am thinking that large blocks of units can certainly "hide" single models or smaller units.

Thanks.

Malorian
13-07-2010, 15:43
If you can see you can see. Now keep in mind it doesn't count it you just see his staff peeking over the unit, but any of his body or head and he's a target.

Ranked units are typically also ranked, and by that I mean they are in clean rows that leave space to see through them.

Falkman
13-07-2010, 15:51
I'm using this model as my mage, she's not good at hiding behind my Spearmen.

solkan
13-07-2010, 18:35
Coming from 40k you've read all of those threads asking whether vehicles can really get cover saves from infantry, right?

Those have an exact analogue in WHFB, "Can units still block line of sight?" Sometimes units are going to block line of sight, and sometimes you'll be positioned to see down the rows of guys like bookshelves at the library.

Atrahasis
13-07-2010, 18:41
...which is why all my new models that I'm adding to bulk out my State Troops will be on Regiment bases, positioned so they stand in the gaps between the ones in front/behind.

My Night Goblins will all be holding blankets like matadors.

Malorian
13-07-2010, 18:46
...which is why all my new models that I'm adding to bulk out my State Troops will be on Regiment bases, positioned so they stand in the gaps between the ones in front/behind.

My Night Goblins will all be holding blankets like matadors.

Just another reason why true line of sight is stupid...

Atrahasis
13-07-2010, 18:47
What's even better is that one of the 8th edition countdown articles on the GW site was about building unit fillers.

Expect the number of square, monolithic "scenic" unit fillers to skyrocket in the coming months.

sturguard
13-07-2010, 19:04
The odds that every model is going to be in an exact neat rowlike formation kind of went out the door when GW made plastic models with no slots. Not to mention some models are bulkier and the only way you can get them ranked up is by having them at odd angles on the bases. I just think TLOS has to be taken with a modicum of "common sense" in both directions. Do I really care if a unit gets a hard cover save instead of being out of sight, not really, I won't be playing in any tournaments anyways, however, taking out a laser pointer so that you can see if a red dot appears on a model behind a 5x6 block of troops is kind of extreme as well and not what I think the designers had in mind with the TLOS rules.

Falkman, in my opinion a decorative base such as the one with that mage would be discounted similarly to excessive banners, weapons, etc. Read paragraph 3 on page 10. The mage is the same size as the spearmen, in my mind, if he is behind similar type troops and would be blocked if he didnt have that large base, then he is out of sight. However, on the other hand, I would never use the base to gain any line of sight advantages.

Just my two cents.

Malorian
13-07-2010, 19:09
I just think TLOS has to be taken with a modicum of "common sense" in both directions.

There is no common sense with true line of sight... you just lean down and see if the model can see the target (barring flags and stuff).

If you see you see, if you don't you don't...


Ever hear of crawling wraithlords?

sturguard
13-07-2010, 19:13
Again, I agree and that is why I would suggest you can't see a mage behind a unit of ranked warriors, unless you are looking for a foot, the tip of a staff or some other insignificant part of the model which they discount in the third paragraph. The way I play things is how the model is converted is irrelevant, anyone who has played 40k knows the standard size of a wraithlord, if you could see the models standard size, you see him. In this manner, players are not discouraged from modelling projects that they think from a gaming aspect will be frowned upon.

mightyzombie
13-07-2010, 22:59
...which is why all my new models that I'm adding to bulk out my State Troops will be on Regiment bases, positioned so they stand in the gaps between the ones in front/behind.

My Night Goblins will all be holding blankets like matadors.

If I ever played someone who modeled everything in their army specifically to block an obviously absurd amount of TLOS as you are indicating here, I'd just pack up and walk away, because clearly that person cares more about winning by any means possible than having fun. And also, if I played against people who were so concerned with winning by any means, that I felt it was necessary to model my units like this, I'd seriously consider just finding a different place to play and different people to play with. Just my 2 cents.

I completely agree that, unless you can see a model OVER or AROUND a block of ranked infantry more than 1 rank deep, you can't see them, no matter how easily you can see in between the models. Sometimes models have to be positioned a very particular way, on their bases, within their ranks, or both, to allow them to rank properly, and I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for such a flaw, since it's a flaw of the models themselves, and not truly indicative of how the troops would actually be arranged in ideal circumstances.

sturguard
14-07-2010, 00:35
Mightyzombie, my sentiments exactly.

Atrahasis
14-07-2010, 08:34
If I ever played someone who modeled everything in their army specifically to block an obviously absurd amount of TLOS as you are indicating here, I'd just pack up and walk away, because clearly that person cares more about winning by any means possible than having fun. And also, if I played against people who were so concerned with winning by any means, that I felt it was necessary to model my units like this, I'd seriously consider just finding a different place to play and different people to play with. Just my 2 cents.

An army modelled and painted well to this end is indistinguishable from an army that just happens to block LOS because of the cool conversions the owner wanted to include.

I have some units that ALREADY block more LOS than a standard out-of-the-box unit ranked up on standard 20mm bases. I built them 8 or more years ago. Now you're going to pack up and leave because an army I constructed long before TLOS was even conceived of in Warhammer might gain some small advantage?

The examples I gave in the previous post were very tongue in cheek. I can only hope that your melodramatic reaction was as well.

Archangelion
14-07-2010, 10:14
I think what he was trying to say is that he doesn't care for people who are blatenly modeling for advantage. Which, putting matador sheets on night goblins would be, not to mention... IMO, it would look silly. Modifications to your units for look of coolness is one thing, modeling for a blatent advantage is another. I think it goes without saying that there is a fine line between the two.

Kugruk
14-07-2010, 21:57
It sure is a good thing wizards of any variety don't need any kind of LOS to cast spells, other than magic missiles.

Necromancy Black
14-07-2010, 22:51
I think what he was trying to say is that he doesn't care for people who are blatenly modeling for advantage. Which, putting matador sheets on night goblins would be, not to mention... IMO, it would look silly. Modifications to your units for look of coolness is one thing, modeling for a blatent advantage is another. I think it goes without saying that there is a fine line between the two.

So maybe it would just be better to have a LOS system that allows for extreme modelling like that but doesn't impact on LOS in anyway.

Say like, I dunno, the last set of rules we had? LOS in that worked great IMO.

I see what your saying about modelling for an advantage, but modelling is a huge part of this game and I will happily allow people to model for an advantage and restrict people from doing any kind of modelling they want.

Archangelion
15-07-2010, 10:14
an instance in 40k came up where someone made one of their banner bearers to hold a sheet of cardboard. It blocked line of sight to the entire unit compleatly, and everything behind. When his shooting phase came around, however, he simply turned the model so that the board was sideways so his unit could open up. Now, at some point, a line must be drawn. That line is usually drawn using common sence, an atribute some people lack. I am all for conversions, but when the conversion is made for the purpose of gameing advantages, then it is a problem. Conversions are for makeing your models to look cool, not to give you in game advantages. Usually, it is quite clear as to the intent of the creator of the conversion, as to whether he/she is doing the conversion for looks and fun, or for in-game advantages. Other times the conversion can be more insidious.

To a dark place this will take us. We must be cautious.

Kugruk
15-07-2010, 13:43
an instance in 40k came up where someone made one of their banner bearers to hold a sheet of cardboard. It blocked line of sight to the entire unit compleatly, and everything behind. When his shooting phase came around, however, he simply turned the model so that the board was sideways so his unit could open up. Now, at some point, a line must be drawn. That line is usually drawn using common sence, an atribute some people lack. I am all for conversions, but when the conversion is made for the purpose of gameing advantages, then it is a problem. Conversions are for makeing your models to look cool, not to give you in game advantages. Usually, it is quite clear as to the intent of the creator of the conversion, as to whether he/she is doing the conversion for looks and fun, or for in-game advantages. Other times the conversion can be more insidious.

To a dark place this will take us. We must be cautious.

Again, Wizards only need to LOS to cast spells that count as magic missles. No other type of spell requires LOS. Also, Banner/poles/wings/etc dont count for determining line of sight for or against. I'm with mightyzombie on this one, if some ****** unpacked a bunch of models holding matador sheets or w/e. I would promptly pack all my things up and gtfo.

SideshowLucifer
15-07-2010, 13:49
I'm pretty sure we are playinbg that you can not shoot through a block of infantry, over and around yes, but not through some tiny gap in someone's arm through 3 or 4 ranks.

Archangelion
16-07-2010, 00:53
I would agree with that SideshowLucifer. I don't play for the piddly "oooh I can see its hand! I'm shooting it!" It's just looserish IMO.

@Kugruk, I think that the OP was getting at units shooting AT a wizard that is positioned behind a unit, but I agree that yes, generally wizards only need line of sight for magic missiles.

Rhaivaen
16-07-2010, 01:58
...which is why all my new models that I'm adding to bulk out my State Troops will be on Regiment bases, positioned so they stand in the gaps between the ones in front/behind.

My Night Goblins will all be holding blankets like matadors.

lolrofllmao...:D

CmdrLaw
16-07-2010, 09:39
Quick question, whats the sight arc for solo characters? Thought arcs were 90 degrees for units and 180 for characters but I can't remember where I saw it and then couldn't find anything in the BRB when looking it up.

Frosty_TK
16-07-2010, 09:41
Actually, I too wasn't able to find the rule that gives lone models a 180 field of view. Can someone please point me to the paragraph?

Atrahasis
16-07-2010, 09:47
It doesn't exist. Everything has 90 degree arc in 8th.

Frosty_TK
16-07-2010, 11:17
Thank you very much.

KalEf
17-07-2010, 06:57
Just another reason why true line of sight is stupid...

+1


...which is why all my new models that I'm adding to bulk out my State Troops will be on Regiment bases, positioned so they stand in the gaps between the ones in front/behind.

My Night Goblins will all be holding blankets like matadors.

this is hilarious!

I do like how most of the other solutions are "don't follow the rules, they are silly"... sounds like a design problem. when it is turn 5 and your opponent is 400 VP behind you... his warlock WILL be able to see your skink priest on foot behind 4 rows of 6th edition kroxigors... and I don't think you should trust he will NOT follow the rules, even though they benefit him.

Another problem: when I talked to GW staff a couple days before the release they still all had different answers. One said "it is easy, you can always see through units and forests but there is a cover modifier" I asked another guy he said "oh it's simple. If you can see it you can see it. if there is too much unit or forest you are SOL" I laughed and then cried.

With the new categories, they were lined up to make an awesome LoS system... guess it was not to be :( probably just saving good stuff for 9th :shifty:

Archangelion
18-07-2010, 01:09
You get a -2 (hard cover) save for shooting at a model behind a unit do you not? Combine that with a -1 for the typical long range of such a shot, and possibly another -1 for moving and shooting, and you just knocked off 4 points from your shooting to hit roll... seems rather unlikely that a model behind a unit will get hit anyways, even by model BS 2 he would need a 6+ to hit!

GranFarfar
11-08-2010, 20:27
It doesn't exist. Everything has 90 degree arc in 8th.

Excuse me for ressurecting an old thread, but just have to ask -

Where do I find this? We have been trying to figure this out in our gaming group, but with no luck.

The only thing we can find is this seeing from the eyes crap.

Zaustus
12-08-2010, 05:59
For what purpose? Charging and shooting are both restricted (in their pertinent sections) in that they can only be used against enemies in your forward arc, which is defined at the beginning of the book. Similarly, the rules for magic give general rules like "target must be in front arc," although spells like hexes break that rule.

So that's really the answer. That rule is in the relevant section for whatever it is you're trying to do. There's no special exemption for single models any more, so they have to follow the "arc of sight" rules just like everything else.

knauden
12-08-2010, 08:26
Use the basesizes to determine if you can see or not, not under the arms or something..
Think of the base all sides as walls.. if the basesize is bigger it got higher walls at all sides..

Eg. A normal base mage behind normal rank and file unit can't be seen(if the opponent is on higher ground or from the side then it can see him)

A cavalry based mage behind normal rank and file can be seen and targeted.

A cavalry based mage behind eg. Treekins can't be seen..

A treeman behind Treekins can be seen

A 25 mm base behind 20 mm rank and file models can be seen

And so on..


This allows great converted models and scenery without being seen because he stands on a nice converted cliff or something..

PeG
12-08-2010, 08:56
Actually as others have pointed out True LoS doesnt really mean much for the OP since spells except for magic missiles doesnt require LOS meaning that he is correct in that there is no hiding from for example Lore of Death during the first turn of the game. This of course means that a list that is dependent on characters need to protect them very well by providing magic defence, a possibility to kill the opponents casters, MR or other ward saves (which at least helps against some of the sniping spells). Also it seems that any build that is dependent on a specific single character is going to suffer.

If I fry that VC general I dont really care if I miscast and also kill some of my own unit. The only comfort is that to do this in a reliable way you need lots of dice and a tooled up caster so it is highely likely that the player doing this will get hurt as well.

I my last game I managed to cast two spells and killed a total of 3 enemy chaos warriors + 2 of my goblin shamans + 20 goblin archers that were following one of them. Luckily goblins are cheap :D

TheTrueSloth
12-08-2010, 10:08
an instance in 40k came up where someone made one of their banner bearers to hold a sheet of cardboard. It blocked line of sight to the entire unit compleatly, and everything behind. When his shooting phase came around, however, he simply turned the model so that the board was sideways so his unit could open up. Now, at some point, a line must be drawn. That line is usually drawn using common sence, an atribute some people lack. I am all for conversions, but when the conversion is made for the purpose of gameing advantages, then it is a problem. Conversions are for makeing your models to look cool, not to give you in game advantages. Usually, it is quite clear as to the intent of the creator of the conversion, as to whether he/she is doing the conversion for looks and fun, or for in-game advantages. Other times the conversion can be more insidious.


I genuinely choked on my cup of tea reading this. Jeez, that's disgraceful. I think if that happened in any of the gaming groups near me, the guy would either be inadvertently exiled or people would take the most cheese-tastic list possible to play him just to hurt him.

TLoS is a pretty awful idea for this exact reasoning, as far as I'm concerned. At least when I converted my own Fiends of Slaanesh (for 40K) I took the lower torso of the Tichi Huichi Cold One riders (the mount, not the rider) and meshed it with the upper half of a unit of Sisters Repentia. It's actually bigger than the original model in some cases, but frankly I don't care because they look stunning. Or at least they would if I was better with Green Stuff :S And when I come to use fiends in Fantasy, I plan on taking the plastic Dark Elf Cold One kits (I really should have looked a bit harder on that one :mad:) with the daemonette kits and some Crypt Ghoul parts to make the fiends look like some rotting, shambling hybrid coupled with a serpent and a daemonette that's riding on its' back - probably with one of the claws green stuffed into the skull to make it look like the daemonette's literally controlling it. I'd rather convert the model to make it look amazing (and hopefully save some money), but sadly it seems not everyone has the same intent.

Similarly I'm looking to convert a Keeper of Secrets using a Trygon kit and various other kits to give it more of a "Dechala the Denied One" appearance. Invariably it's gonna be bigger than the standard keeper, but I'm honestly not sure I care about that. If I do it right, it'll look hotter than Simone Simons from Epica mud wrestling with Liv Tyler. Anyone have any good advice for sculpting a whip out of Green Stuff? I'm thinking of just green stuffing a piece of wire from one of the hands.

Back on topic, knauden - like the idea actually, I know not everyone will go for it, but you never know. Of course, those ones who won't go for it are more likely to model their cavalry riders with the mounts walking alongside the rider in some fancy pose. But there's no helping some people.

Is there anything actually stopping people modelling dragons out of say the Hydra metal kit and making a "smaller" dragon than the current model if its' on the right sized base?

Toodles

smithers
12-08-2010, 10:41
I don't mind the less-restrictive LoS because it is much more realistic as battles are not fought on perfect planes.

Think of any movie you have seen where one army looks across the field at another. What do they see? A single rank of infantry with god-knows-what behind it?

No, they see ranked up units advancing, and units behind units. Anything except a salt flat provides enough rolling terrain to get a view of something beyond the poor saps (ahem I mean brave champions!) in front.

Anyways, I guess the laser pointer is a good tool for resolving any disagreements. Much easier than putting your eye at model level, and you can't argue with a red dot. "Sarah Conner?"

Symrivven
12-08-2010, 10:49
Interesting how you argue Tlos is more realistic while others argue its less realistic. :)

Anyway for those interested here is a nice article about true line of sight I think he makes some decent points.

Editorial: How True Line of Sight is Killing Our Games (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/08/editorial-how-true-line-of-sight-is.html)

hf

knauden
12-08-2010, 11:52
You can be realistic to a certain point than you have too use common sense because warhammer is a game and only a game where you have to use unrealistic conditions to make it playable.

To many play the game to win, you should play only for fun..
Just because your race has a deathstar that put out a 95% win rate, your not forced to play it..

Advice. Play a themed army and your wins will feel that much better, and the game will be full of joy and fun..

GranFarfar
12-08-2010, 14:00
Why do I keep seeing ppl claming that magic missles are the only spells requering LoS? Both Hex and Augment also does this, without requering forward arc.
Does this mean that I can throw them 360 from a single model mage?

TheTrueSloth
12-08-2010, 14:38
Why do I keep seeing ppl claming that magic missles are the only spells requering LoS? Both Hex and Augment also does this, without requering forward arc.
Does this mean that I can throw them 360 from a single model mage?

Because they don't need LoS:

p31, Choosing a target:



-The target must lie within the Wizard's forward arc.

-The Wizard does not need line of sight to his target.


etc, etc.

Both hexes and augments also allow you to not be within the Wizard's forward arc to cast it and can be cast on units in combat too. Which makes them just plain awesome because yes, you can toss your spells in any direction you want.

Toodles

GranFarfar
12-08-2010, 14:43
However the list on page 508 do state that both augment and hex needs LoS.

TheTrueSloth
12-08-2010, 14:49
However the list on page 508 do state that both augment and hex needs LoS.

Wow, you're right, I never noticed that one. But it isn't specified as a required for augments or hexes on p31 (where as magic missiles are, so one would assume that it was purposeful they forgot to mention it).

One for the FAQ perhaps?

Toodles

Avian
12-08-2010, 14:54
However the list on page 508 do state that both augment and hex needs LoS.

One for the FAQ perhaps?
That has been FAQ'd a while ago.

TheTrueSloth
12-08-2010, 14:57
Has it? Must have missed that one when I was reading it.

toodles

GranFarfar
12-08-2010, 15:20
I stand corrected.

Bloody Nunchucks
12-08-2010, 15:43
i dont see what was wrong with the way LOS was worked out in the last rulebook, sure it had some problems but now your going to get issues with how people model their models. if i ever see crawling units shooting underneath some monster or anything ill be very upset

apbevan
12-08-2010, 17:49
I liked LoS in 7th when it was based on unit type, it was so simple and clean.

LoS for Terrain has not changed as you can simply agree like you did in 7th before the battle starts that this clump of trees is dense and can't be seen into or out off more than 2"

L1qw1d
12-08-2010, 20:40
I'm fairly strict on my LoS stuff- I've been cheapshotted because ONE HEAD of a hydra was viewable when 95% of the model was hidden (that's even iffy by RAW standards).

I try to apply (I'm sure a cold shudder will run down a few of your spines) common sense. It makes no sense to automatically take someone out because you can see their topknot- the example in the Rules is "Tail and Wings"

That having been said, I think that hard cover gets supplied by EACH unit cumulatively between you and the target. Think of it in terms of the Bolt Thrower- if you can hit him thru the guys between you, you progressively have a weaker attack. so if 2 units were there it's a -4 to hit, but you CAN hit because bow arc OVER things, and all that type of stuff.

Otherwise, take a hacksaw to all models, or request Ethereal units be cast in see thru plastic