PDA

View Full Version : Line of Sight in regards to non front arc attacks



Walls
22-01-2012, 18:19
Help me clarify how LOS works in fantasy.

Some events state that you need LOS... but not front arc. P10 also states that LOS is just from the point of the eyes to something they can see. Later in charging, shooting, magic it states that you need LoS AND must be in the front arc, creating seperation.

Let's take Cupped Hands. You need LOS... does this mean the Slaan can do it 360 or just LOS in the forward arc? How about other spells/abilities that do the same? Can you technically see 360 for everything but are restricted by what you are doing as far as forward arc?

Scalebug
22-01-2012, 18:48
Line of sight is based on your actual models, what line you can draw from its eyes unobstructed. For most models this will be something between 180-270, and a lot of people agree to use that as standard for all models, rather than going by the letter of the rules and a case by case basis (which would mean that a wizard with a rather common high collar is penalised over one without such clothing, and a mutated chaos sorcerer with eyestalks can see all around... not to mention the handful of cases with models that have no line of sight at all, lacking eyes; one of the Gorgers, and if you are using the Storm Of Chaos Eltharion model as a generic character or Swordmaster champion or something...)

Iraf
22-01-2012, 20:02
I was wrong.

AMWOOD co
23-01-2012, 06:43
I argue for a model being able to effective 'see through' itself and thus having 360 degree line of sight. After all, most of our miniatures have necks, why not let them use them? Also, for models without eyes, pick a suitable point (eg the front of a disc of Tzeentch for a Flying Chariot, the eye sockets of skeletons, etc).

Walls
23-01-2012, 07:48
So, in other words, something like Cupped Hands can be used on any mage in 360 degrees that you could trace a line to (or, in other words, be in LOS)?

Scalebug
23-01-2012, 12:16
No, Iraf is just wrong, and Antwood is describing/arguing for a house rule...

Again, you have to draw a line of sight from the Slanns Eyes to the target, it is not per default 360.

Your group might want to establish a house rules on how to resolve it (for example like Antwood suggested, or like we loosely play it with a catch-all 90 blind spot to the back), but if you are going to play by the letter of the rules, it is varying from model to model, and you have to draw the actual lines to targets.

vorthrax
23-01-2012, 14:11
Heads/necks/torsos can turn.

Line of sight, for "true line of sight" purposes, is 360 degrees from the point on the model where the eyes are (or would be).

theunwantedbeing
23-01-2012, 16:44
Can't find anywhere in the main rules that says that a model can see more than it's 90 degree arc infront of it.

Fubar
23-01-2012, 17:06
Taken from Jervis Article that was put up when 8th came out

"- Lone Characters: Note that lone characters no longer have a 360 degree arc of sight. All models use the same 90 degree arc of sight now, and can only 'see' in the direction they are facing."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=12400021a

Fubar
23-01-2012, 17:07
Taken from Jervis Article that was put up when 8th came out

"- Lone Characters: Note that lone characters no longer have a 360 degree arc of sight. All models use the same 90 degree arc of sight now, and can only 'see' in the direction they are facing."

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=12400021a

T10
23-01-2012, 17:17
The line-of-sight rules are great since they allow the players to determine what each model can see simply by taking the model's-eye view of the battle-field. It makes terrain have a significant impact on the game.

Well, that might be what the designers intended. In practice the rules greatly empowers models that require line of sight but are not affected by cover. "Dragons vs. cannons" pretty much sums up this aspect of the game.

-T10

(Of course, not all armies have cannons or dragons, but the Internet would have you believe that if you put a big monster on the table then it's going to get shot down. Maybe it will, but what would be the fun if your opponent doesn't at least try?)

Lord Inquisitor
23-01-2012, 17:37
I think the intent of the rules is that LOS requires both arc and LOS to function. Comments like Jervis' above seem to support that, although I wouldn't place too much faith in that either (as a general principle, LOS and arc are pretty much synonymous, Jervis' comment most likely is a generalisation rather than a pronouncement of law).

Unfortunately this isn't laid out clearly one way or the other. All we have is that LOS is traced from the eyes and there are certainly situations where LOS and Arc are not linked (such as with Direct Damage spells). Of course, you can end up in odd situations, even if we ignore skeletons' lack of eyes and assume the place where eyes should be, other, weirder creatures like steam tanks (particularly if you don't put the commander sticking out of the hatch) or screamers.

Claiming that you can draw a 360-degree LOS is a bit fishy too though. I'm not sure I buy that they could move their head around - yeah, they could but they could also crouch behind terrain too and using TLOS we don't allow that either.

I think overall the most "around" a model's head you can reasonably be expected to get and still draw LOS to the eyes is 90-degrees to the sides, giving a 180-degree LOS to the front. That seems like the most reasonable resolution.

Iraf
23-01-2012, 17:49
I think the intent of the rules is that LOS requires both arc and LOS to function. Comments like Jervis' above seem to support that, although I wouldn't place too much faith in that either (as a general principle, LOS and arc are pretty much synonymous, Jervis' comment most likely is a generalisation rather than a pronouncement of law).

Unfortunately this isn't laid out clearly one way or the other. All we have is that LOS is traced from the eyes and there are certainly situations where LOS and Arc are not linked (such as with Direct Damage spells). Of course, you can end up in odd situations, even if we ignore skeletons' lack of eyes and assume the place where eyes should be, other, weirder creatures like steam tanks (particularly if you don't put the commander sticking out of the hatch) or screamers.

Claiming that you can draw a 360-degree LOS is a bit fishy too though. I'm not sure I buy that they could move their head around - yeah, they could but they could also crouch behind terrain too and using TLOS we don't allow that either.

I think overall the most "around" a model's head you can reasonably be expected to get and still draw LOS to the eyes is 90-degrees to the sides, giving a 180-degree LOS to the front. That seems like the most reasonable resolution.

I think this is the best description of how to play LOS. My initial post was on the assumption that a model could turn his head, and after re-reading the paragraph I'd have to say I was completely wrong. Probably because I'm used to playing with my Screaming Bell!

AMWOOD co
24-01-2012, 05:23
I stand by my arguement and have used it before. Leaving aside undead, by the rules, Galrauch has a blind spot directly in front of him (he only has 2 eyes, one on the left of the left head, the other on the right of the right head), an unmanned Tzeentchi Daemon chariot cannot see (no eyes or anything like eyes on a disc), and some models have 360 line of sight anyway such as Egrimm Van Horstmann's chaos dragon (Boudros?), chaos spawn with many eyes, pump wagons with snotlings looking every which way (like mine was), and I'm sure more.

Most agree that using the strict interpretation is flawed. That said, everything else is, as I was correctly accused of making, a house rule, whether it be 90, 180 or 360. That said, I argue for 360 as a sign of universality as no one is limited to less than what the model could have but may be given more and is realistic to how people act in a dangerous scenario, constantly looking around.

By the by, Scalebug, where did you get Antwood from? Heheh, makes me sound like a rotting log.

vorthrax
24-01-2012, 15:57
Most agree that using the strict interpretation is flawed. That said, everything else is, as I was correctly accused of making, a house rule, whether it be 90, 180 or 360. That said, I argue for 360 as a sign of universality as no one is limited to less than what the model could have but may be given more and is realistic to how people act in a dangerous scenario, constantly looking around.This is basically where I am at on this issue.