LOS

[TheMouth]

According to the rulebook, you can shoot at a model ( infantry ) if you can see the arms, the head, torso , andthe legs, but not if all you see is a weapon or standard ect. If you can see just a thumb, yes literally a thumb, can you still shoot at that unit?

[Vindicatus]

The way I look at it as True Line of Sight is that if you can see a significant part of the model in order to take a shot at it, then you can shoot, giving them an appropriate cover save as necessary.

 

When I mean 'significant', I mean by imagining if you were this dude about to shoot; by seeing a thumb through a window 30 feet away, is that enough to identify that as a target and subsequently open fire? An arm, yes; shoulder and part of a torso, yes; legs or head, yes. The end of your muzzle? No.

 

Tl;dr, use common sense. If I were facing you and you tried to convince me you could LEGITIMATELY fire a solid state slug at my thumb through a window a block away, I'm getting a +2 cover save.

[TheMouth]

I ask this question because the guy I play against used that reasoning to wipe out my assault squad, simply because my chaplain's ( jump pack model ) thumb was visible.

 

edit : His reasoning was that the rulebook was specific : head, torso, legs, arms, and that the thumb is attached to the hand, and thats attached to the arm.

 

I debated this , simply because of the fact that that it wasnt the arm, it was the thumb, and there is a further exception to the rule in the fact that wings and tails do not count as part of the model. Even though they are "attached" to the torso.

[Seahawk]

Of course you can shoot. Finger is part of the hand is part of the arm. Just like a toe is part of the foot is part of the leg, it's included. Some creatures have pretty big feet/hooves/claws/etc. If you rule out hands/feet and their equivalents, that could give massively unfair advantages to the user. Besides, tech of the future is awesome and is all infrared and stuff; they'd be able to id a target pretty easily.

[greatcrusade08]

Of course you can shoot. Finger is part of the hand is part of the arm. Just like a toe is part of the foot is part of the leg, it's included. Some creatures have pretty big feet/hooves/claws/etc. If you rule out hands/feet and their equivalents, that could give massively unfair advantages to the user. Besides, tech of the future is awesome and is all infrared and stuff; they'd be able to id a target pretty easily.

 

i think its more important to rule each situation according to its own merits, a MCs thumb (avatar or nid Mc perhaps) then id say you can see, but a regular guys thumb.. i dunno its a bit too far for my liking.

 

i cant remember the rule, but im pretty sure it suggests you have to see a major part of the model, which is why it lists 'groups' such as the head, legs arms torso etc..

a thumb may belong to an arm, but it isnt an arm....

 

edit: actually an arm is defined as an upper limb, specificall between the shoulder and wrist.. this means hands are not covered and therfore unless specifically mentioned by the rule as being covered cannot be used to determine LOS.. which makes sense as weapons dont count and the hand is usually carrying the weapon

[Frosty the Pyro]

if he has LOS to anypart of the model, excepting weapons, wings, tails (though that can get a bit nebulous with thropes and devourers), standards, and decoritive items, then you can shoot. The thumb is not in the list of exceptions. Therfore they have LOS and may fire. Cover saves will obviously apply

[TheMouth]

edit: actually an arm is defined as an upper limb, specificall between the shoulder and wrist.. this means hands are not covered and therfore unless specifically mentioned by the rule as being covered cannot be used to determine LOS.. which makes sense as weapons dont count and the hand is usually carrying the weapon

 

 

hmmm...that brings a good point out.

[Seahawk]

Hmm...that would also take bio-weapons out of the picture. So a carnifex with four talons could be completely hidden, even if the four massive talons are 100% visible. Or a Keeper of Secrets' claws sticking out but the body hidden. Doesn't sit right with me...

[greatcrusade08]

Hmm...that would also take bio-weapons out of the picture. So a carnifex with four talons could be completely hidden, even if the four massive talons are 100% visible. Or a Keeper of Secrets' claws sticking out but the body hidden. Doesn't sit right with me...

 

nor me which is why i think youd have to judge each situation accordingly.

in terms of modelling if he were holding a weapon or banner or something out, then they dont count for LOs, i dont see claws and whatnot being a huge deal.. if they are covering another part of the body then yes you do have LOS..

[TheMouth]

okay well, I am not using the jump chaplain AGAIN.

[Isiah]

I've had to invisi a couple of posts in this topic.

 

I should remind one poster in particular that the +OR+ exists to discuss exactly this kind of thing. If it isn't quite your cup of tea then please take yourself elsewhere –– but please don't belittle or abuse perfectly intelligent gamers for discussing the rules aspects of this hobby in what is largely mature, good-hearted and sensible manner.

 

Cheers

I

[Grey Mage]

That being said... how big was this models thumb? I mean my goodness, it must be huge to be visible without any other part of the model being visible. Like say... the rest of the hand, or the wrist.

[Brother Pariah]

We always ruled that a thumb was fair game in my group. As long as everyone understands the rules correctly and applies them equally, everything's fair and square.

[TheMouth]

That being said... how big was this models thumb? I mean my goodness, it must be huge to be visible without any other part of the model being visible. Like say... the rest of the hand, or the wrist.

 

 

it was the thumb off the jump pack chaplain...he could only see it due to the laser pointer we use in games shinning on that one part. Though maybe i could have busted out with the "light bends" and hopefully get out of it. :D

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

Come on.. it's a space marine model right?

A space marine's fist is as much a weapon as a Carnifex' claw is. So I say: hands are hidden ;-)

 

On a more serious note: Letter of the law states specifics in what needs to be visible to be shot at and creates examples on what can be shown without being able to be shot at. I follow the specifics always and anything not in the specifics means it cannot be shot at: head, torso, legs, arms.

 

And in the discussion of a monstrous creature like some of the Tyranids: A snake doesn't have a tail, the long winding thing is all body/torso for the beast.

 

That's how it's ruled where I play at least. Head, torso, legs or arms. And hands aren't part of the arms, they are attached to it in the same way claws are.

 

PS. This rule is an example why GW should NEVER give examples in their rules. Because an example of things not defined as head, torso, legs or arms creates a precedent that some people feel is as definitive a list as the actual list in the rules. A rule should speak for itself without examples and "etc" explainin a rule should be left to a sidebar in the rulebook but not the actual rule texts.

PPS. GW should hire people that know these things to write their rulebooks. Maybe people who are also involved in, say, the writing of sports regulations and such.

PPPS. I am not offering myself no :-P

[Plague Angel]

PS. This rule is an example why GW should NEVER give examples in their rules. Because an example of things not defined as head, torso, legs or arms creates a precedent that some people feel is as definitive a list as the actual list in the rules. A rule should speak for itself without examples and "etc" explainin a rule should be left to a sidebar in the rulebook but not the actual rule texts.

 

But that's not GW's fault, it's the fault of certain players who insist in trying to read the rulebook in a spirit it is not written in — i.e., rather casual and not exhaustive.

[nurglez]

I disagree, people are different, what you may take from this game is different then what I might take, and we might assume different things.

 

Also, if i was playing in a tourny where there was a prize I wanted, I would probably play quite differently then if i was playing my best friend who I've known for the past 15 years.

 

TLOS did make determining cover annoying, and yes if i mount my guy on 2 inches of slate then you can see him easier, but it does also clear up some things.

 

Best thing is to establish at the start of the game how your opponent feels, and decide then.

[DarkGuard]

Just a thumb eh? I dunno, I'd say I would normally follow the list, and if it isn't on there it isn't allowed. A thumb isn't allowed, for the same reason as a weapon or banner isn't allowed, the idea being that the model would in reality pull it out of the way of any clear line of sight so they are hidden properly. I mean, is the Chaplain, veteran of hundred battles, going to keep his thumb sticking out of the window but not his crozius? And then as a result the entire Assault squad gets wiped out. Seems a bit unfair and against the spirit of the game to me.

 

Taking that shot would be something I'd never do at my club, and I'd only do it in the most competitive environment, and even then I'd take no pleasure in wiping the unit from the board, so I probably wouldn't do it. I have a feeling that at my LGS you wouldn't be allowed to take the shot, and I'm quite happy about that.

[Brother-Captain Devlonir]

PS. This rule is an example why GW should NEVER give examples in their rules. Because an example of things not defined as head, torso, legs or arms creates a precedent that some people feel is as definitive a list as the actual list in the rules. A rule should speak for itself without examples and "etc" explainin a rule should be left to a sidebar in the rulebook but not the actual rule texts.

 

But that's not GW's fault, it's the fault of certain players who insist in trying to read the rulebook in a spirit it is not written in — i.e., rather casual and not exhaustive.

 

Although in essence I agree with you, in practice this is simply not the case. And it is not always a clear reasoning of one wanting to be an @$$ or wanting to bend the rules.. many rules are just made very unclear and in many parts because of the way they are described.

 

I think, the major issue in the current Warhammer 40k book is that it is written to explain the rules, not to describe them.

I love how it is written clear from start to finish that a starting player knows what to do when. But because it was written to explain instead of describe there are words used and written that are not best when trying to get a game on a competitive or even a friendly level. Misinterpretations, ideas and examples used as rules are all things this way of writing rules invites.

 

I think the only way to really solve this is to rewrite the rules in a way that focus on being a clear definition, not being a clear example. Examples can always be used in sidebars or specifically described as examples that are clear and only strengthen the already written rule without adding new definitions to it.

 

But, this is all the limitation in the fact that GW is a hobby company, not a competitive gaming company.

I would not be surprised that, if GW goes to focusing a bit more on gaming, that a 6th edition rule book will be more focusing on definition above explaination.

[waaanial00]

Sadly this is the legal way of playing it, despite the situation seeming stupid the rulebook has to draw a line somewhere or it would read even more wishy washy.

 

Its a tough break but unlikely to happen that much. Generally speaking players will layer common sense onto the rules structure but when you play someone who is playing by the book it is important to note that this is legal.

 

Sad but in the grand scheme of things what is one lost squad in your years of gaming? Its a small bump in the road of good times.

[MagicMan]

Me and my group of friends play that you need to be able to see the Torso of a model to shoot at it.

 

 

It stops models being punished for having ''LOOK AT ME I AM DANGEROUS AND HEROIC'' poses.

[TheMouth]

I just hate that he was using " association " to justify the shot...simply because the rules didnt null hands and fingers, he associated it as part of the arm...even though a hand is a hand. Its actually ticked me off enough that if he tries it again I am going to say no. I think he needs to read the dictionary definition of what an arm is.

[muadib02]

Of course you can shoot, i just get a 1+ cover save!

Problem solved.

[brookzooka]

I must remember to model my marines in the feotal position in future, dont want any appendages giving away my position :P

[Leonaides]

Modelling for advantage - nono.. :P