Glued on model additions and Line of Sight

[Wassa]

Hi all,

 

Some vehicles can be glued together to have optional sponsons.

 

Now if you're playing a game where you can't afford the points to have those weapons, do they count as being able to see line of sight and therefore able to shoot to/from it?

 

Same with infantry models and radios, banners, etc.

[Mr. Shine]

Step '2. Choose Targets' of the Shooting phase rules tells us that determining line of sight is done by checking if "any part of the target is visible" from the shooting model.

[Wassa]

But the model shouldn’t have those parts in the game as the points havent been spent for them

[Mr. Shine]

It does have those parts in real life, however, and line of sight is determined in game by what is visible in real life.

[Lord_Caerolion]

An argument could be made that the model in question is no longer WYSIWYG, and therefore not exactly a legal model as well.

 

In friendly games, I'd just make the argument that if my model doesn't have it, then it can't be seen, therefore can't be shot. Outside of friendly matches though, if your model has it, it should actually be equipped with it.

[Wassa]

Yes that's the argument I'd make. I'm happy either way as long as it's discussed first really. It just makes it a bit harder to hide behind cover!

 

In hindsight I should have magnetised them but I didn't know much back then! The guns aren't glued in though so should be easy to see the difference as I can remove them.

[Mr. Shine]

WYSIWYG hasn't been a standard rule for all models since... I think 5th Edition?

 

Considering you can determine line of sight to any part of a model, I'd say it's simplest and most straightforward to just play models as they are, unless you're using some pretty non-representative proxies.

 

If it's a real issue you can discuss with your opponent to house-rule it, but as the actual rules stand, there's no requirement for models to be visibly armed with everything in their rules, or to pay the points for everything on the model.

[Helycon]

WYSIWYG hasn't been a standard rule for all models since... I think 5th Edition?

 

Considering you can determine line of sight to any part of a model, I'd say it's simplest and most straightforward to just play models as they are, unless you're using some pretty non-representative proxies.

 

If it's a real issue you can discuss with your opponent to house-rule it, but as the actual rules stand, there's no requirement for models to be visibly armed with everything in their rules, or to pay the points for everything on the model.

Most people prefer WYSIWYG, since it's a lot clearer to what a unit or model actually had. In tournaments, you're generally not getting away with weapons not matching, as it's difficult to keep track of everything.

 

So yeah, WYSIWYG is still a thing.

[Mr. Shine]

I don't disagree, but this is a rules forum for rules questions, and WYSIWYG isn't a rule.

[Basteala]

WYSIWYG hasn't been a standard rule for all models since... I think 5th Edition?

 

Considering you can determine line of sight to any part of a model, I'd say it's simplest and most straightforward to just play models as they are, unless you're using some pretty non-representative proxies.

 

If it's a real issue you can discuss with your opponent to house-rule it, but as the actual rules stand, there's no requirement for models to be visibly armed with everything in their rules, or to pay the points for everything on the model.

 

I'll be honestly, while I support WYSIWYG myself, anyone that wants to call LoS on a part of the model that isn't being used in that army is  being a colossal dick, rules as written or not. Rules as Intended exists as a term for a reason.

 

Now could someone make that call in have it be legal in a game? Yeah, sure. If they get too militant about such things though, they're going to find themselves at a very lonely table.

[TheWolfLord]

 

WYSIWYG hasn't been a standard rule for all models since... I think 5th Edition?

Considering you can determine line of sight to any part of a model, I'd say it's simplest and most straightforward to just play models as they are, unless you're using some pretty non-representative proxies.

If it's a real issue you can discuss with your opponent to house-rule it, but as the actual rules stand, there's no requirement for models to be visibly armed with everything in their rules, or to pay the points for everything on the model.

 

 

I'll be honestly, while I support WYSIWYG myself, anyone that wants to call LoS on a part of the model that isn't being used in that army is  being a colossal dick, rules as written or not. Rules as Intended exists as a term for a reason.

 

Now could someone make that call in have it be legal in a game? Yeah, sure. If they get too militant about such things though, they're going to find themselves at a very lonely table.

This forum has nothing to do with what players should do or what the moral use of a rule is.

 

We discuss the correct interpretation of the rules as written here so your personal opinion isn’t needed or justified.

 

If you don’t like that rule then you’re free to discuss it with your opponent prior to the game but that doesn’t change what the correct interpretation of the rule is.

 

We don’t name call or make insinuations here usually.

[Wassa]

The way I see it,

 

If an opponent wants to claim LoS on an aerial sticking out of cover, then I should be able to claim LoS from that aerial and shoot them.

[TheWolfLord]

The way I see it,

If an opponent wants to claim LoS on an aerial sticking out of cover, then I should be able to claim LoS from that aerial and shoot them.

And that’s something you can do within the rules

[Brother Tyler]

Common sense and sportsmanship come into play.

 

WYSIWYG may no longer be a rule, but in frinedly games, the social compact comes into play. At the very least, a model that is not accurate to its rules/options should be discussed in advance with your opponent(s) so that an agreement can be reached beforehand. Knowing things in advance is a fair play issue, allowing opponents to play the game without unfairly penalizing them (i.e., they can maneuver as if those ghost sponsons aren't there instead of trying to to move to either target them or hide from them).

 

An opponent might agree to allow you to ignore those elements of the model that aren't in play.

 

An opponent might insist, for the sake of convenience, that the ghost sponsons be treated as if they are there for LOS (this is reciprocal, so gives neither play an inherent advantage/disadvantage).

 

An opponent might refuse to play against you.

 

All of these options are fair. Ultimately, you're going to have to discuss it with your opponent(s), not a bunch of people that aren't involved in the game.