Models sticking out of the top of a wyldwood

[stekr]

Hi,

My opponent put his Treelord in a wyldwood, and said I could not see nor target him with shooting and/or spells.
Which I kind of get because of the 1" LoS rule the Wyldwood has. However.. the Trees are only about 5" high, and bigger models like a Treelord stick out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I should be able to shoot/magic them because there IS a line of sight.

What do you guys think?

[JackStreicher]

51 minutes ago, stekr said:

Hi,

My opponent put his Treelord in a wyldwood, and said I could not see nor target him with shooting and/or spells.
Which I kind of get because of the 1" LoS rule the Wyldwood has. However.. the Trees are only about 5" high, and bigger models like a Treelord stick out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I should be able to shoot/magic them because there IS a line of sight.

What do you guys think?

The base counts not the model height.

only flying models ignore the vision-blocking capabilities of woods.

[Isotop]

9 hours ago, stekr said:

Hi,

My opponent put his Treelord in a wyldwood, and said I could not see nor target him with shooting and/or spells.
Which I kind of get because of the 1" LoS rule the Wyldwood has. However.. the Trees are only about 5" high, and bigger models like a Treelord stick out like a sore thumb.
I feel like I should be able to shoot/magic them because there IS a line of sight.

What do you guys think?

As @JackStreicher said, your friend is right. As long as the line drawn between your models "crosses over more than 1" of the base of a wood" (from my memory, feel free to correct), the target model is not visible (even if there is a real line of sight). You just have to let go of your intuition at this point, The rules of AoS contain different amounts of abstraction - Overgrown Wilderness is simply an example for a lot of it. I hope this helps you at least a little bit. If you have any questions about the rules of visibility themselves, feel free to ask.

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

Huh, this isn't an issue I've ever come across now that i think about it. Most of my wizards fly anyways so me and my opponents have never really had to ask this question.

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

7 minutes ago, Isotop said:

As @JackStreicher said, your friend is right. As long as the line drawn between your models "crosses over more than 1" of the base of a wood" (from my memory, feel free to correct), the target model is not visible (even if there is a real line of sight). You just have to let go of your intuition at this point, The rules of AoS contain different amounts of abstraction - Overgrown Wilderness is simply an example for a lot of it. I hope this helps you at least a little bit. If you have any questions about the rules of visibility themselves, feel free to ask.

I've always wondered how this would apply to most normal terrain. Especially in the cases with units with varying model height. Like for example chaos hounds have a single model in the unit on it's hind legs so it's taller than the others, and because of that one model the entire unit would be visible over low terrain. Would this then give players incentive's players to only build models with lower height profiles?

[stekr]

I get that rule as written. for example dryads should not be visible when they are "in" the woods.
So, for instance: if you would deploy the models on top of the wyldwood I would say that they are visible eventhough they fall into the footprint of the wyldwood base. (hopefully we're on the same page so far) (if not, I truly would be interested in arguments as to why I would not be able to see the dryads).

Following that same logic I think it is very strange that a model that is belly deep into the leaves, exposed from the torso up, would be invisible.
But maybe i'm just not seeing the reasoning behind the rule.

 

[stekr]

2 hours ago, Lucky Snake Eyes said:

I've always wondered how this would apply to most normal terrain. Especially in the cases with units with varying model height. Like for example chaos hounds have a single model in the unit on it's hind legs so it's taller than the others, and because of that one model the entire unit would be visible over low terrain. Would this then give players incentive's players to only build models with lower height profiles?

I believe that when you can see a model you can shoot it,
But since there's an obstacle between your unit and all of the enemy models are within 1" of the obstacle, it has a bonus to saverolls.
You draw line of sight from each individual model from your unit to the model that is visible,
and since wounds spill over onto other models you can effectively shoot the entire unit.

[Isotop]

On 2/11/2019 at 12:00 AM, stekr said:

So, for instance: if you would deploy the models on top of the wyldwood I would say that they are visible eventhough they fall into the footprint of the wyldwood base. (hopefully we're on the same page so far) (if not, I truly would be interested in arguments as to why I would not be able to see the dryads).

You are making a very interesting point here. You are basically saying the Dryads are visible because the line between the attacker´s and their bases is not intersecting the Wyldwood base, right? I always projected the line onto the ground and checked if this projection intersected with the base (more than 1"). It ultimately comes down to:

What does "cross over" mean?

If your interpretation is correct, models coud easily see into a Wyldwood by standing on a slight elevation relative to the models in the wood (I hope this is clear). If my interpretation is correct, the Dryads in your example are definitely not visible. There are the terms "cross" (e.g. Plague Wind (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG-Great-unclean-one.pdf)) and "pass across" (e.g. Spectral Hunters (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-hexwraiths-en.pdf)). Both of them are well explained in the FAQ/Designer´s Commentary. "Cross over" is, as far as I know, not a clarified term and therefore to some degree open for interpretation. 

Everyone, please jump on the topic and provide us with your views and explanations!

 

On 2/11/2019 at 12:00 AM, stekr said:

Following that same logic I think it is very strange that a model that is belly deep into the leaves, exposed from the torso up, would be invisible.
But maybe i'm just not seeing the reasoning behind the rule.

I think you should not wonder about the rules reasoning too much. There are always two conditions a rule has to satisfy:

(1) Does the rule make sense in a narrative, reasonable way?

(2) Is the rule practical, clearly written and serves its purpose in an abstract wargaming rules system?

While both parts are important, often times (2) has kind of a priority over (1) (without completely disregarding (1)). If I misunderstood your usage of "reasoning", feel free to correct me 😅

[stekr]

4 hours ago, Isotop said:

You are making a very interesting point here. You are basically saying the Dryads are visible because the line between the attacker´s and their bases is not intersecting the Wyldwood base, right? I always projected the line onto the ground and checked if this projection intersected with the base (more than 1"). It ultimately comes down to:

What does "cross over" mean?

If your interpretation is correct, models coud easily see into a Wyldwood by standing on a slight elevation relative to the models in the wood (I hope this is clear). If my interpretation is correct, the Dryads in your example are definitely not visible. There are the terms "cross" (e.g. Plague Wind (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Downloads//ENG-Great-unclean-one.pdf)) and "pass across" (e.g. Spectral Hunters (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-hexwraiths-en.pdf)). Both of them are well explained in the FAQ/Designer´s Commentary. "Cross over" is, as far as I know, not a clarified term and therefore to some degree open for interpretation. 

Everyone, please jump on the topic and provide us with your views and explanations!

 

I think you should not wonder about the rules reasoning too much. There are always two conditions a rule has to satisfy:

(1) Does the rule make sense in a narrative, reasonable way?

(2) Is the rule practical, clearly written and serves its purpose in an abstract wargaming rules system?

While both parts are important, often times (2) has kind of a priority over (1) (without completely disregarding (1)). If I misunderstood your usage of "reasoning", feel free to correct me 😅

The main reason why I am confused about the rule is that Models with the Flying Keyword ignore the rule.
That would suggest that there is a height limit to the obstruction of the terrain, otherwise the exeption of the rule for flying models make no sense (to me).

(and I think that if we play a game where the rules make no sense, there is little sense in playing the game at all)

So, if the wyldwood impares vision for models on the ground, but it does not to models in the air. I think it would be safe to assume that there's a point (up in the air) where the Line of Sight is no longer blocked by the Wyldwood.

If so, where would that be?

[King Taloren]

5 hours ago, stekr said:

The main reason why I am confused about the rule is that Models with the Flying Keyword ignore the rule.
That would suggest that there is a height limit to the obstruction of the terrain, otherwise the exeption of the rule for flying models make no sense (to me).

(and I think that if we play a game where the rules make no sense, there is little sense in playing the game at all)

So, if the wyldwood impares vision for models on the ground, but it does not to models in the air. I think it would be safe to assume that there's a point (up in the air) where the Line of Sight is no longer blocked by the Wyldwood.

If so, where would that be?

Well since flying units ignore all vertical movements when the move across the table it can be assumed that it’s a point high enough between 0” to infinity that the flying model can see anything on the ground that the ground models cannot through the woods