2x Questions about cover and LOS/shooting

[James McPherson]

first up - to qualify for this ability, do you think it has to be the same conditions as cover, where the WHOLE unit has to be in/on the terrain?

 

and secondly, how do you you calculate LOS, the FAQ states the following two bits of advice

 

but how do you decide how much of the model is visible, is it any part of it, even say , the smallest part of the model is still visible then it's ok to shoot it? Or does it have to be at least 50% visible? I'm wondering about matched play rules, at WHW and other tournaments.

 

 

[scrubyandwells]

1 minute ago, James McPherson said:

We should see some answers on the subject at Warlords in two weeks time up at WHW. I will certainly ask the TO.

Cool. The vast majority of AoS' rules work well (the whole "they're too simple" remains overblown IMO; the rules are mostly simple and elegant, rather than simple and stupid). The LOS thing, though, is a mess if not house ruled, especially since it's so significant to the game, and since you're already allowing units in combat to shoot out of combat, if you're also saying they can shoot out of combat at something with only a banner pole or a foot visible...yikes. 

A couple other ones that have come up: 

• In Escalation Pitched Battle, how do you handle setup for units/battalions that can deploy off the table?
  • I asked the AoS Fb page but their answer was a little unclear, although it seemed they were saying you still divide your units by 3, rounding up, and then if you have units within any of those 3 groups that can deploy off table, then they can deploy off table but only during the round/hero phase of their respective group's deployment. Thus you can't take, e.g., a Sylvaneth Wargrove battalion and deploy all of them off table in your first group/hero phase, because you still have to divide your units into 3 groups, as called for in the Escalation Pitched Battle.
• How does cover work for a model/unit behind a barricade, e.g. a wall? The “Walls and Fences” warscroll says the below, which seems fairly clear, but let’s say you’re fighting in combat across a low-to-the-ground stonewall...would both units get a cover save fighting across the wall, as long as all models in their respective unit are within 3” of it?
  • “Barricade: If all of the models from a unit are within 3" of a wall or fence, and are on the same side of it, then the unit receives the benefits of cover against attacks made by models that are on the other side of the wall or fence.

[BaldoBeardo]

Yeah, one of the items held up on Dakka as "AoS rules are terrible" was the standing-on-wall provides cover until the warscroll was pointed out. I actually like the system they use, but not including the concept of a linear obstacle in the basic rules was (IMO) an oversight.

Like with many aspects of AoS the cover rules provide a baseline that you are free to houserule from. I'd rather a simple abstract being the "official" starting point than a complex one, as it makes the entry-level far easier.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[James McPherson]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

Oh I see now - I think the attacker would also get it in the turn after if charged. You don't get a cover save if you charged that turn.

good to know

[Nico]

Quote

I think he just meant do you both get the cover bonus not just the 'defender' ie the guy who goes second in combat.  I think in which case is a yes right? Because for all intents and purposes the 'defender' then becomes the 'attacker'

Oh I see now - I think the attacker would also get it in the turn after if charged. You don't get a cover save if you charged that turn.

[James McPherson]

32 minutes ago, Nico said:

The rule on the scroll is that you only get cover if all models on one side and the attacker on the other side. It seems sensible for this to be the default for tournaments. You can agree otherwise with opponent.

Similarly with hills, these are a bit pointless if they don't give cover, so you could agree otherwise with opponent. I'm bringing ruins instead of hills from now on.

I think he just meant do you both get the cover bonus not just the 'defender' ie the guy who goes second in combat.  I think in which case is a yes right? Because for all intents and purposes the 'defender' then becomes the 'attacker'

 

Well anyway I mailed John Bracken at whw with my question about LOS blocking so will see what he says. He already clarified one thing for me, it's ok to take multiples of the same arcane item in a list. He got back to me straight away on that one, he's awesome.

[fartsocks]

I like the idea of going by the silhouette or outline of a model/bit of scenery. If you can see a model poking out the side of the silhouette, then you can hit it, if you can just see a bit of it through the nearer model's legs, then you can't.

 

Especially relevant if you've got a piece of scenery that denotes some woods, but only have 4 trees in it. You can easily see through it, but if it were real woods, there would be a lot more trees, and you wouldn't see anything on the other side.

[Nico]

The rule on the scroll is that you only get cover if all models on one side and the attacker on the other side. It seems sensible for this to be the default for tournaments. You can agree otherwise with opponent.

Similarly with hills, these are a bit pointless if they don't give cover, so you could agree otherwise with opponent. I'm bringing ruins instead of hills from now on.

[James McPherson]

6 minutes ago, Nico said:

There is a Warscroll for Walls and Fences which solves this issue.

I think his question was does it provide cover from both sides, which I lean towards it being a yes

[Jupiter]

Although the rules are very clear if you see it you can shoot it. This is RAW.

However we found this is not in the spirit of the game we like to play and also prevents ppl of creating awesome bases or conversions that might not be ideal for LOS rules.

So we have houseruled to use a combination of clear logic and base sizes. Everthing on the same base size covers the same size and smaller. So cavalry covers other cavalry and infantry etc. It works great most of the time and sometimes you just have to use logic or roll a die if you disagree with the opponent.

Like Baldobeardo mentioned cover from terrain is a different mess there are so many possibilities that its hard to houserule.

[Nico]

Quote

Admittedly I think the biggest confusion is around hedges/walls.

There is a Warscroll for Walls and Fences which solves this issue.

[BaldoBeardo]

yeah cover saves in general are a minefield.

I think the most difficult concept is that in AoS - unlike many other games - LOS and cover are not linked.

An obscured model may not be in cover, and a model in full view may be in cover.

Once you get your head around that, it's a lot simpler.

Admittedly I think the biggest confusion is around hedges/walls.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[James McPherson]

how about we put together a small list of questions to ask John Bracken the events organiser at whw?

[Nico]

Quote

• I asked the AoS Fb page but their answer was a little unclear, although it seemed they were saying you still divide your units by 3, rounding up, and then if you have units within any of those 3 groups that can deploy off table, then they can deploy off table but only during the round/hero phase of their respective group's deployment. Thus you can't take, e.g., a Sylvaneth Wargrove battalion and deploy all of them off table in your first group/hero phase, because you still have to divide your units into 3 groups, as called for in the Escalation Pitched Battle.

I've messaged this to someone helpful at the FB page with a specific eye on The Warlords - this approach does work and the alternative is awfully imbalanced - setting up the whole army against 3 waves. 

[James McPherson]

yeah cover saves in general are a minefield.

[James McPherson]

5 minutes ago, scrubyandwells said:

Not yet sure where my local scene will shake out on this but personally my preference is ~%50 visible or (when applicable) chest-area visible. In your example, even though RAW would say you could shoot at the model, I'd hope for an agreement that doesn't allow "barely visible" to qualify for LOS. 

LOS might be the #1 issue I wish GW would better address officially, at least for Matched Play. Regardless, I think a ton of people will be house ruling it to not allow the kind of edge case you presented in your example. 

We should see some answers on the subject at Warlords in two weeks time up at WHW. I will certainly ask the TO.

[scrubyandwells]

6 minutes ago, scrubyandwells said:

Not yet sure where my local scene will shake out on this but personally my preference is ~%50 visible or (when applicable) chest-area visible. In your example, even though RAW would say you could shoot at the model, I'd hope for an agreement that doesn't allow "barely visible" to qualify for LOS. 

LOS might be the #1 issue I wish GW would better address officially, at least for Matched Play. Regardless, I think a ton of people will be house ruling it to not allow the kind of edge case you presented in your example. 

I tend to see house ruling LOS equivalent to house ruling base to base, i.e., they're both going to be done by a large # because they noticeably improve the game and avoid edge cases, e.g., I was watching an AoS batrep on YouTube today, where someone attacked with a model that clearly could not end its charge movement with its base within .5" of an enemy model, but he was playing model to model and stackable-basing, but he didn't want to stack the bases, so he just kept the model like 3" away but still attacked with it...the whole thing made me really hope we're going to have officially moved past this model-to-model and base-stacking thing by this time next year...

[scrubyandwells]

Not yet sure where my local scene will shake out on this but personally my preference is ~%50 visible or (when applicable) chest-area visible. In your example, even though RAW would say you could shoot at the model, I'd hope for an agreement that doesn't allow "barely visible" to qualify for LOS. 

LOS might be the #1 issue I wish GW would better address officially, at least for Matched Play. Regardless, I think a ton of people will be house ruling it to not allow the kind of edge case you presented in your example. 

[James McPherson]

Sounds logical to me. I have two plague furnaces and 3 plague claws, so it would turn into quite a big discussion point against shooty armies. Not sure its a tactic I'd rely on if not 100% watertight. Shame though, for a second thought I was onto something useful

[KhaosZand3r]

Personally I'd say base LOS on a sillouette view. If you can see the target past the outer edges of an intervening model, then it's viable. If you can only see it through gaps within the intervening models' sillouette, then the shot is likely to be blocked by the closer unit. That's how 8th Edition worked and it was pretty reasonable. AOS may have over simplified too many things.

[James McPherson]

Well I was just wondering if there's a way to make the piece of junk Plague Furnace actually worth something.

The PFurnace is way larger than the PClaw so logic would dictate it was covered.

But I think its the kind of thing people would contest/argue about, as the rules clearly say if you can see it you can shoot it. Especially at an organised event, and I'm no looking to cause any arguments or make anyone else unhappy about it. I could model it in a way that it's lower to the ground, so that more of it was covered, but there's no point because there will always be a gap somewhere to 'poke holes' in my theory

You may call it 'being a todger' but I call it resourcefulness! Need every last shred of it with that army man!
 

[BaldoBeardo]

My group of friends tend to play torso/head/limb must be unobscured, but again, that's us.

In a tournament, as long as you remember the don't-be-a-todger golden rule, do as you feel.

But to echo Lissë-Prime, there's only two things that I'm jealous of WMH players - extremely tightly written rules and a genius LOS simulation system.

But then a simulated LOS would ruin the CinemaScope style GW are aiming for...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Lissë-Prime]

LOS is purely up to discussion.

One can specify that part of the model have to be able to wound such as the model's flesh and not the weapon tip, for instance.

One can use logic to determine LOS such as using "Model Volume" (WM/H kind) that the bigger model obscure smaller no matter how many hole the model can see through.

Even percentage rule still vague when you play. (how much is 25%? 50%? can I argue you can see only 49%?)

Any case, a laser pointer would come into handy. It's quite impractical to stoop down every time you make a shoot.

[James McPherson]

24 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

What I think doesn't matter.

There is no additional ruling on this, at all. I can see part of the obscured model, I can shoot it.

Anything else is tournament pre-information or discussion between players.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

so agreed, you can shoot it still. cool thanks man

[BaldoBeardo]

What I think doesn't matter.

There is no additional ruling on this, at all. I can see part of the obscured model, I can shoot it.

Anything else is tournament pre-information or discussion between players.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[James McPherson]

here's a better screengrab zoomed in on the original models eye view LOS , you can clearly see small parts through there, but maybe only about 5-10% of the model. Does that still count as shootable?

I'm guessing 'Yes' , because the FAQ states, 'if its visible it can be shot', although logic dictates it probably shouldn't be.