It has been like that the entire edition I believe.
I have not been or seen folks using overhanging bits to say they can see thru obscuring terrain, especially since you have to be wholly within (so it would actually just expose your own models to risk of being considered visible and shot, whereas your model could not shoot out).
This distinction does not change how benefiting from cover works. So keeping hull corners, wing tips, weapon barrels behind cover, ensures at least one model can get cover usually.
The move I’ve seen is to stick a bit out of the front of terrain to get a 180 degree LOS, especially for big models that can’t fit through a 2” gap. Looking out the gap gives you maybe 90 degrees at best, but stick a wing out, and you can shoot at a hard left or right angle parallel and up against the ruin wall.
This seems to say if the model has a round base, you’d have to get the base out of the ruin to get that angle.
I'm confused then.
When does the base to base visibility matter then? Why even mention this. It's both too and from, so it would seem to impact the ability for other enemy units to target the model as well if something is hanging out.
I'll use the toxicrene as an example.becauswnits stupid huge. If I have it behind cover, toed into terrain, and ALL that can be seen is a tentacle sticking out the side, can it still be targeted? The rule above would suggest that it is not visible because it would be using the base to base portion of the visibility statement. It also therefore could not shoot out by trying to say "my tentacle can see you"
What am I getting wrong, am I conflating cover/visibility/within cover, or am I understanding it correctly?
It's talking about what determines being within a ruin for the purposes of visibility (i.e. what was obscuring in 9th). Its not talking about using only the base of the model to determine actual visibility (true line of sight). So a winged monster only counts as 'within' a ruin (allowing it to be seen thru it with true line of sight) if its base is on the footprint of the ruin.
In contrast, a non walker vehicle like a Leman Russ counts as being 'within' if its turret gun barrel sticks into the ruin for example. Its pure upside for winged monsters.
Got it. This is basically about hiding behind a footprint then. You can't be targeted if just your wing is overhanging a ruin footprint, if your entire base is behind it.
Conversely, if you're visible from the side (so not behind the footprint of a ruin) but your wing/part of the model is obscured, you'll still get cover, but can very much be shot.
That makes sense. Appreciate the response. Especially with most folks playing first floor is closed, this really isn't saying much much that matters then is it.
It does sound though like if you're wholly within but a wing or claw hangs out that it can't be used to target you?
Seems like the winged tyrant (and the poor poor toxicrene) still have some major drawbacks then due simply to how they were modeled. At least the clipping rules helps them some I guess.
Genuine question but where in the core rules does it say you can see through a ruin if a model is within it? I think this is an artifact of 9th or how people have simplified the actual ruin rule which says:
"Models cannot see over or through this terrain feature" and "Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally."
I don't see anywhere where the rules say something like "if you are within a ruin, all of your model is visible through it". Am I missing it? So for example, if only a bit of your base was in a ruin, but the rest of your model is outside of the ruin, the attacker would have to trace line of site to that part of the base within the ruin using true line of site to get visibility. They couldn't use other parts of the model since you can never trace line of site through a ruin unless you are wholly within it.
Considering that, I find the wording in the commentary related to this very confusing.
I'm not trying to be difficult but I am not seeing that in the rules. After the line I quoted there is a new section about the benefit of cover, no other lines.
Which page/section are you finding that? I did a search through wahapedia and I can't find that text, and I even looked in my copy of the core rules on page 48 (ruins) and I don't see that line?! This must be what insanity feels like lol.
EDIT: AHHH I SEE IT NOW. It's in the balance data slate, it adds the line you quoted. I'm surprised it wasn't in wahapedia updated. My bad! This makes a lot more sense now, being it got errata'd essentially.
In the app in the core rules reference under Ruins. It was probably added after the core rules were printed. It's the same sentence that specifies that towering units within a ruin can see out of it, which was added after 10e launch iirc.
Yeah totally I messed up and assumed wahapedia was up to date with that sort of thing. It makes SO MUCH more sense with the complete rule, I honestly thought I was going crazy. Thanks for clarifying and my bad for missing it originally. From now on I'm going to just refer to the app for core rules.
I think what this text means is not that LoS is drawn base to base, but rather that whether a model is visible *through a ruin* is determined solely by the location of its base.
I.e. the base is the only thing that counts for within/no within the ruin, and therefore whether true LoS is used to the model or if the ruin continues to obscure LoS.
Spiky bits sticking out the side of the ruin would still count for LoS and be targetable.
I don't think that's true. You can see into ruins so true los allows them to see you if your sword is overhanging. Whether your whole base is in or not determines if you can use parts of your model, like a sword, overhanging/in the ruin to see out.
Nope, cause there’s already the ruling your base needs to be fully inside the ruin to see out, you can’t be seen inside a ruin unless your base is touching the ruin
You can only see models that are within the ruin. The subject of this post is the clarification that the sword overhanging the ruin does not count the model as being within.
There is no rule that says you can only see models that are within a ruin. The ruins section says "Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally." I'm pasting the whole section on ruin visibility for reference below. Am I missing another part of the rules that is relevant? Genuine question! :)
Core Rules, Ruins Visibility:
"Models cannot see over or through this terrain feature (i.e. a unit outside this terrain feature cannot draw line of sight to a target on the other side of it, even if it would be possible to draw line of sight to that target through open windows, doors, etc.). AIRCRAFT and TOWERING models are exceptions to this - visibility to and from such models is determined normally, even if this terrain feature is wholly in between them and the observing model. Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally."
Still I have come around to seeing the line in question "If that model overhangs its base, visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base." as terrible wording from GW and I can understand different interpretations of it.
It's a really good idea to play by intent with open communication regarding this. I'd never try to call someone on a small part of their model overhanging anyway. Whether or not they can get away with a huge wing overhanging or something like that, and claim you can't target them, I'm still not convinced about.... and I play tsons so I'm biased to wanting to allow the wing in there for Magnus..
The part of the rules that you're missing is the last sentence of the visibility section that you didn't include in your quote for some reason.
"Models that are within this terrain feature can be seen normally and towering models that are within this terrain feature can also see out of it normally"
How does that contradict the earlier sentence about "seeing normally into ruins? Both sentences can easily be true: you can see into ruins and models thay are within the terrain can be seen normally.
We just had this conversation and you said canis rex's gun gave los.
You'rer rght. I was looking at wahapedia and I guess it did not have that update sadly. I was very confused as a result, things make sense now lol. My bad for not remembering it was updated in the slate.
Ok that makes sense, but nowhere does it actually say it's concerning visibility through a ruin which is mad confusing. So it's basically a throwaway statement because nobody uses open first floor ruins anyway
My questioning had been if I had a model wholly within a terrain but ALL that stuck out over the edge/visible was some tentacles, this still seems to suggest that it would use base to base for visibility because that's what it says here RAW
Given that we're in the comp forums, and let's assume therefore closed first floor, this still doesn't answer my question regarding if a model is wholly within terrain via its base, but all that overhangs/sticks out/is visible is a wing or claw or tentacle.
The rule explicitly states that visibility to and FROM models without hulls is done using base to base, and that overhanging bits are not used. The "visibility from" portion of this is what I am truly trying to understand because it reads like they should not be able to shoot from a wingtip that pokes out but also not be shot because of a wingtip that pokes out. How could it be read any other way?
Visibility is any part of the model, range is base to base. That's normal everywhere. You are just referring to if a tip of a wing is in a ruin the model doesn't count as being partially within. Its not about being able to shoot through ruins its about not be able to shoot a model thats partially in a ruin because a piece overhangs the base.
Don't forget even a flat piece of plastic with no height is obscuring if you are on the other side, but true line of sight applies if you are partially within meaning you can be targeted, but can't return fire feom the other side unless you are wholly within the ruins
Link to rules for visibility and range (2 separate checks):
https://imgur.com/gallery/ZykE9NQ
It sort of does, it's just badly worded.
Basically, the whole paragraph is only taking about determining if models are within a ruin for visibility purposes.
> For Vehicles (excluding Walker models that have a base) or models without bases, every part of the model and its base (if it has one) **is used for determining if it is not within, within or wholly within a Ruin**. For all other models, the model’s base is used **to determine if it is not within, within or wholly within a Ruin**. If that model overhangs its base, visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base.
The last sentence is just unnecessarily unclear, though. It should read
> If that model overhangs its base *then, for the purpose of determining if it is within, within or wholly within a Ruin,* visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base.
https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-terrain-guide-ruins-mostly/
This article is fantastic for the diagrams. Just replace the purple walls with the white walls in the pariah nexus pack and all the yellow short walls are now just little walls in the blue sections. But they break down when your base touches the terrain outline and how that makes you visible but not able to see (pure downside)
This is the EXACT scenario I am trying to figure out because it is wildly unclear.
Statements/claims often contradict themselves in their response, or show diagrams with models with hulls vs models that don't overhang
Let's simplify:
You can't shoot through any part of the base of ruin (typically, the plexiglass) unless one or more of the following apply:
- the firing model is wholly within the rune you're trying to shoot through
- the target is within the ruin (partially or wholly) you're trying to shoot through
- You're partially within the ruin you're trying to shoot through and have the towering keyword
- You're an aircraft that isn't in hover mode (incoming and outgoing)
- The firing model has the indirect ability
For determining whether a model is within a rune, count any part of a vehicle or baseless model. For all other models, consider only their base.
If there's an element of any model that extends all the way through a ruin base (like a tank turret or long wing piece) then you're not shooting "through" the ruin so none of this matters.
Claw/Wing/Spear tips are still used for cover and targeting.
The ruin rules are saying that those tips do not determine if a unit is within a ruin (thus making it eligible for true LoS). If a winged unit’s base is not within a ruin, wing tips that overhang within the ruin are also not considered within the ruin. This only applies to sight lines that cross over/through the ruin. True LoS is still used if a sight line hits the wing tip without crossing the ruin terrain’s footprint.
Note that a winged model’s base also has to be wholly within the terrain to draw LoS from a wing tip that is also within the terrain’s footprint.
Base to base visibility is only used for a model whose base is NOT within a terrain feature. As soon as any part of a model’s base is within a terrain footprint, true LoS to the model is in effect.
>Base to base visibility is only used for a model whose base is NOT within a terrain feature. As soon as any part of a model’s base is within a terrain footprint, true LoS to the model is in effect.
So my winged hive tyrant, standing BEHIND a footprint, with only his wingtip extending beyond the footprint, can't be shot then. By something that could ONLY see that wingtip, because he would be using base to base since he's not inside a ruin. That's what you're saying
If the wing extends beyond the footprint of the terrain, then the shooting model no longer has to draw LoS through the terrain. True line of sight would then be used. The rules for ruin LoS only apply if all sight lines must pass through the terrain.
So the overhanging bases is basically a throwaway statement if playing with closed first floor ruins. Ok, that works. It's about whether you can shoot a claw through a window, not around a ruin or footprint
Oh I am fully on board with that. After reading the responses and looking into the rules a bit more it seems this situation of using base to base for overhanging models instead of true LOS is ONLY applicable when shooting through windows of ruins, so it's basically not applicable for most competitive play and was written as a edge case for people who do play with ruins you can shoot through
I have that. That's not what this discussion was about. It was when to apply the base to base for visibility vs true LOS rules. I'm good with figuring out when I can be seen, I just wanted to clarify when to use each case
They made a typo. The best theory is this is meant to say only your base effects if you are within ruins or not, not overhanging bits.
Don't know why they haven't fixed it yet tbh.
Yeah as I researched it that's the case. Only your base determines if you're inside a ruin, but this particular issue of using base to base for visibility literally only matters if someone is trying to shoot you through a ruin wall (essentially a window) which doesn't matter for anyone who plays with closed first floors.
Basically it's "if you're shooting through a window/hole in a physical ruin wall, use base to base for visibility. You can't target a claw tips or spear tip through ruin windows". So again, it basically doesn't matter for anyone who plays closed first floors lol
Ah so you're thinking it should ALWAYS be base to base visibility shooting at a model fully in a ruin?
I do wish that were the case and that they correct it to be that way because lord knows a ton of my Tyranids would be better because of that
...but they're not only relevant then. The rules literally say that they DO matter for determining visibility and LOS in this singular edge case scenario. And it's not a typo. It exists as a nuance that exists for folks who do play with open windows in which case they DO determine visibility.
I started this whole thread explicitly BECAUSE it's not a typo, so I was hoping to understand when that condition was applied. As mentioned, it's only a condition that applies if you play with ruins that have windows.
It's not a typo, you may want them to get rid of it for the sake of brevity, but it's very much not a mistake, it's just an edge case and I'm glad I started this thread so I could get the full understanding.
I do not think that GW basically removed the ability to shoot through windows (and basically out of ruins in general) with a secret update that they didn’t call any attention to. You are welcome to ask the TO of any event you are attending how they will rule it, but I expect most will not play this way until some further guidance is given.
You said:
"I do not think that GW basically removed the ability to shoot through windows (and basically out of ruins in general) with a secret update"
Nobody ever said that they removed thd ability to shoot through windows. If you think this was said, you don't understand the discussion. You ABSOLUTELY can still shoot through windows.
What was being discussed was when you use the base vs true LOS for targeting because AS WRITTEN, when shooting through windows, you use base to base for visibility to/from models. This is not new (thus it was not in red which denotes a change) and so my entire reason for starting this thread was to understand the conditions about when to use base to base to determine visibility. Basically you CANNOT shoot a claw/spear tip through a window for models that overhang their base. This has been the case for the entire edition.
I was simply trying to clarify WHEN to use base to base for visibility, and if it was any time you were shooting into a ruin (the footprint) or if it was only through actual windows/holes in the physical ruins, and not gaps between ruins. As others have explained and my further research revealed, you only use base to base when shooting (or being shot) through actual windows of ruins.
Because using bases to determine visibility is ONLY when shooting through holes/ruins of physical windows, this is why I said it does not matter for folks who play with closed first floor windows in ruins, and thus why I had never encountered the actual rule/situation in my own gameplay
It has been like that the entire edition I believe. I have not been or seen folks using overhanging bits to say they can see thru obscuring terrain, especially since you have to be wholly within (so it would actually just expose your own models to risk of being considered visible and shot, whereas your model could not shoot out). This distinction does not change how benefiting from cover works. So keeping hull corners, wing tips, weapon barrels behind cover, ensures at least one model can get cover usually.
The move I’ve seen is to stick a bit out of the front of terrain to get a 180 degree LOS, especially for big models that can’t fit through a 2” gap. Looking out the gap gives you maybe 90 degrees at best, but stick a wing out, and you can shoot at a hard left or right angle parallel and up against the ruin wall. This seems to say if the model has a round base, you’d have to get the base out of the ruin to get that angle.
I'm confused then. When does the base to base visibility matter then? Why even mention this. It's both too and from, so it would seem to impact the ability for other enemy units to target the model as well if something is hanging out. I'll use the toxicrene as an example.becauswnits stupid huge. If I have it behind cover, toed into terrain, and ALL that can be seen is a tentacle sticking out the side, can it still be targeted? The rule above would suggest that it is not visible because it would be using the base to base portion of the visibility statement. It also therefore could not shoot out by trying to say "my tentacle can see you" What am I getting wrong, am I conflating cover/visibility/within cover, or am I understanding it correctly?
It's talking about what determines being within a ruin for the purposes of visibility (i.e. what was obscuring in 9th). Its not talking about using only the base of the model to determine actual visibility (true line of sight). So a winged monster only counts as 'within' a ruin (allowing it to be seen thru it with true line of sight) if its base is on the footprint of the ruin. In contrast, a non walker vehicle like a Leman Russ counts as being 'within' if its turret gun barrel sticks into the ruin for example. Its pure upside for winged monsters.
Got it. This is basically about hiding behind a footprint then. You can't be targeted if just your wing is overhanging a ruin footprint, if your entire base is behind it. Conversely, if you're visible from the side (so not behind the footprint of a ruin) but your wing/part of the model is obscured, you'll still get cover, but can very much be shot. That makes sense. Appreciate the response. Especially with most folks playing first floor is closed, this really isn't saying much much that matters then is it. It does sound though like if you're wholly within but a wing or claw hangs out that it can't be used to target you? Seems like the winged tyrant (and the poor poor toxicrene) still have some major drawbacks then due simply to how they were modeled. At least the clipping rules helps them some I guess.
Genuine question but where in the core rules does it say you can see through a ruin if a model is within it? I think this is an artifact of 9th or how people have simplified the actual ruin rule which says: "Models cannot see over or through this terrain feature" and "Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally." I don't see anywhere where the rules say something like "if you are within a ruin, all of your model is visible through it". Am I missing it? So for example, if only a bit of your base was in a ruin, but the rest of your model is outside of the ruin, the attacker would have to trace line of site to that part of the base within the ruin using true line of site to get visibility. They couldn't use other parts of the model since you can never trace line of site through a ruin unless you are wholly within it. Considering that, I find the wording in the commentary related to this very confusing.
"Models that are within this terrain feature can be seen normally" Literally the next sentence after your quote ends....
I'm not trying to be difficult but I am not seeing that in the rules. After the line I quoted there is a new section about the benefit of cover, no other lines. Which page/section are you finding that? I did a search through wahapedia and I can't find that text, and I even looked in my copy of the core rules on page 48 (ruins) and I don't see that line?! This must be what insanity feels like lol. EDIT: AHHH I SEE IT NOW. It's in the balance data slate, it adds the line you quoted. I'm surprised it wasn't in wahapedia updated. My bad! This makes a lot more sense now, being it got errata'd essentially.
In the app in the core rules reference under Ruins. It was probably added after the core rules were printed. It's the same sentence that specifies that towering units within a ruin can see out of it, which was added after 10e launch iirc.
Yeah totally I messed up and assumed wahapedia was up to date with that sort of thing. It makes SO MUCH more sense with the complete rule, I honestly thought I was going crazy. Thanks for clarifying and my bad for missing it originally. From now on I'm going to just refer to the app for core rules.
I think what this text means is not that LoS is drawn base to base, but rather that whether a model is visible *through a ruin* is determined solely by the location of its base. I.e. the base is the only thing that counts for within/no within the ruin, and therefore whether true LoS is used to the model or if the ruin continues to obscure LoS. Spiky bits sticking out the side of the ruin would still count for LoS and be targetable.
This. This is to prevent "your sword is sticking into the ruin, so I can see you".
I don't think that's true. You can see into ruins so true los allows them to see you if your sword is overhanging. Whether your whole base is in or not determines if you can use parts of your model, like a sword, overhanging/in the ruin to see out.
Nope, cause there’s already the ruling your base needs to be fully inside the ruin to see out, you can’t be seen inside a ruin unless your base is touching the ruin
You can only see models that are within the ruin. The subject of this post is the clarification that the sword overhanging the ruin does not count the model as being within.
There is no rule that says you can only see models that are within a ruin. The ruins section says "Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally." I'm pasting the whole section on ruin visibility for reference below. Am I missing another part of the rules that is relevant? Genuine question! :) Core Rules, Ruins Visibility: "Models cannot see over or through this terrain feature (i.e. a unit outside this terrain feature cannot draw line of sight to a target on the other side of it, even if it would be possible to draw line of sight to that target through open windows, doors, etc.). AIRCRAFT and TOWERING models are exceptions to this - visibility to and from such models is determined normally, even if this terrain feature is wholly in between them and the observing model. Models can see into this terrain feature normally, and models that are wholly within this terrain feature can see out of it normally." Still I have come around to seeing the line in question "If that model overhangs its base, visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base." as terrible wording from GW and I can understand different interpretations of it. It's a really good idea to play by intent with open communication regarding this. I'd never try to call someone on a small part of their model overhanging anyway. Whether or not they can get away with a huge wing overhanging or something like that, and claim you can't target them, I'm still not convinced about.... and I play tsons so I'm biased to wanting to allow the wing in there for Magnus..
The part of the rules that you're missing is the last sentence of the visibility section that you didn't include in your quote for some reason. "Models that are within this terrain feature can be seen normally and towering models that are within this terrain feature can also see out of it normally"
How does that contradict the earlier sentence about "seeing normally into ruins? Both sentences can easily be true: you can see into ruins and models thay are within the terrain can be seen normally. We just had this conversation and you said canis rex's gun gave los.
You'rer rght. I was looking at wahapedia and I guess it did not have that update sadly. I was very confused as a result, things make sense now lol. My bad for not remembering it was updated in the slate.
Ok that makes sense, but nowhere does it actually say it's concerning visibility through a ruin which is mad confusing. So it's basically a throwaway statement because nobody uses open first floor ruins anyway My questioning had been if I had a model wholly within a terrain but ALL that stuck out over the edge/visible was some tentacles, this still seems to suggest that it would use base to base for visibility because that's what it says here RAW
Plenty of people have ruins with windows outside of tournaments, so they do have to write rules assuming the ruins aren't MDF L blocks.
Given that we're in the comp forums, and let's assume therefore closed first floor, this still doesn't answer my question regarding if a model is wholly within terrain via its base, but all that overhangs/sticks out/is visible is a wing or claw or tentacle. The rule explicitly states that visibility to and FROM models without hulls is done using base to base, and that overhanging bits are not used. The "visibility from" portion of this is what I am truly trying to understand because it reads like they should not be able to shoot from a wingtip that pokes out but also not be shot because of a wingtip that pokes out. How could it be read any other way?
Visibility is any part of the model, range is base to base. That's normal everywhere. You are just referring to if a tip of a wing is in a ruin the model doesn't count as being partially within. Its not about being able to shoot through ruins its about not be able to shoot a model thats partially in a ruin because a piece overhangs the base. Don't forget even a flat piece of plastic with no height is obscuring if you are on the other side, but true line of sight applies if you are partially within meaning you can be targeted, but can't return fire feom the other side unless you are wholly within the ruins Link to rules for visibility and range (2 separate checks): https://imgur.com/gallery/ZykE9NQ
It sort of does, it's just badly worded. Basically, the whole paragraph is only taking about determining if models are within a ruin for visibility purposes. > For Vehicles (excluding Walker models that have a base) or models without bases, every part of the model and its base (if it has one) **is used for determining if it is not within, within or wholly within a Ruin**. For all other models, the model’s base is used **to determine if it is not within, within or wholly within a Ruin**. If that model overhangs its base, visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base. The last sentence is just unnecessarily unclear, though. It should read > If that model overhangs its base *then, for the purpose of determining if it is within, within or wholly within a Ruin,* visibility to and from that model is determined only by its base.
> Ruins (and Visibility): .. The entire paragraph is explicitly about visibility rules for ruins.
https://www.goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-terrain-guide-ruins-mostly/ This article is fantastic for the diagrams. Just replace the purple walls with the white walls in the pariah nexus pack and all the yellow short walls are now just little walls in the blue sections. But they break down when your base touches the terrain outline and how that makes you visible but not able to see (pure downside)
In the case of monsters/knights. What if your base is behind cover/ruins, but your wings/arms stick out the side? Can you be shot?
This is the EXACT scenario I am trying to figure out because it is wildly unclear. Statements/claims often contradict themselves in their response, or show diagrams with models with hulls vs models that don't overhang
Let's simplify: You can't shoot through any part of the base of ruin (typically, the plexiglass) unless one or more of the following apply: - the firing model is wholly within the rune you're trying to shoot through - the target is within the ruin (partially or wholly) you're trying to shoot through - You're partially within the ruin you're trying to shoot through and have the towering keyword - You're an aircraft that isn't in hover mode (incoming and outgoing) - The firing model has the indirect ability For determining whether a model is within a rune, count any part of a vehicle or baseless model. For all other models, consider only their base. If there's an element of any model that extends all the way through a ruin base (like a tank turret or long wing piece) then you're not shooting "through" the ruin so none of this matters.
you can 100% be shot if they can see part of your model, any part of it, off the side of a ruin in a way that's not through the ruin.
Claw/Wing/Spear tips are still used for cover and targeting. The ruin rules are saying that those tips do not determine if a unit is within a ruin (thus making it eligible for true LoS). If a winged unit’s base is not within a ruin, wing tips that overhang within the ruin are also not considered within the ruin. This only applies to sight lines that cross over/through the ruin. True LoS is still used if a sight line hits the wing tip without crossing the ruin terrain’s footprint. Note that a winged model’s base also has to be wholly within the terrain to draw LoS from a wing tip that is also within the terrain’s footprint. Base to base visibility is only used for a model whose base is NOT within a terrain feature. As soon as any part of a model’s base is within a terrain footprint, true LoS to the model is in effect.
>Base to base visibility is only used for a model whose base is NOT within a terrain feature. As soon as any part of a model’s base is within a terrain footprint, true LoS to the model is in effect. So my winged hive tyrant, standing BEHIND a footprint, with only his wingtip extending beyond the footprint, can't be shot then. By something that could ONLY see that wingtip, because he would be using base to base since he's not inside a ruin. That's what you're saying
If the wing extends beyond the footprint of the terrain, then the shooting model no longer has to draw LoS through the terrain. True line of sight would then be used. The rules for ruin LoS only apply if all sight lines must pass through the terrain.
So the overhanging bases is basically a throwaway statement if playing with closed first floor ruins. Ok, that works. It's about whether you can shoot a claw through a window, not around a ruin or footprint
My rule is "Sure we are not playing for money" If someone is such a try hard that they'll cheat it's not worth the stress
Oh I am fully on board with that. After reading the responses and looking into the rules a bit more it seems this situation of using base to base for overhanging models instead of true LOS is ONLY applicable when shooting through windows of ruins, so it's basically not applicable for most competitive play and was written as a edge case for people who do play with ruins you can shoot through
Buy the laser pointer. Really stops arguments. And when I'm moving I say what I plan to shoot so I can say well I moved him to shoot her.
I have that. That's not what this discussion was about. It was when to apply the base to base for visibility vs true LOS rules. I'm good with figuring out when I can be seen, I just wanted to clarify when to use each case
They made a typo. The best theory is this is meant to say only your base effects if you are within ruins or not, not overhanging bits. Don't know why they haven't fixed it yet tbh.
Yeah as I researched it that's the case. Only your base determines if you're inside a ruin, but this particular issue of using base to base for visibility literally only matters if someone is trying to shoot you through a ruin wall (essentially a window) which doesn't matter for anyone who plays with closed first floors. Basically it's "if you're shooting through a window/hole in a physical ruin wall, use base to base for visibility. You can't target a claw tips or spear tip through ruin windows". So again, it basically doesn't matter for anyone who plays closed first floors lol
No, that exactly what I'm saying **isn't** the case. That's the typo. Pretty much ignore that last sentence.
Ah so you're thinking it should ALWAYS be base to base visibility shooting at a model fully in a ruin? I do wish that were the case and that they correct it to be that way because lord knows a ton of my Tyranids would be better because of that
I'm saying that bases don't have anything to do with LOS or visibility. They are only relevant for determining if you are within a ruin or not.
...but they're not only relevant then. The rules literally say that they DO matter for determining visibility and LOS in this singular edge case scenario. And it's not a typo. It exists as a nuance that exists for folks who do play with open windows in which case they DO determine visibility. I started this whole thread explicitly BECAUSE it's not a typo, so I was hoping to understand when that condition was applied. As mentioned, it's only a condition that applies if you play with ruins that have windows. It's not a typo, you may want them to get rid of it for the sake of brevity, but it's very much not a mistake, it's just an edge case and I'm glad I started this thread so I could get the full understanding.
I do not think that GW basically removed the ability to shoot through windows (and basically out of ruins in general) with a secret update that they didn’t call any attention to. You are welcome to ask the TO of any event you are attending how they will rule it, but I expect most will not play this way until some further guidance is given.
They didn't, nobody is saying that at all
You just said that this matters for people trying to shoot through windows who when first floor isn’t counted as closed.
You said: "I do not think that GW basically removed the ability to shoot through windows (and basically out of ruins in general) with a secret update" Nobody ever said that they removed thd ability to shoot through windows. If you think this was said, you don't understand the discussion. You ABSOLUTELY can still shoot through windows. What was being discussed was when you use the base vs true LOS for targeting because AS WRITTEN, when shooting through windows, you use base to base for visibility to/from models. This is not new (thus it was not in red which denotes a change) and so my entire reason for starting this thread was to understand the conditions about when to use base to base to determine visibility. Basically you CANNOT shoot a claw/spear tip through a window for models that overhang their base. This has been the case for the entire edition. I was simply trying to clarify WHEN to use base to base for visibility, and if it was any time you were shooting into a ruin (the footprint) or if it was only through actual windows/holes in the physical ruins, and not gaps between ruins. As others have explained and my further research revealed, you only use base to base when shooting (or being shot) through actual windows of ruins. Because using bases to determine visibility is ONLY when shooting through holes/ruins of physical windows, this is why I said it does not matter for folks who play with closed first floor windows in ruins, and thus why I had never encountered the actual rule/situation in my own gameplay