The rules state WE block line of sight. How does this work with WE where the targets can be seen underneath the model or through gaps in it?

I'm thinking of a Forge World Thunderhawk Transporter - the model is raised up off the ground, with a large gap up to 2cm high underneath it. Can the THT drop off vehicles to one side of itself and block LOS to them or can the enemy shoot them underneath? If they can shoot them can they claim -1 cover if the shots are partially obscured by the WE?

I also wonder about titans - it might be possible to see a target only through the gap between an Imperators legs say. Would that be a legal target?

Lastly, titans on bases. Do people normally play true line of sight compared roughly to the actual dimensions of the model? Or treat any LOS crossing the base as being blocked?

I'm pretty sure that each of the above is played and there's no "normal".

For instance we do based unit and area terrain conventions around here. in all the above scenarios we'd consider it blocked if the shortest distance from the attacker to target base crossed any part on the WE base (to keep us honest we use an empty base for landed flyers to sit on).

I'd categorically state that anyone that did the exact opposite of what we do is a heretic to one true methodology is just as correct

These local variances can widely effect the results of testing (and not in a bad way-each has their + and -) and should be noted in our play tests probably.

I'd love to hear your conventions, mate!

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

We generally avoid true LOS, and treat WE as without gaps. In our view, picking out enemies through the legs of a warlord is too precise for our level of abstraction, and is carried out in a freeze-mode. In our thinking, the problem is not sight between the legs or not. The problem is that there is a warlord between you and the other formation. In cases of different sized war engines, LOS is not blocked, but the bigger war engine can claim hull down.

In the case of thunderhawks transports, I haven't seen them in real life, but would treat them as blocking LOS.

I base other WE normally, but probably not landed WE flyers. They're just so big and it would limit placement of them.

Unless my opponents have strong other feelings on it I think I'll go down the route of preventing LOS underneath them. It keeps things simple and abstract and we could assume the closer THTs draw the fire. Since THTs are large and come in formations of 2-3 they could potentially block LOS to quite a large area of the battlefield though, will have to bear this in mind during testing.

This photo illustrates why it does seem feasible to shoot underneath a landed THT (a Manta would be a much larger again example):

In the world of proxies, take your example, what if your opponent doesn't have an exact model with that gap underneath? He gets to block LoS with his proxy Thunderhawk Transporter while you don't.

TLOS tends to create more problems than it solves, using the model shape provides to many variables. Additionally, while the miniature may be static, battle is fluid, the Thunderhawk is going to drop off its cargo and take off as fast as it can, because to remain static is suicide. (this may be the effect/tactic your after, but I am sure your troops would hate you for it).

Using a base, infinite height, height levels concepts provide easy to remember, standard approaches to LOS problems, while still maintaining funky models and terrain that immerses you in the environment/adds that spice to the game.

That five minute rule with KISS concepts for WE/Terrain etc at least puts the ruling up front, before you start having to debate LOS issues mid game.

Glyn, I'd certainly prefer LOS to be blocked by the general presence of the model.
As in no peaking through legs or under Landers or even under the Manta skimmer.

I imagine the legs being in motion, shooting through (well targeting to shoot through) would would seem a spectacular ballistic skill.
The down thrust jets on a lander could easily obscure the forces behind them.
I imagine the anti-grav field distortion below a Manta or Engine of Vaul would do enough to warp space-time between the vehicle and planet.

With a game that has both a large level of abstraction, and a sliding ground scale as discussed in the book, I don't think you can ever apply TLOS to the game.

WE's block line of sight regardless if you can put your eye and table level and see under it.

_________________
@MephistonAG for all sorts of twitter madness

Agreed guys. While TLOS has some appeal, it is too fiddly and I cannot recollect ever seeing it played.
Having some form of empty base for landed transports does make a lot of sense and is something I might try, as all my other ground stuff is based. It would also allow a nice visual distinction between 'flying' mode and 'landed' mode.

I've always been a fan of true LoS but the more i think of it the more potential for disagreements and/or gamey tactics i see arise from it. Epic is an abstracted game and maybe it's better to keep the LoS rule like that to.

The only exeption would be a WE like a shadowsword/gorgon/baneblade in front of a titan. It would be really wrong to not let units fire on the titan and i see alot of risks of people using sacrifice tactics to protect the titans. But a smaller WE in front of a totan could give the opposing player the "hull down" - for shooting at it.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam